The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, a United Nations official said circumstances might be more conducive to resolving the hostage problem in Lebanon, Israel said it would not give up the Muslim cleric it abducted unless three Israeli soldiers were released. A strike by telephone workers in 15 states slowed phone service. We'll have details in the News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: After the News Summary, the hostage dilemma continues to be our lead focus. Tonight the Iranian connection. We talk with former State Department officials Henry Precht and Zalmay Khalilzad, and Shireen Hunter of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Then the latest twist on what can happen when science helps make babies, a report on a divorcing Tennessee couple who have gone to court to see who has custody of their frozen embryos. Joining us are attorneys John Robertson and Lori Andrews, and Kathleen Nolan, a medical ethicist, then a report on a program in Michigan to help would-be home buyers, and finally essayist Roger Rosenblatt on the many victims of the hostage crisis.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: A senior United Nations officials said today that circumstances might be more conducive to resolving the problem of Western hostages in Lebanon. United Nations Undersecretary Marrack Goulding spoke after talks in Beirut with Muslim leaders, including Lebanon's prime minister, Salim Haas. Goulding said a solution would only come through a long process of quiet and patient diplomacy. We have a report narrated by David Simmons of Worldwide Television News.

DAVID SIMMONS: It was the final day of talks on the hostages for United Nations envoy Marrack Goulding. After seeing Prime Minister Haas, he felt the climate for an agreement was better than ever before, but he made little progress in finding out what happened to Marine Col. William Higgins.

MARRACK GOULDING, United Nations Envoy: I'm here with a threefold purpose, firstly to find out what happened to Col. Higgins, secondly, to see if I can recover his body, if he, which is not confirmed, is dead, and I pray to God he is not dead, and thirdly, to see whether there is anything more the United Nations can do to help bring about a resolution of this hostage crisis.

MR. SIMMONS: On a second front, Haled Nasawi, the Algerian ambassador, met senior Hezbollah official, Sheik Soby Tofili. The ambassador's view is that any release will take a very long time. The kidnappers' first offer was to swap American Josef Cicippio for Sheik Obeid and hundreds of other Arab prisoners, an offer to which Israel's Ehud Olmert responded.

EHUD OLMERT, Israeli Spokesman: We are ready for an exchange of hostages. Obviously any such exchange will have to include any Israeli hostages.

MR. MacNeil: That Israeli spokesman also warned there would be a reaction if any Israeli prisoners were harmed. He would not elaborate though. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: The FBI announced today that its experts have concluded that the body hanging from a rope in a videotape released last week by Lebanese terrorists was that of Marine Lt. Col. William R. Higgins. An FBI statement said the judgment was made within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, given the fact that analysts could only rely on the videotape for evidence. Officials said they could not determine, however, how or when Higgins died. This morning at a Defense Department ceremony, President Bush praised the former head of the UN Peacekeeping team in Southern Lebanon.

PRESIDENT BUSH: The history of this department is nothing less than the history of American bravery. And we cannot leave here today without pausing to salute one who stands as a symbol of the courage that burns in the breast of every American in uniform.

MS. WOODRUFF: I'm sorry. We were apparently having some difficulties with that tape. The White House said the President called Higgins' wife, Robin, today and told her that the U.S. would continue to do all it could to obtain a full accounting of what happened to her husband. Also today the President went to Bowling Green, Virginia, where he urged some 30,000 youths at Boy Scout Jamboree to steer their friends away from drugs. Mr. Bush said keeping drugs out of high schools is perhaps the greatest challenge of our times.

MR. MacNeil: More than 150,000 phone workers went on strike in 15 states today against three regional phone companies. Calls needing operators and directory assistance slowed down and some installations and repairs were delayed. The three Baby Bells affected were NYNEX in New York, Bell Atlantic and Pacific Telesis. Those on strike were operators, technicians, sales, clerical, factory and other workers represented by the Communications Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The principal issues were wages and health benefits. Three more companies, Ameritech, U.S. West, and Southwestern Bell, face strike deadlines on Saturday.

MS. WOODRUFF: A first of its kind legal dispute went to trial in Tennessee today as a judge heard arguments in the divorce dispute between a husband and wife who are fighting for custody of their seven fertilized human embryos. The 28 year old wife argues that she should be able to keep the embryos, implant them and eventually give birth to a child. The husband argues that she has no right to become pregnant with any of the embryos which were produced when the couple participated in an in vitro fertilization program six years ago. The circuit court judge in the case told reporters before the trial began that he was troubled that he didn't have any guidance or precedence in making his decision. We'll have more on the issues raised in this case after the News Summary.

MR. MacNeil: Another round of U.S./Soviet arms talks ended today in Geneva. It was the first round on nuclear weapons since Pres. Bush took office. Both sides said they remained far apart on some major issues, including the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative or Star Wars and the future of long range missiles launched from submarines. The talks resume next month. In Poland today, Solidarity Leader Lech Walesa posed forming a new government that would not include the Communist Party. The Communist Party's new prime minister proposed forming a coalition government that would include Solidarity but Solidarity has rejected that offer.

MS. WOODRUFF: Five Central American presidents agreed on a plan to disband Nicaraguan Contra rebels on the final day of a three day summit in Honduras. The group of 5 gave no details about the agreement and would not say when it would take effect. But Honduran Pres. Jose Ascona said they had reached an accord in all respects. Earlier in the day talks were bogged down when Nicaragua accused the United States of pressuring the region's governments to abandon the peace process.

MR. MacNeil: In New Zealand, David Lange, the prime minister whose opposition to nuclear weapons strained relations with Washington, resigned unexpectedly today. The 47 year old leader of the New Zealand Labor Party gave health factors as a reason. The State Department said Washington hoped Lange's successor would reassess the nuclear policy. Lange's government declared a nuclear free zone and barred U.S. warships carrying nuclear weapons from entering New Zealand harbors. The U.S. cut off military cooperation with New Zealand, and downgraded contacts to the lowest officials levels. And finally a plane carrying a U.S. Congressman is missing in Ethiopia. Rep. Mickey Leland and several aides took off from Ethiopia's capital this morning. Their destination was a refugee camp near the Ethiopia/Sudan border, but the plane never arrived at the camp. The State Department said it is concerned about the group's welfare.

MS. WOODRUFF: That's it for our News Summary. Just ahead on the News Hour, the Iranian connection, the fight over which parent controls frozen embryos, help for some first time home owners, and essayist Roger Rosenblatt. FOCUS - HOSTAGES - THE IRANIAN CONNECTION

MS. WOODRUFF: We focus first tonight on Iran one of the principle players in the hostage drama. Groups loyal to or supported by Iran's Islamic Fundamentalist Government are holding several of the hostages. last week Iran's newly Elected President Rafsanjani took office and gave the first sign that this round of the hostage crisis might be resolved by negotiations. In a Tehran speech he says I tell the White House the problem of Lebanon has solutions, the freeing of the hostages has solutions, reasonable prudent solutions. The question of Iran's relationship to the hostages and the hostage takers is what we discuss now with three former diplomats. Shireen Hunter now an American citizen was in the Iranian Foreign Service from 1966 to 1979. She is now Deputy Director of the Mid East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies here in Washington. Zalmay Khalilzad was on the State Department Policy Planning Staff and served as a Mid East Advisor to Secretary of State George Schultz. He is now with the Rand Corporation and Henry Precht Head of the State Department's Iran desk during the 1980 hostage crisis. He is now President of the Council on World Affairs in Cleveland and he joins us there from Public Station WVIZ. Let me go to all three of you first and lets try to talk about what exactly is the relationship between the Government of Iran and the terrorists who are holding the hostages. Mr. khalilzad what do we know about the connection at this point.

ZALMAY KHALILZAD, Former State Department Official: Or course we don't know precisely what the nature of those relationships are but wee do know that Iran has a great deal of influence over the hostage takers, the Hezbollah the Party of God, they receive, the Party receives financial support from Iran. It receives material support from the Iranian Government and it has been sensitive to Iranian concerns for Many years.

MS. WOODRUFF: Ms. Hunter how much proof do we have of a connection. What evidence do we have that there is a direct connection?

SHIRLEEN HUNTER: Center for Strategic International Studies: I think that we do have a fair amount of evidence, I mean, the Iranian's themselves don't hide that they do have connections with the Hezbollah or the Party of God. The important thing, however, to realize is that Iran's relations with the Hezbollah has been evolving and also I think that which elements in Iran has influence over which elements in Lebanon is also a very complex issue particularly in recent years this is quite well know that the Hezbollah is much more responsive to the radical factions in Iran. Indeed Hezbollah in a way reflects Iran's own internal splits.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Precht is that the information that is the best understanding that we have that it depends on who you are talking about in the Iranian Government when you talk about how good those connections are?

HENRY PRECHT: Former State Department Official: I think so. When you say Iran you are using a very short hand way of talking. There are elements in the Iranian Government who have dealt with the Lebanese terrorists but there are other elements and I would probably put the Senior Leadership who are trying to change the Iranian posture on this issue.

MS. WOODRUFF: You would put them where? I am sorry.

MR. PRECHT: I would say they would be much more moderate if that word is still in fashion in Washington. The primary problem facing the Iranian Government now is its economy and like other governments in the World, the Soviet Government in particular, and ours, the economy has a way of shaping foreign policy and I think that is happening in Iran has been happen. The primary problem facing the Iranian Government right now is its economy and like other Governments in the World the Soviet Government in particular and our the economy has a way of shaping foreign policy and I think that is happening in Iran and has been happening for some time now and I think that process will grow.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well Mr. Khalilzad who has the upper hand is it Rafsanjani or is it some of the more radical elements that Ms. Hunter refereed to.

MR. KHALILZAD: I think clearly for the moment Rafsanjani has the upper hand but he is faced with enormous problems not only dealing with Iran's economy but also in terms of consolidating his own power. He has just been elected President. he hasn't even named a Government yet and it will take some time for his to do that. There are of course differences within the Iranian Government that continue. Statements and commentaries as reflected in the English Press in Iran have been much more forth coming then commentaries on the subject in the Farsee Press so those divisions and tensions continue but with all that in mind I am also of the view that the situation right now is better than it has been in the past but everyone needs to remain cautious.

MS. WOODRUFF: What do base that on Rafsanjani's statements last week primarily or what?

MR. KHALILZAD: I think the statements are a reflection of Iran's needs. Iran is in a strategically weak position visa vie Iraq. It was devastated during the last phase of the war. Its economy is in shambles, it needs to move towards normalcy. It has sought already to improve relations with the Soviets and the West is in a much better position than the Soviets to help Iran. It is not in Iran's interest to move to close to the Soviets without seeking counter balancing relations with the West. So therefore I think this burden of the hostages and terrorism which Iran has it should seek to remove for without which improvement of relations with the United States in particular are unlikely.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well Ms. Hunter when we hear a State Department Official say as apparently one said just the other day that we need to see some sort of action from the Iranians that statements are not enough. What does that mean? What can we look for in the way of tangible actions to back up what Rafsanjani said?

MS. HUNTER: Well I think there are really two things that we need to realize. First of all even though Rafsanjani may have been elected President this by no means indicates that Rafsanjani has the upper hand. I think that by and large my opinion is there is a sort of uneasy balance of powers still exist in Iran between the more moderate factions and the more radical factions. Rafsanjani came out because of a certain compromise between the radical and moderate factions so therefore eventually may be Rafsanjani gains the upper hand but at the moment he has to be a balancing act. Therefore I think that it is going to be much more difficult for Rafsanjani to take any drastic action, however, what we need to know is that Iran really tries to use of some of its political capital in Beirut and if we can have the proof that the Iranians with all sincerity have been trying to use that political capital in Beirut then that should be enough for us.

MS. WOODRUFF: What does that mean, I mean, what sort of evidence do we look for?

MS. HUNTER: We know that Iranians have been acting through different intermediaries. We know through intermediaries that we have been in contact with the Swiss the Algerians, others that perhaps Iran has indeed put some pressure on the Hezbollah already in that fact that Joseph Cicippio is still alive may have been the result of the Iranian intervention. We look to more of that sort of action and that sort of proof coming to us through valid intermediaries that Iran is really doing what it can.

MS. WOODRUFF: But it still seems very fuzzy, to me and to other people. why should we take Rafsanjani seriously, why should we get in to an area of negotiations with a country when we have been burned so many times before? What is different about this, I know that you have mentioned the economy and we don't want them to fall in the Soviet orbit and so forth?

MS. HUNTER: I think that I agree with mr. Khalilzad Iran is in the weakest situation for what I would say a long time in its modern history. It is not so much just economy. Iran is now militarily exposed compared to all of its neighbors and Iran can't afford any kind of military confrontation any more and I think they know they have reached the end of the rope and that is what puts Rafsanjani and other so called moderates in a much stronger bargaining position I think.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Precht follow up on that. You went through negotiations with Iran back in 1980. Is it more difficult this time. Is it easier, I mean, as you look on it from your position now. How different is the circumstance now that this Administration faces?

MR. PRECHT: It is easier than it was initially in the hostage crisis. When we were confronted with the seizure of the Embassy we had no one to talk to. We couldn't find anyone in authority for months that would even discuss the issue with us in a sensible way. When we did find someone we began to negotiate secretly with a senior official in the Iranian Government. In the end of those elaborate negotiations they collapsed because he couldn't deliver. Only when the Clerics had taken the authority towards the end of 1980 and decided that ending the hostage crisis was in their interest did they send a us a signal saying they were willing to talk. Those people are in control in Iran now so you are starting where we finished in 1980. I think there is a much greater opportunity then there was in the seizure of the embassy but we should also bear in mind this is a two way street. Certainly we want Iran to show us some sign that it has dropped the role of terrorism supporter but we have some ways, we and our Western friends have some ways of making gestures towards Iran that might encourage them in that direction.

MS. WOODRUFF: What do mean, just an example.

MR. PRECHT: Well their disputes over money with the United States in large part. The Haig Tribunal which is a adjudicating claims between the United States and Iran.

MS. WOODRUFF: This the World Court.

MR. PRECHT: Well it is not the World Court it is a special tribunal trying to settle the claims that exist between us. They have ruled that Iran is owed some money for Military equipment that we have and didn't deliver in this country. Now the question is what is the value of this equipment.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Khalilzad are you optimistic that something can happen this time?

MR. KHALILZAD: Well I think that I am more optimistic now than I have been for some time but I do think that we need to be very cautious. Dealing with Iran destroyed one Presidency damaged another one. I think the President and the current Administration needs to be very cautious to prudently exploit target of opportunity but not to raise expectations and not to get into a haggling sort of carpet dealing and wheeling with the Iranians. We need to be aware of their negotiating styles in the ways in which they have manipulated the process in the past. I think ways as Shireen has mentioned that the Iranians can demonstrate to us that they have changed their ways that hostage taking is more of a problem for them than an opportunity that they can exploit and I would say that if we are cautious and we stay the course the Iranian weakness can provide us with opportunities for normal relationship.

MS. WOODRUFF: Ms. Hunter are you optimistic?

MS. HUNTER: Well I am optimistic but also cautiously optimistic although the reason for my caution is perhaps is slightly different from Mr. Khalilzad. The reason I think that Iran is not really the only avenue here that there are people in Lebanon who have their own also local agendas. Indeed I would like to warn that as Iran looks more inward and puts its own national interest above this illusive ideological goals a rather wide divergence of interest develops between Iran's national interest and the Hezbollah's parochial and local interest and that would mean that Iran's influence over these groups also weaken. We should look to Tehran and we should put Iran to the test but it would be a mistake to think that the resolution to all the hostage problem lies only in Tehran. I think we should look to Beirut, we should look to Damascus and we should look to Tel Vive.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well we thank all three of you for being with us, Shireen Hunter, Zalmay Khalilzad and Henry Precht in Cleveland. Thank you all for being with us.

MR. MacNeil: Still to come on the Newshour the legal rights of human frozen human embryos, help for home buyers in Michigan and Rosenblatt on the hostage crisis. FOCUS - WHOSE EMBRYO?

MR. MacNeil: Next we take up the ethical and legal questions raised by a groundbreaking custody case. In Maryville, Tennessee, today a judge began hearing a unique divorce dispute. It is between a husband and wife who are arguing over only one issue, who should gain custody of the couples seven frozen embryos. The decision could have a long standing effect in a new area of the law. We'll discuss the issue with two legal experts and a medical ethicist in a moment but first some background on the case.

JUNIOR DAVIS, Husband: And since these eggs do have potential to become children I have to stand up for that.

MARY SUE DAVIS, Wife: I am very optimistic that we can hopefully win this case and I can use these embryos that I can have my own child.

MR. MacNeil: Right now the seven Davis Embryos remain frozen in a hospital in Knoxville, Tennessee. The decision about what to do with them is in the hands of Judge W. Dale Young. It is a decision without any real legal precedent.

W. DALE YOUNG, Circuit Court Judge: Neither the legal authorities who have written reviews about or the American Fertility Society merely addresses directly the precise questions involved. Nobody answers the question for me. There is not any place I can go to find an answer in advance.

MR. MacNeil: As with many other advanced medical procedure such as organ transplants medical science seems far ahead of the legal profession. Coming up with new techniques with troubling legal and ethical dilemmas. Invitro fertilization or IVF has been around now for more than a decade. Last year some 2700 IVF babies were born. Prior to the procedure the women takes powerful fertility drugs. This can result in more than a dozen eggs forming in her ovaries. These eggs are then removed surgically, then are mixed in a dish with the husbands sperm. The eggs which fertilize are placed back inside the women's uterus two days later. Because of the fear of multiple pregnancy only 4 fertilized eggs are placed at once. If there are more as there were in the Davis case they are frozen for later use. For the Davis's the December round of Invitro failed but with the seven frozen fertilized eggs or pre embryos Mary Sue Davis hoped to try again but that all changed in February when Junior Davis decided to divorce his wife of nine years. As part of the divorce he is asking the court to prevent his 28 year old wife from using their fertilized eggs in any further medical procedures.

MR. DAVIS: I have a right to decide if I want to become a father and no one should imply the power of my reproduction system without my consent.

MR. MacNeil: Junior Davis's Lawyer Charles Clifford argues that the fertilized eggs are property. In a legal brief sent to the Court he States "The pre embryos posses no independent legal status and that are , in fact, property belonging to the parties and subject totally to the control of the parties." The defense sees it not as a fight over the disposal of property but over the custody of potential human beings.

J. G. CHRISTENBERRY, Attorney for Mary Sue Davis: We don't have furniture. We know they are not living but we do have conception and we know that they can produce from that point into living human beings.

MR. MacNeil: In his legal brief Christenberry argues. " It has been stated that there have been no laws implemented since Adam or Eve or in recorded history that have given the man the legal or moral right to withdraw his consent once he has fertilized his mate." Judge Young will decide the Davis Case on Wednesday. It might be the most important decision made by a Tennessee Judge since the Scopes Trial in 1925.

MR. MacNeil: Joining us now to discuss the legal and ethical decisions to be made about embryos are John Robertson, Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law at Austin, and a member of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society. Mr. Robertson testified as an expert witness on legal and ethical issues in court today and he joins us from Knoxville, Tennessee. Lori Andrews is a lawyer with the Chicago-based American Bar Foundation, a legal research institution. She's the author of Between Strangers, Surrogate Mothers, Expectant Fathers and Brave New Babies published in 1989, and New Conceptions, a book about new reproductive technology published in 1985. Dr. Kathleen Nolan is a pediatrician and ethicist with the Hastings Center, the biomedical ethics institute in New York State. Mr. Robertson, on balance, as I understand it, you support the husband's position in this case. Would you explain why?

JOHN ROBERTSON, University of Texas School of Law: Yes. First of all, there's no state law that says that embryos must be protected. Secondly, there is no prior agreement between the couple to control what happens. So we have to ask what outcome in this case would be fairest in the circumstances. If the embryos are used without the husband's consent, he will be saddled with the financial and psychological burdens of parenthood for the rest of his life. On the other hand, if they are not used, Ms. Davis could simply go through the IVF procedure again. She's age 28; she's in good health; she produces many eggs through IVF. So it should be reasonably possible for her to have other opportunities to obtain new embryos to become a parent, thus, she really doesn't need these embryos to become a parent. Yet, if she used them, she would be imposing these burdens on her husband.

MR. MacNeil: Lori Andrews, as I understand it, you lean towards the wife's position in this case. Would you explain why?

LORI ANDREWS, American Bar Foundation: Yes, I do. In a divorce case, whenever there's an independent entity, whether it's something of little value like a couch or of great value like a child, we generally look to whoever has made the greater contribution to the property or has had the greater relationship with the child. And clearly, Mrs. Davis has made the greater contribution. She's the one who's put her life at risk through having anesthesia and surgery to have the eggs removed, and so I think she should be awarded the embryos. In addition, it's not as easy as Mr. Robertson makes it seem. This may be her last chance for many reasons. First of all, in vitro fertilization is very costly. It costs 5,000 per attempt, with only a 15 percent success rate. And secondly, in vitro fertilization clinics are generally limited to married couples, and once she's divorced, she may not be able to get in vitro fertilization, so this may be her last chance.

MR. MacNeil: How do you answer the point about it may be her last chance first, Mr. Robertson?

MR. ROBERTSON: In fact, if it were clearly her last chance, then that would swing the equities in her favor, but I don't think the evidence shows that. First it's possible for her to find a new mate after she's divorced. Secondly, even as a single woman, the doctor in this case has not excluded the possibility that he would do another IVF cycle with her and there are certain IVF clinics that do accept single women, so I don't think it's out of the question at all that she would be foreclosed. If she were clearly foreclosed, that would change matters.

MR. MacNeil: Ms. Andrews, how do you respond to Mr. Robertson's point that it would be an enormous burden on the husband if he had to bear all the parental and financial responsibilities of having his ex-wife produce a child he doesn't want?

MS. ANDREWS: I think we could remove the financial responsibilities by treating him as a sperm donor. In over half the states there are laws that provide that a man who gives up his sperm to allow someone else to be pregnant through a medical technique does not have to pay any financial responsibilities. So I do think there's a way to keep him from having to have the normal fatherly responsibilities in this very new type of situation.

MR. MacNeil: Let me ask both of you before me move on starting with Mr. Robertson, in your view, who owns these seven frozen embryos?

MR. ROBERTSON: Taking ownership in the very special sense of who has the right to make decisions about what happens to them, clearly the couple does, the couple are joint owners in that sense. Then the question is when they are in disagreement, how do we resolve that issue, and we have to look at what's fairest in the circumstances, and as I've said, I think on balance in this case, the equities lie in favor of the husband, because his burdens would appear to be greater than the burdens on her of going out and creating new embryos.

MR. MacNeil: Ms. Andrews, what's your view on who owns the embryos?

MS. ANDREWS: Well, Mr. Robertson and I are in accord that both members of the couple have a constitutional right to make decisions about the embryos which might be looked at as a type of ownership. He and I are both in agreement that these matters should be handled by advance contracts, and so this case really shows where the law ends up having to make tough moral choices, not legal choices, because from the same legal analysis, we've come to different moral decisions about who has a greater claim.

MR. MacNeil: Let's turn to Dr. Nolan, who is a medical ethicist. Should anyone but the parents have a say in what happens to these embryos?

DR. KATHLEEN NOLAN, Hastings Center: I think it makes a difference to all of us as a society how cases like these are resolved. In a case where the couple is in agreement, it might be fine to say let the individuals decide and society has no role, but when there's a conflict, there are societal values that we might want to have to come into play in helping us figure out these tough moral dilemmas.

MR. MacNeil: Well, what are some of the issues that go to those values?

DR. NOLAN: Well, I think one of the questions that hasn't been raised is what is it that makes an embryo valuable. What makes an embryo valuable is its potential to develop to become a member of the human community. The wife in this case wants to have that value upheld, and in that, I think she has values that we could endorse for society. The husband in this case has used his sperm in a way that he now regrets. And I think what we would like to see is incentives for men and women to consider the implications of their procreation before they deposit sperm or donate eggs. So he wants to make a decision and then come back on it, and that's a little less easy to support.

MR. MacNeil: Where do you come down on whether these seven embryos are property or whether they are potential fetuses?

DR. NOLAN: I think it's very difficult to consider them property. If they were property, it'd be easy to resolve this case. We could give four to him and three to her, or some other accommodation like that, or we could put a money value on them and award that to the one who had lost custody of the embryos. I don't think that works and that's why they shouldn't be seen as property. I see this much more as a custody case. These are offspring, or at least potential offspring. The father and the mother each have a genetic interest in what happens here, 50/50, but the mother in this case wants to implant the embryos and have them develop. That means she wants to investor more, to have a further identity with this embryo, and for me, that swings the balance in her favor. It would be just the same for me if it were the father who wanted to have them implanted in another woman, because in that case he would be saying, I want to continue a relationship with this embryo, to allow it to develop, to fulfill its potential.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Robertson, how do you respond to Dr. Nolan's view that it's very hard to make the property argument in this case?

MR. ROBERTSON: I don't think she's using property inthe most precise legal sense here. All property means is who has dispositional control over it. To say that the couple are the owners doesn't mean they could do anything in the world with it, but they are the ones to make whatever choices are made, thus, this is a very special kind of unique property that they both have a genetic interest in because of its potential to become offspring, but it's precisely because of that potential that we have to look for what the fairest outcome is in these circumstances.

MR. MacNeil: Ms. Andrews, is there any legal bar to the husband in this case having the seven embryos in this case disposed of, destroyed, or whatever the correct term is?

MS. ANDREWS: Well, at least in Tennessee, there's no law forbidding the destruction of embryos. In Louisiana, on the other hand, they have passed a law which says that the in vitro embryo is a person and cannot be terminated. And I think what we're seeing in this case is very much a reflection of the vast societal discussion about what should be the legal and moral status of embryos. You've got laws like the Louisiana one which has said the embryo is a person. In contrast, in Illinois, our state's attorney has said in a case that the embryo really should be considered as part of the woman's body, a woman who is pregnant, a woman who has an in vitro embryo, should be looked as if she were pregnant and have total decision making control over the embryo even though it's apart from her. We're seeing just a vast dilemma, that dealing with the legal status of embryos. For example, seven states now have laws forbidding experimentation on embryos; two have laws forbidding the sale of human embryos. And so this issue is going to come up in a variety of contexts, and it's just ironic that it should come up first in the context of a divorce where judges and the parties aren't really equipped to make societal decisions as far reaching as this.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Robertson, in Tennessee, in the absence of a law like the Louisiana one that the embryos are people, which I understand is unique, to Tennessee, do the embryos have any legal rights in Tennessee?

MR. ROBERTSON: They have no legal rights to be implanted in a uterus. If they had been implanted and could come to term, they would have legal rights by virtue of the offspring whom they would become, but at the present time, they have no legal rights and it is a legal option for the parties to have them not transferred to a uterus and be allowed to die or be discarded there, thus, that it is within their options. And until the state passes a law saying that can't be done, embryos have no rights or legal standing outside of the body.

MR. MacNeil: Dr. Nolan, do you think states should pass laws clarifying this, the rights or the legal position of embryos?

DR. NOLAN: Well, I think if you don't have state laws, then you have a case by case analysis such as we're seeing here and that has advantages and disadvantages. Here we have a concrete case that really focuses the issues, however, we may have different judges and different jurisdictions deciding very differently, so I think laws --

MR. MacNeil: We're just at the beginning of the process here.

DR. NOLAN: We're just at the beginning and laws that are going to be crafted in state legislatures have to be very carefully crafted to avoid overreaching the kinds of dilemmas that are going to be presented, that is, you may try to prevent some kind of conflict and instead cause it by the law that you've designed.

MR. MacNeil: Yes. What happens, Ms. Andrews, for instance in the State of Tennessee or if other states pass laws saying the embryos are human beings, could a woman be forced to have all the children who are potentially present in frozen embryos, because every one of those frozen embryos is potentially a human being?

MS. ANDREWS: If she decided that she didn't want to have all the children with her say seven embryos that she had frozen, what would happen is that the state could swoop in and give those embryos to other infertile women, and so she would have the psychological risk of having children out there in the world that are genetically her that she has no relationship to as a result of that law.

MR. MacNeil: What do you see, Mr. Robertson, as the danger in the imprecision or absence of law in this case at the moment?

MR. ROBERTSON: I think the main danger is that there will be overreaction and possibly the rights of infertile couples to use these techniques to form families will not be sufficiently honored I think the important principle here really is procreative liberty. There are some outer limits on what people can do with their procreative liberty, but most of the kinds of techniques we're talking about used by infertile couples are within the realm of acceptability, thus, I think the answer is to ask couples to declare their intentions at the time of creating or storing embryos about what they want done in case of death, divorce, passage of time, or disagreement, and that that'll be the best solution. I'm not sure that we need a lot of state laws at the present time.

MR. MacNeil: Well, Mr. Robertson, Ms. Andrews, and Dr. Nolan, thank you all three for joining us. FOCUS - LENDING A HAND

MS. WOODRUFF: Next the high cost of homeownership and the hidden victims of rising housing prices. As housing costs increase, the down payments required also grow. That is freezing out many would- be first-time home owners, even those who earn enough to pay monthly mortgages. Fred Sam Lazaro of Public Station KCTA, Minneapolis-St. Paul, visited Lansing Michigan, where he found one state's program to help.

FRED SAM LAZARO: Edward and Velma Watson have tried for two years to move out of their rented Lansing, Michigan, townhouse into a home of their home. For two years, they've been able to do little more than survey what's available.

VELMA WATSON, Prospective Home Buyer : We looked at some houses to see about what kind of price range it would run to see what kind of down payment we needed and we set a date of when we would like to have purchased a house, but the closer it got to that date, it was unrealistic, so we set another date.

MR. LAZARO: And Velma Watson says she's not sure they'll make it, although both Edward and Velma Watson work full-time, he as a salesman, she as a tax fraud investigator, they say it's been impossible to save enough money for a down payment.

VELMA WATSON: Part of it's just inflation and some part of it is just the day to day things that come up. You start saving one way and little things that come up just in every day life, you take the money out.

MR. LAZARO: The Watsons share the predicament with hundreds of American families. They share their frustration with realtors. Robert Heindrichs is president of the Michigan Realtors Association.

MR. HEINDRICHS: They're starting out. They're starting with their families. They have car payments. They're students. They have student loans. They just don't have that money in the bank.

MR. BOWMAN: We have a generation of some pretty crummy savers in this country. Our parents and our grandparents were pretty good savers, but our generation is not doing as good a job.

MR. LAZARO: Robert Bowman is State Treasurer in Michigan. He says people who do try to put money away for a home find their savings account interest can't keep up with the rate of housing inflation.

MR. BOWMAN: After two or three years, they've got their savings, but it isn't enough for the down payment.

MR. LAZARO: So Bowman has designed what's essentially a savings bond program that will guarantee a down payment to first-time home buyers like the Watsons. Under the Home Ownership Savings Trust or HOST program, buyers plan a few years ahead. They needn't pick a specific property but must decide in general terms what sort of home they'd like to live in.

MR. BOWMAN: Let's say they went around and it's a $75,000 home. Then we ask them, is this the type of home you're going to want to live in? Are you sure you're going to want to live in this in five years? Are you going to want a better home or a smaller home or something like this and they say, no, this is what we want.

MR. LAZARO: The state then does some math. To the usual down payment, it adds an amount that it projects home prices are likely to rise. In Bowman's hypothetical example, the projection is a 100 percent increase over five years. The buyer then goes on a real estate version of a layaway plan.

ROBERT BOWMAN, Michigan State Treasurer: Let's say this person or this couple would be $220 a month, so they pay $220 a month for five years, 60 monthly payments of $220, we actually issue a bond every month to them with a variable rate of interest and at the end of those five years, the $220 that they've paid in, or those 60 payments, would guarantee them the 10 percent down payment on the then $75,000 now $145,000 home of their choice.

ROBERT HENDRICHS, Michigan Realtors Association: If the figures are realistic, yes, but then absolutely. If the figures are unrealistic, then it would be suited for the buyer, although it would be very costly for the taxpayer.

MR. LAZARO: Although the HOST program has been well received in housing related traders, realtor Hendrichs says he worries the state could lose its shirt if inflation exceeds the state's prediction.

MR. HENDRICHS: In Ann Arbor, the HOST applicant is going to make out very very well, because the rate of inflation in Ann Arbor is 12, I've seen it as high as 17 percent a year and you run that out over five or eight years, and that is phenomenal, what happens to the price of homes and the state is going to be having to come up with that difference in a very large degree. Where, on the other hand, you take an area like Battle Creek or Jackson, where it might only be going up 2 or 3 percent, the state will make out.

MR. LAZARO: Hendrichs' concern is that home buyers in the state's plan, seeking to maximize their savings bond yield, will gravitate towards high inflation areas. Bowman discounts those fears. He says first-time buyers usually purchase starter homes and avoid pricey, high inflation areas. Further, he says, their monthly payments will be carefully figured to reflect housing inflation.

MR. BOWMAN: We have to have an actuary tell us exactly what interest rate assumptions we should use and what inflation assumptions we should use and that's what we'll do. Sometimes we'll be right and sometimes we'll be wrong, but over several thousand people and over several years, we should be above the line as much as we're below it.

MR. LAZARO: Bowman admits that savers could on their own put a carefully calculated amount each month in a bank toward ahouse, but he says the state program exempts their interest from tax and has a very specific goal. The money cannot as easily be pulled out to fix a car or buy one. It also guarantees savers will make their goal; no bank does that. [DISCUSSION AMONG PROSPECTIVE BUYERS]

MR. LAZARO: There's no shortage of interest in the down payment program among average Michigan residents seeking their first home. At his rented apartment in Ann Arbor, Dennis Leeny and his wife, Karen, pour over program literature with a young engaged couple who live nearby. Dan Vermeisch is a building maintenance worker. Fiancee Kay Cicatti is in her first year of college. They say the program is ideal.

DAN VERMEISCH, Prospective Home Buyer: And I'm just getting out in the world, you know, basically and you said you have to, it's something to work for, you know.

KAY CICATTI, Prospective Home Buyer: In five years, I should have a very steady job in the field of accounting and a nice home can be very intriguing for me.

MR. LAZARO: But Dennis Leeny, a truck driver, who's tried unsuccessfully for years to buy a home, says the HOST program isn't the answer for him. He says the wait entailed in the program, anywhere from three to ten years, is impractical.

DENNIS LENNY, Prospective Home Buyer: I'm looking for something more immediate and my plans probably will not keep me here in Michigan.

MR. LAZARO: To address that drawback, Michigan's senate has come up with an alternative program. Its author, State Sen. Douglas Cruce, says it would make direct down payment loans. They'd have liberal payback provisions and subsidized interest rates.

STATE SEN. DOUGLAS CRUCE, Michigan: The theory behind it is to provide a direct loan so that a purchaser can get into a home today and take advantage of that rising equity that's there, that inflation that's been there historically and that we expect to be there for years to come, take advantage of that today and repay the loan at a later date.

MR. LAZARO: Republican Cruce's plan draws a skeptical response from Democrat Bowman, who says it adds more debt to a home owner's budget, still the two men say they're not opposed to both concepts being offered.

MR. BOWMAN: We don't want to discard anything in terms of a potential to help people get into homes. That certainly is an idea that others have promoted and may work in the end. We're glad the focus is on home owners.

MR. LAZARO: And politicians will be glad when the focus shifts to the next election if they can claimed to have helped the cause of homeownership. Earlier this year, Bowman's boss, Gov. James Blanchard, chose his televised State of the State Address to the Michigan Legislature to first announce the HOST program.

GOV. JAMES BLANCHARD, Michigan: Our down payment guaranteed program unique in the nation will enable Michigan's families to save for a down payment using tax free interest, the state's investment power, and a guarantee that their savings will not fall short of housing prices when they're ready to buy that home. I'm excited about it and look forward to working with you on it.

MR. LAZARO: Polls show that homeownership is an important issue with voters. It is a crucial investment for a generation that finds it difficult to save otherwise. For many, it's also a symbolic induction into the American middle class.

MR. WATSON: People will begin to look at you differently and give you maybe a sense of a little more respect.

MRS. WATSON: You feel like you've gained something in life, so in turn you kind of hand that down to your children as far as saying, you know, we obtained, and these are the type of goals that you should try to do better in life.

MR. LAZARO: The American dream that we're talking about.

MRS. LEENY: A little garden, being able to put flowers where I want them, you know, just the little things.

MR. LAZARO: Michigan's Treasury Department expects to issue bonds for its down payment program by September. ESSAY - WE'RE ALL HOSTAGES

MR. MacNeil: Finally tonight we have an essay. Roger Rosenblatt, Editor of U.S. News & World Report, has some thoughts about the hostage situation.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: By kidnapping Sheik Abdul Karim Obeid in an effort to trade his freedom for that of Western and Israeli hostages, Israel may have made a tactical blunder but not a moral one. The tactical blunder, in fact, if it should prove that, stemmed from Israel's moral constraints. Since the Israelis would never murder the Sheik and the rest of the world, including terrorists organizations, knew that to be so, all that Israeli accomplished by its commando raid was to incite a game of "chicken" with mad men. The Organization of the Oppressed of the Earth, the terrorist group that held Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins, labored under no such moral strictures as was evidenced in the outrageous videotape showing Higgins' murder by hanging. In for a kidnapping, in for a killing. If the Israelis were not prepared to send a videotape of the murdered Sheik back to Lebanon, they probably had no business snatching him in the first place. That said, Israel's action may still be seen as doing the right thing insofar as doing the right thing means making any move against moral inertia. For at least six years, the civilized world has stood by while innocent citizens in Lebanon have been abducted, killed, released or not at the terrorists' pleasure. The world's helplessness has been made acute by the cruel intimacy of photographs and videotape.

MR. ANDERSON: I've been very close to being released several times over the past two years.

MR. ROSENBLATT: The kidnappers of Terry Anderson released a videotape in which Anderson blamed the U.S. Government, an appeal to the President to end "this terrible impasse". A video was produced hostage Alan Steen accusing what he called "American traitors" of no longer caring about U.S. hostages. One terrorist group sent a photo of hostage Robert Pohlhill with two automatic weapons pointed at his head. A year ago last February, a video of Col. Higgins showed him citing his captors' demands. On Thursday, as the hour of his threatened execution approached, hostage Josef Cicippio appeared on a tape pleading for the release of the Sheik.

JOSEF CICIPPIO: Don't be late because they are very serious to hang us.

PRESIDENT BUSH: It is a most troubling and disturbing matter that has shocked the American people right to the core.

MR. ROSENBLATT: In the kidnappings, the terrorist groups have invented a special form of terrorism by emasculation, rendering the home nations of the hostages not only helpless to strike back, but debilitatingly aware of their helplessness.

SPOKESMAN: One thing seems evident, Mr. Speaker, terrorists do not expect America to do anything but pass paper resolutions in Congress.

MR. ROSENBLATT: Acting like time release capsules, each successive kidnapping deepens that feeling of mass powerless.

SEN. D'AMATO: It's about time that the United States began to do more than rhetoric and lip service as it relates to saying that that we're going to defend ourselves and our people because we've been doing a pretty poor job up until now.

MR. ROSENBLATT: Anger implodes into frustration; frustration atrophies into a sense of passive failure, a sense born not out of attempting retaliation and missing, but of not trying at all.

SPOKESMAN: We need revenge and we need justice.

MR. ROSENBLATT: Watching these horrors, the individual bystander feels peculiarly isolated.

U.S. CITIZEN: It's something that you feel your hands are tied.

U.S. CITIZEN: It's just like having somebody on your back all the time.

MR. ROSENBLATT: He is both enfeebled personally and deprived of group strength since his government tells him that inaction is the prudent course.

U.S. CITIZEN: I'm fully in behind the way they're going but by the same token, being a true American, I'd like to blow their dad gummed heads off.

MR. ROSENBLATT: Then there's the sheer endlessness of this form of torment. Bystander know that not only the power of action but the control of time is also out of their hands. When during the Iran hostage crisis of 1979 to '81 added up the days of American captivity, the arithmetic emphasized the point that Iran was forcing us to live by someone else's clock and calendar. When would the crisis end? Whenever the enemy said it would end. So hostage taking is revealed as a manifestation of totalitarianism, each kidnapper a dictatorial state, while the rest of the world, waiting for anything and nothing, unconsciously relies on thugs for crumbs. Against this dreadful impotency, this wasting and deadening of the rational, decent spirit, not against terrorists alone, Israel made its strike. That country is now chided in some quarters for thoughtlessness in seizing the Sheik, but it is really the rest of the world that has remained without thought and resolve on these casual brutalities. Like members of a small ardent religious sect, the families of the hostages have paraded back and forth over the years to remind us that the hostages exist. It is not that we forget their plight. We simply wish to forget it, because impotency shames us into torpor. Last week, Col. Higgins' murder aroused us from torpor painfully, but Israel's action aroused us too, an act with a terrible consequence, if, in fact, the Colonel was murdered last week, but an act of moral courage nevertheless. To allow mind and body to go limp while scoundrels have their way is another form of hanging. RECAP

MS. WOODRUFF: Once again, Monday's main stories, a senior UN official expressed optimism at finding a solution to the hostage crisis in Lebanon, but envoy Marrack Goulding said any resolution would require a long process of quiet and patient diplomacy. Israel said it would not release a Moslem cleric it abducted unless three of its soldiers were freed in Lebanon. The presidents of Central America agreed to a plan to disband the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, and in this country a strike by telephone workers in 15 states slowed some phone service. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Judy. That's the Newshour tonight and we'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.