specifically with democratic charges that the republican solution to this problem pays for it by waging war on women's health. that it's part of what they're calling the gop war on women. is that a far accusation? stay tuned. today, the house with 30 republicans and 14 democrats switching sides voted to extend a law keeping interest rates on student loans from doubling. that law, by the way, was passed easily five years ago with broad bipartisan support. not this time. quickly, some background for you. initially, house republicans wanted to scale it back, handing president obama a very big opening politically. >> now is not the time to double your interest rates on student loans. michelle and i, we've been in your shoes. we only finished paying off our student loans about eight years ago. americans now owe more on their student loans than they do on their credit cards. student loans. student loans. student loans. let's give those student loans directly to students. can i get an amen? >> amen! >> that as a campaign drum beat, mitt romney quickly said he fully supports extending the loan program and house republicans got on board. but the bill they passed today

is paid for by eliminating preventative care funding in the health care reform act. house democrats wanted to tax oil companies. that's how they wanted to pay for it. some members, minority leader nancy pelosi and others, also calling the gop funding plan another attack on women. >> what the majority would do today with taking the funds here instead of taking it from special interests and closing corporate loopholes was to just pile on on that assault on women's health care. >> well, a short time later, house speaker john boehner erupted. >> people want to politicize this because it's an election year. but, my god, do we have to fight about everything? and now, now we're going to have a fight over women's health. give me a break. you know, this is the -- this is the latest plank in the so-called war on women. entirely created -- entirely created by my colleagues across the aisle for political gain.

>> so keeping 'em honest on this issue, who's right? well, we looked at what the house bill eliminates. it's called the prevention and public health fund. about $1 billion this budget year. the categories include tobacco prevention, hiv screening, nutrition programs, hospital and infection control, immunization, increases in the number of doctors and doctors' training, but no line items for things like mammograms, pap smears, prenatal care, any other specific women's health issues with the exception of breast-feeding. and congresswoman maloney, who you'll hear from in a moment, we're going to talk to her, says cutting the prevention fund would, in fact, broadly affect women's health. >> it's interesting that the fund they keep going back to is one that particularly

benefits -- it benefits men, too, but it particularly benefits the reproductive health care, child bearing health care, preventive health care that is so necessary to women. >> she's saying it is particularly about reproductive health care, child health care. again, you're going to hear more from congresswoman maloney in a moment about the facts she's using to support that claim. we found a report from the centers for disease control, cdc, which says that low-income women would be affected. but currently those programs are scheduled to come into the prevention fund next year. keeping them honest, though, that's only about .2 of 1% of the $1 billion fund. it's a tiny, tiny fraction. does add up to war on women? the cuts are drastic, they do a lot of things, none of them especially good for public health. that's not the argument. but do they target women specifically as the democrats are now saying and attacking the republicans on? and the evidence doesn't seem to support that. there's also this.

house democrats who now oppose the cuts didn't always consider the prevention fund offlimits. keeping them honest, they agreed to use some of the fund to pay for an extension of the payroll tax cut earlier this year. and when minority leader pelosi was asked why it was okay then but not okay now, she answered, and i quote, good question, and all the more reason why we shouldn't be taking any more money out of it. she went on to say, she didn't favor doing it then, but it was the only way to get the tax cut done. i spoke with one of her caucus members, carolyn maloney, just minutes before airtime. congressman maloney, you and nancy pelosi are portraying this republican move to take money from the prevention health fund as another example of an assault on women's health care. you said this fund "particularly benefits the reproductive health care, child care, and health care that benefits women." but this fund gives money to a lot of different initiatives, increasing the number of doctors, suicide prevention, anti-smoking efforts, alzheimer's education, efforts against hiv, obesity, hepatitis, cancer. it doesn't seem like it benefits

any one group in particular, men, women, children. how can you claim that is specifically an assault on women's health? >> well, women depend very much on -- a big part of it is preventive health care for cancers. breast cancer screenings, pap smears, all types of screenings for women. >> but that's actually not true, though. i mean, it's actually a tiny percentage is on breast cancer and cervical cancer. it's 0.23%. >> well, the immunizations for children, that's important for families. and women are concerned about their husbands too that are getting a benefit from it. the preventative health care program is important for men, women, children, americans that can access it and can benefit from it. >> i'm not arguing that, but you are portraying it and nancy pelosi is portraying it particularly as an assault on women's health, something you're saying the republicans have done a lot of. if you're saying that women

worry about their husbands and therefore that's how it's an assault on women, that doesn't really seem to hold up. >> well, the main point is that we moved today to preserve the interest rates and kept them from doubling. >> but republicans are saying that look, you and nancy pelosi and other democrats are trying to trump up this idea of an assault on women and you're doing it in particular on this issue when in fact the facts don't back it up. i mean, isn't this about politics? you want to portray the republicans as having an assault on women. you in fact voted in favor of doing this exact same thing to this preventative health care fund earlier in year. you voted in favor of extending the payroll tax cut and nearly $5 billion was taken from the fund. >> that was very, very unfortunate and all the more reason we should not go back and cut this fund now. >> right. but when you did that, when you voted for money to be taken out of this fund earlier this year, you didn't say, i'm doing this

and it's an assault on women i mean, when the republicans want to do it it's an assault on women. isn't that about politics? >> i think it's political for the republicans. they certainly change their tactics, but not their heart. >> so -- under politics? my question is isn't it about politics? >> let's take the women out and let's talk about student loans. >> but you're not taking the women out of it. >> if they were serious about continuing these student loans and not raising the interest rates, they would have worked with us on a common ground pay for. >> right. but with all due respect, the republicans could say the exact same thing about you. if you're serious about having a compromise, don't make this a war on women. i'm wondering, do you feel it really is an assault on women to cut money from -- i'm not saying -- it obviously is not good for anybody for preventative health care to be cut, but how can you say its a an assault on women? >> well, i do believe that if you look at what is happening in

state houses, on the floor of congress, in the senate, and in the house, there are movements to roll back gains that we have in choice and even in some cases access to contraceptives. but that issue is real, it's strong. it's an 18-point gender gap that i believe the republicans have worked very hard to achieve. and that has been efforts to roll back gains that women have had. we have had in the state houses, one state house the governor said he would not enforce fair pay. we have others that have called it a nuisance. we know that not many republicans voted for the lilly ledbetter pay act. we know there have been many, many efforts with ballot initiatives and separate bills across this country to roll back in some cases even access to contraceptives.

i think that's a move in the wrong direction. i don't think it's helpful to women and women are seeing it. >> right. but this -- >> they're taking their distrust into the ballot box on it. >> but this is an issue that democrats feel they have a benefit on, but aren't you saying it's assault on women, the facts don't back that up? >> well, i would say that women and families care a great deal about preventative health care. >> but men do as well. so do children. so do old people. >> -- the republicans are politicizing it by calling -- >> so no democrats are split pot little sizing it? >> i believe they're politicizing it by calling it a slush fund. i don't believe that many families would consider it a slush fund. >> so republicans are the only ones who are politicizing it? >> i don't consider access to health care silly. i don't consider having access to preventative health measures

for both men and women and children silly or -- and i do not consider it a slush fund. so who is politicizing it? >> right, but congresswoman, no one acknowledges their side politicizes things. you seem unwilling to say that democrats are politicizing this. are democrats at all politicizing this? >> i believe we should have bee cutting the subsidies to big oil. that families should have been more protected and that the preventative health care program should have been protected. but that's a difference in values. that's a difference in priorities. i believe this is an important program. the president does too. and when you get a veto threat, you know that you are not getting a solution. they should have come back and worked with us on a common ground compromise for the pay for. >> it was the president though who opened up the idea of taking money from this fund earlier

this year to pay for the payroll tax, which is also what you voted for? >> he felt that was important and i did too, to give working families a pay cut and it was also a way to move money back into the economy, to help with the recovery. i think that was an important priority also. >> but if the republicans had then said it was a war on women by the democrats, would that have been accurate? >> pardon me? >> if the democrats said that was an attempt by the democrats said that was an attempt to have a war on women, is that accurate, back during the payroll tax? >> well, i didn't call it an assault on women. >> right, but when you did it it wasn't. >> insult by insult, women are looking at a whole range of things that are happening to them. >> okay. >> this one i believe was the wrong value, the wrong priority. we should have looked for another pay-for. what's wrong with cutting the subsidy to big oil? why are they so coddled and protected? why are they a protected special

interest more than the health care provided to the men and the women and the children, male and female, in this country. >> thank you. i appreciate your perspective. more now on the issues and politics with david gergen and candy crowley. david, i don't want people to suddenly tweeting me, saying i am for this, i don't take positions one way or the other. but my issue is they're portraying -- the democrats are trying to portray this as part of an assault on women's health care and the facts don't back that up when you look at how the money is spent. do you think it's going to fly this argument, whether or not there has been a war on women, an assault of health care on women? >> this argument won't fly, anderson. in the past, i think they have been right to go to the barricades to protect women's health, contraception and the like and they have had a majority of voters behind them. but on this one, it appears to be a trumped up charge. the president of the united

states asked to cut money from the fund in order to pay for the payroll tax. democrats wanted to cut money from this fund. that fund clearly has been identified as democrats as one that is not compelling interest for the country. they're willing to cut it. they have been willing to cut it in the past. turn around now and go down this road and charges it as the assault on health i think only diminishes where they've been right. >> john boehner said overall there's no war on women, that the president politicized student loans. who has the upper hand right now and where does this debate go? >> i think the guy with the biggest microphone which is actually president obama which he can command it wherever he goes. look, he kicked this off with that sweep through swing states at college universities, very important voting demographic. younger folks. talking about these student loans.

listen, it's going to happen. they are not going to raise the interest rates on college loans. they will get this worked out. i don't know if they'll end up taking money out of this health care fund. speaker boehner did leave open the possibility, look the senate hasn't said what they want to do or where they want to get the money. but they really believe and you heard him, he was quite vociferous on the subject, that this is a lousy trumped up political charge and point out as you did that not only did the president sign legislation that took money out of this fund before, but almost 150 democrats voted for it. so they have -- look, it is hard to do a scale these days on the house floor any place else. we're in full swing now. full tilt here. >> david, is that what this is about? this is the run-up to the elections and everything now becomes politicized and scoring points? >> you know, it's hard to believe things could become even

more politicized than a year ago, but they're being overly politicized. i think the president scored points on the student loan and that's why john boehner rushed it to the floor. i think that will go through. but on the assault on women, i think the democrats have stumbled on this one. what it does underscore, anderson, is we are going to be hot and heavy politics right through the election out on the house floor. >> and the democrats have a big lead in terms of being pro women. >> yes, they have a large gap. i think the the last time i saw it was about 18% more women prefer president obama to mitt romney. >> i didn't phrase that question very well, but go ahead. >> there's time to -- you know, to make that up certainly. but this has always been a hard climb for republicans. they have always done better among males than among females.

so they have to narrow that gap. they don't necessarily have to win it. but they certainly have to narrow it. and the president has been very good on the score, you know, for women voters and that's most voters. >> right. >> the president has been the choice of more than mitt romney. >> david, very briefly, you wanted to get in? >> president obama will win the women's vote or democrats have won the last five elections winning the women votes. but the issue is how big is the margin? >> right. appreciate you being on tonight. candy's guest this sunday on her program, "state of the union" is john boehner. let's us know what you think. follow me on twitter, we're talking about it on twitter. big court day in the trayvon martin case. now that it's revealed on this program, last night the defendant, george zimmerman isn't as poor as his lawyer claimed at the bond hearing. we'll talk to the martin family attorney next to see if that should change the status of george zimmerman right now out on bond. and a case in which florida's stand your ground law did not

work so well for the defense. details ahead. i'm an expert on softball. and tea parties. i'll have more awkward conversations than i'm equipped for because i'm raising two girls on my own. i'll worry about the economy more than a few times before they're grown. but it's for them, so i've found a way. who matters most to you says the most about you. massmutual is owned by our policyholders so they matter most to us. massmutual. we'll help you get there.

a body at rest tends to stay at rest... while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. and celebrex is not a narcotic. when it comes to relieving your arthritis pain, you and your doctor need to balance the benefits with the risks. all prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen,

naproxen, and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. they all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, including celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. do not take celebrex if you've had an asthma attack, hives, or other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history and find an arthritis treatment for you. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. for a body in motion.

welcome back. news we broke last night on this program was the focus in today's hearing of the george zimmerman's case. he's accused of second-degree murder in the shooting of trayvon martin. prosecutors asked the judge to raise zimmerman's bond in light of the fact that it turns out he was $204,000 that he's raised online from supporters. money that his lawyer, mark o'mara, revealed on this program last night. how much money, specifically, to your knowledge, has been raised by george zimmerman and his supporters? >> well, my understanding, there were two accounts, one with about 700, and one with about 2,000 by some friends of his. and talking to george, after i was trying to shut down his whole internet presence, because of some impersonators and other problems with twitter and facebook, he asked me what to do with his paypal accounts. i asked him what he was talking about, and he said, those are the accounts that had the money from the website that he had and there was about $204,000 that

had come in to date. >> and o'mara told me that he only learned about the money two days ago. because you remember at zimmerman's bond hearing last week, his lawyer, o'mara, told the judge his client didn't have much money at all. so bail was set at $150,000. zimmerman posted $15,000, 10% or so, as required. and was released from custody. well, today the judge said he needs more information before ruling on whether to raise zimmerman's bail. he also declined to consider a gag order by prosecutors. joining me now is daryl parks, an attorney who represents trayvon martin's family. mr. parks, as we mentioned, the lawyer, o'mara, says he didn't know about the roughly $200,000 that george zimmerman had in these paypal accounts. he also said he didn't think his client meant to deceive anyone. do you buy that? >> well, i think you have to look at the whole situation. obviously, a bond hearing, the whole apparatus in being there was to make sure that he either had the means to post bond or

not. well, the undercurrent was that he did not have the means. and in fact, one of the things that the lawyer said in the hearing is that he intends to go indigent for costs in this particular matter. well, we now know that was totally untrue. one of the important things, anderson, in this particular case, is that in this particular case, mr. zimmerman sits there, he hears all of the testimony, and he knows that this was about whether or not he has the means to bond out of jail. well, he had the means. and in fact, we now know that he has probably spent somewhere between, you know, $0 and $50,000 towards expenses. >> so do you think -- i mean, mr. o'mara on the program last night said it's very possible the bail would have been higher if the judge had known and if mark o'mara had known that his client had $200,000 or $204,000. do you think bail should now be set higher? >> well, bail is about what resources are available to you. however, in this particular case, there are two issues that

the court has to deal with. one, was he misleading to the court? number two, what means are available to him? we now know that he had a total of $200,000 available to him. at a minimum, the bail should have been $1 million or $2 million if he had $200,000 available to him. >> daryl parks, thanks for coming in. >> the trayvon martin case has set off a fierce debate on the stand your ground law. we know that. a case that hasn't been getting as much attention as the trayvon martin killing doesn't fit that argument. like george zimmerman, marissa alexander told authorities that she feared for her life in the moments before she fired her gun. it took a jury just minutes to convict her. here's gary tuchman. >> reporter: she walks down the jail hallway in handcuffs. marissa alexander is facing 20 years behind bars. convicted of aggravated assault

with a deadly weapon. she says she was defending herself, standing her ground, from a husband who had been arrested before on charges of abusing her. >> he was arrested for doing what to you? >> he choked me, he pushed me forcefully into the tub. he pushed me so hard into the closet that i hit my head against the wall and i kind of passed out for a second. >> her husband received probation after that incident. months later, alexander said she was in the bathroom at their home here in jacksonville, florida, when her husband started pounding on the door. she says he was in a jealous rage over text messages on their cell phone. >> he managed to get the door open, and that's when he strangled me. he put his hands around my neck. >> alexander got away from her husband and then made a fateful decision. she could have run out the front door and escaped. instead, she went into the garage, but said she did not have her car keys and the garage door was stuck. so instead, she grabbed her gun she kept in this garage. >> what did you think you were going to do with it?

>> i thought that i was going to have to protect myself. >> were you thinking you might have to shoot him? >> yeah, i did. if it came to that. he saw my weapon at my side, and when he saw it, he was even more upset, and that's when he threatened to kill me. >> but how is he going to kill you if you're the one with the gun? >> i agree. i thought it was crazy too. >> why didn't you run out the door at that point? >> there was no other way to get out of the door. he was right there. >> what if you would have went around him to go out the door? your life would have been easier today if you did that. >> but the law states i don't have to. >> reporter: the law she states is the controversial stand your ground law. instead of running, she did what she shout was allowed by law. she stood her ground and shot the gun into the wall. nobody was hurt, but it was enough to scare her husband, and he left the house with his two young children from a previous relationship.

alexander was safe from her husband, but not from the law. she was arrested. her stand your ground defense rejected and found guilty by a jury. marissa alexander's husband, enrico gray, agreed to do an on-camera interview with us to counter his wife's allegations, but a few hours later he made the decision not to do the interview, claiming that going on camera would put his life in danger. later, he sent us an e-mail saying he would do an interview if he got paid, which cnn does not do. but he has already said quite a bit. during a deposition with the prosecutor and a defense attorney for his wife, rico grey acknowledged hitting his wife in the past and said this about the shooting incident. "if my kids weren't there, i knew i probably would have tried to take the gun from her. i probably would've put my hand on her." marissa alexander's attorney then asked the husband what he meant about putting his hand on her. and he responded, "probably hit her. i got five baby mamas and i put my hands on every last one of them except for one." >> i believe when he threatened to kill me, that's what he was going to do. that's exactly what he intended to do. and had i not discharged my weapon at that point, i would not be here.

>> reporter: but later at a court hearing to determine whether marissa alexander should get immunity based on the stand your ground law, rico grey changed his story, saying he'd lied repeatedly in the deposition to protect his wife, claiming he did not threaten to kill her, and testifying, "i begged and pleaded for my life when she had the gun." the jury deliberated for 12 minutes before convicting her. the jacksonville naacp wrote a letter to the trial judge, saying that marissa alexander may not have received justice because of her race, gender, or economic status. some african-american news websites are saying much the same thing. that if alexander had been white, she wouldn't be facing 20 years in prison. but alexander won't say if she agrees with that possibility. >> i'm uncomfortable answering that. >> reporter: for now she sits in the city jail, awaiting her sentencing scheduled for next

week. she had a baby girl with rico grey almost two years ago, but she only sees her child in photograph. that's because rico grey has custody. he's considered the victim. his wife, the criminal. >> this isn't my life i'm fighting for. this is my life and it's my life and it's not entertainment. it is my life. >> reporter: the 20-year sentence is a mandatory 20 years, meaning no chance of parole. gary tuchman, cnn, jacksonville, florida. up next, breaking news in the secret service scandal. also sopt, andrea yates, you remember, she killed her five children, was declared mentally unfit for trial. now she wants out of the mental hospital to go to church. we'll talk about that with dr. drew pinsky. this is $100,000.

we asked total strangers to watch it for us. thank you so much, i appreciate it, i'll be right back. they didn't take a dime. how much in fees does your bank take to watch your money ? if your bank takes more money than a stranger, you need an ally. ally bank. no nonsense. just people sense.

there's breaking news tonight in the secret service prostitution scandal. a name. specifically, the name of the agent who touched off the entire mess. the one who allegedly argued in that colombian hotel with the escort or the prostitute over her fee for the night of sex that they alleged had. >> reporter: a hotel security guard at the hotel caribe began in the seventh familiar hotel room. and cnn can now confirm at least three agents assigned rooms on that floor apparently left cartegena early. sources with knowledge of the investigation have indicated to cnn that two agents have been cleared, but that the agent who stayed in room 707 may already be gone from the service.

according to hotel records reviewed by cnn, agent arthur huntington was checked into this room. two sources with knowledge of the investigation say it was huntington who had the dispute with the escort named dania suarez. suarez has now hired an attorney and through statements credited to the attorney, demands she was an escort, not a prostitute. her attorney isn't talking. earlier this week, a man who identified himself as arthur huntington declined comment to a cnn producer. yesterday, cnn returned to arthur huntington's home, where the door was gently pushed shut without comment. the home was just listed for sale this week. >> has this agent, drew, made any statement at all? >> none whatsoever. we've been trying to reach him, anderson, or any representative he may have since monday. there has been absolutely silence coming from this agent. >> there were two other agents you were able to identify who were staying on the same floor of the hotel.

are they among the nine who have been dismissed? >> they are actually among the three who have been retained, which is why we are not going to name them. our sources tell us that those two gentlemen, one who was directly across the hallway from mr. huntington, have been cleared and will be going back to work. as you said, nine have been forced out of the 12 involved. but those two other gentlemen on that floor are apparently not involved. >> all right. drew, appreciate the update. thanks. still ahead, the case of andrea yates. the houston mom that drowned all five of her kids 11 years ago. her attorney is now making a special request to a judge. but, first, isha is here with a "360" bulletin. >> a suicide bombing in the capital of damascus killed nine people and wounded dozens more. it called the attack a, quote, terrorist bombing. violence in other parts of syria today killed civilians and security forces. a "360" follow tonight on the case of missing toddler ayla reynolds. police in maine are examining

items discovered this week to see if they're connected to her disappearance. the 20-month-old vanished from her grandmother's home in december. police refused to describe the items and would only say they were found not far from where ayla disappeared. and the space shuttle "enterprise" sitting atop a 747 arrived at new york's jfk airport this morning, headed to its permanent new home aboard the "uss intrepid," which is docked in manhattan. the "enterprise" exhibit will open to the public in mid-june. so i have a question for you. >> yes? >> did you know that the "enterprise" wasn't originally meant to be called the "enterprise." >> really? what was it meant to be called? >> "constitution." >> i didn't know that. >> and it was "star trek" fans that wrote in and asked it to be called "enterprise". >> thank you, isha. andrea yates is asking for some of her freedom back tonight. she became infamous in 2001 after murdering her five young

children. he was eventually declared insane, but now her doctors say she should be allowed to go to church outside the mental hospital where she's been living. dr. drew pinsky weighs in, ahead. interviewer: you had several species of endangered animals on that bus. but the priceline negotiator saved them all. animal handler:except for joffrey. but he did save me a ton of money. interviewer: how's that? animal handler: that was the day he told us all about priceline... ...it has thousands and thousands of hotels on sale every day. so i can choose the perfect one without bidding. joffrey would have loved this.

wouldn't you joffrey? the teacher that comes to mind for me is my high school math teacher, dr. gilmore. i mean he could teach. he was there for us, even if we needed him in college. you could call him, you had his phone number. he was just focused on making sure we were gonna be successful. he would never give up on any of us.

in "crime & punishment," will andrea yates get some of her freedom back? in june of 2001, she called police to her house and what they found was unimaginable. yates had murdered her five young children, drowning them in the bathtub, one after the other. her long history of mental illness came out during her two

trials and she was ultimately found not guilty by reason of insanity. since then, she's been receiving treatment at a mental hospital. now she wants to get out once a week to go to church. that's going to be up to a court. we'll hear from dr. drew pinsky in a moment. but first with a look back, here's randi kaye. >> reporter: she's a woman in search of redemption. nearly 11 years after filling a bathtub at her houston area home and methodically drowning her five children. >> she's a very spiritual person, reads the bible constantly. >> reporter: for more than five years, andrea yates has been locked up inside a texas mental hospital. but now her doctors say she's made such progress that they'd like to grant her request to attend church outside the facility once a week. her defense lawyer, george parnumb, says a congregation has agreed to let her come. long before that awful day in 2001, andrea appeared to be a healthy, happy mother. she home-schooled her children, but in the years leading up to

the murders, andrea became delusional. with each birth, it got worse. she hardly made sense when talking with a psychologist before her trial. >> the cartoon characters were talking to us. >> the cartoon characters? >> yeah, saying, hey, kids, stop eating so much candy. >> reporter: before the murders, andrea had been hospitalized four times, attempted suicide twice, and was on and off anti-psychotic medications. her defense team claimed she suffered from severe postpartum depression. she thought she was a bad mother and her children were doomed to spend eternity in hell. the only way to save them, she thought, was to kill them. >> what loving mother would want their children to burn in hell? >> reporter: on june 20th, 2001, andrea waited for her husband, rusty yates, to leave for work. then filled the bathtub, holding each child, one by one, under the water.

the oldest, noah, was 7. the youngest, mary, just 6 months. when she was done, she calmly called 911. >> are you having a disturbance? are you ill or what? >> um, yes, i'm ill. >> do you need an ambulance? >> no, i need a police officer. yeah, send an ambulance. >> andrea later confessed. >> after you drew the bath water, what was your intent? what were you about to do? >> drown my children. >> bring the jury in, please. >> reporter: at her 2002 trial, she was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison. but after it was discovered a key prosecution witness had lied on the stand, andrea got a new trial. at her 2006 retrial, a jury found her not guilty by reason of insanity. she and rusty divorced in 2005. as part of her divorce settlement, andrea yates was given permission to be buried

next to her children here at this cemetery outside houston. in all these years, she's never been able to visit their graves. and even if she is allowed out to attend church, she still won't be able to come here. but her attorney told me that he comes to visit the grave site every year on the children's birthdays, because their mother can't. her attorney says andrea has been treated for depression and still takes medication for her bipolar disorder. it will be up to a judge to decide if she's well enough to attend church. >> this is a woman who drowned five of her children. >> i understand that. >> why on earth should she be allowed to do anything, let alone attend church? >> it's my belief, is if you're not mentally culpable, then you're not responsible criminally for those acts. >> reporter: but andrea has a dark history with religion. her defense team claimed her delusions got worse after the couple befriended a traveling preacher named michael wornecki. he convinced them to give away their possessions and move their

children into a 340-square-foot bus. >> are you at all concerned that she might be negatively influenced by the scripture sitting in church again? >> no. because andrea was ill at the time that the parameters of her delusion, which happened to be the images that wornecki and his group would foist upon her ill mind. she's not that way now. >> george parnham says all she wants is a stable church where god and christianity can have a role in her life. i'm just curious. does she feel any guilt? >> she mourns and she feels a great deal of remorse and perhaps she can equate that into guilt. >> reporter: try as she may, all the prayers in the world may not be enough to assuage the guilt of such a horrific crime. randi kaye, cnn, houston. >> it's still so unthinkable, what she did. and to many people, it may be

unthinkable to grant andrea yates her wish. i spoke earlier to dr. drew pinsky, host of hln's "dr. drew." dr. drew, what do you make of this request that andrea yates be allowed to leave the psychiatric hospital to go to church? >> i'm not that surprised by it, frankly. the fact is, you've got to remember, this was a woman that was in multiple hospitalizations and then allowed to return home. and although something terrible has happened since those hospitalizations, the fact is she's been in psychiatric care, and part of that care is creating increased autonomy and independence and the possibility of moving about safely in the world hopefully. so something like church makes sense to me of something that they could be hopeful for her. >> she did say in 2006, though, because she drowned her kids because she didn't want them to go to hell. should something like that have an impact on the judge's decision? >> i'm sure it would have an impact on it. this is a really interesting

topic, which is psychotic religiosity. if she's no longer psychotic or not hyper religious, and if the church and the spiritual community has been an important part of her life, in a way, if she doesn't go start to spin in in a psychotic fashion, it could be an important part in her healing. >> so the religious ideation comes out of her psychosis, not the other way around? >> well, it's hard to know, it's religiosity, hyper-religiosity is a sign of psychosis. people will believe they're possessed, they'll believe all these various kinds of unrealities that are part of a psychotic process, and it can be fueled by religious beliefs and religious ritual. >> so this could be a first step to -- her lawyer said it could be a first step to her getting a job and living on her own one day. do you see that as a possibility? >> i see that as a possibility. i'm not sure how wise that is.

this whole situation, when you really read her case, it's such a failure and an indictment of not just our health care, mental health system, but particularly our insurance policies. i mean, she was repeatedly let out of the hospital psychotic. and i've worked in psychiatric hospitals for over 20 years. and you can't imagine the circumstances under which we are forced to take people out of a hospital setting, and then when horrible things happen, the insurance companies look back and go, that wasn't mine -- we don't practice medicine, that's dr. pinsky's name on the discharge sheet. he was the one that sent her out. but in the reality, if i kept someone in the hospital, they would become financially responsible for every day there, they don't want to do that, they're in a catch 22, they attempt to leave, and in this case, what she needed was years of structured hospitalization before even anybody would contemplate sending her out into the world. you're asking, anderson, should she go out into the world? i can't answer that in a real way, not knowing how she's doing now. >> what sort of treatment,

though, i mean, do you think she's been getting? what has she been doing all this time? >> you know, it's hard to predict. i saw various diagnoses that she's been labeled with. one thing is for sure. she had a very severe psychosis, and medication will very often stabilize psychotic process. and that with a supportive environment, structure in her life, some therapy can really go a long way to stabilizing people. the fact of the matter is treatment works, but because these are brain disorders, they take long periods of time for them really to work to the point that somebody can go from where she was to being safely out in the world. >> interesting. dr. drew, thanks. >> thanks, anderson. as each day goes on, the testimony just gets more dramatic in the john edwards' trial. what his former aide told the jury today, next. x business... with business. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle.

and go. you can even take a full-size or above. and still pay the mid-size price. i could get used to this. [ male announcer ] yes, you could business pro. yes, you could. go national. go like a pro. >> announcer: this is the day. the day that we say to the world of identity thieves "enough." we're lifelock, and we believe you have the right to live free from the fear of identity theft. our pledge to you? as long as there are identity thieves, we'll be there.

we're lifelock. and we offer the most comprehensive identity theft protection ever created. lifelock: relentlessly protecting your identity. call 1-800-lifelock or go to lifelock.com today. hi, i just switched jobs, and i want to roll over my old 401(k) into a fidelity ira. man: okay, no problem. it's easy to get started; i can help you with the paperwork. um...this green line just appeared on my floor. yeah, that's fidelity helping you reach your financial goals.

could you hold on a second? it's your money. roll over your old 401(k) into a fidelity ira and take control of your personal economy. this is going to be helpful. call or come in today. fidelity investments. turn here. [ man announcing ] what we created here. what we achieved here. what we learned here. and what we pioneered here. all goes here. the one. the accord. smarter thinking from honda.

i tell you what i can spend. i do my best to make it work. i'm back on the road safely. and i saved you money on brakes. that's personal pricing. i'm isha sesay with the bulletin. dramatic today from edwards' former campaign aide, andrew young. who's considered the star witness against edwards. young said he was so intimidated in his dealings with edwards and two wealthy donors that he was scared for his life. stocks ended the week on a high note. the dow jones closed up 24 points. the s&p rose 3 and the nasdaq was up 18. the dow was up 1.5% for the week. a black bear that wandered on to the boulder campus of the university of colorado went up a tree and was shot with a

tranquilizer gun. the bear is okay and wildlife experts released it into the mountains. and the avengers doesn't open in the u.s. until next friday, but it's playing in theaters around the world and doing big business. "entertainment weekly" said it took in $17 million on the first day. it opened in ten countries. anderson? >> isha. thanks. coming up, the "ridiculist." [ man ] hmm. a lot can happen in two hundred thousand miles...

are you guys okay? yeah. ♪ [ man ] i had a great time. thank you, it was really fun. ♪ [ crash ] i'm going to write down my number, but don't use it. [ laughing ] ♪ [ engine turns over ] [ male announcer ] the all-new subaru impreza®. experience love that lasts. ♪

but proven technologies allow natural gas producers to supply affordable, cleaner energy, while protecting our environment. across america, these technologies protect air - by monitoring air quality and reducing emissions... ...protect water - through conservation and self-contained recycling systems... ... and protect land - by reducing our footprint and respecting wildlife. america's natural gas... domestic, abundant, clean energy to power our lives... that's smarter power today.

time now for "the ridiculist." and tonight we're asking, what's in a name? it's a little friday night sampler platter, if you will. a story about freaking out over the f-word, and in some case, just the letter "f." let's start with that one, shall we? a guy in virginia had this personalized license plate, it reads "fosama". he says he's been driving around with this plate for seven years and it's mean is open to interpretation. >> it can mean anything you want. fight osama. forget osama. anything you want. >> after having the license plate for seven years, the dmv suddenly notified him that he couldn't use it anymore because it could be seen as profane or vulgar. so they randomly gave him this one as a replacement. 6668up. he's not happy. the guy says he doesn't like anything with "666" on it and to him the new license plate has a meaning that's far more

offensive than the original one. >> the devil ate you up. >> i don't know which is worse, the devil ate you up or the implication of the f-word, we'll let you make the call on that one and this one as well. this next one comes from west palm beach, florida, where a restaurant owner has been denied a trademark request because of the name of his establishment. the owner says it is pronounced fuku and it's a japanese word meaning good fortune, wealth, and prosperity. of course, passersby see it as something else. >> everyone i know so far sees the name or knows the name automatically assumes it's f-you. >> here's what the restaurant's owner's lawyer had to say. >> they're culturally unaware of what the word means. and i think there's some puritanical viewpoint that's been added into there based on the letter we've received. >> apparently according to this letter, the trademark wasn't

approved because the name "fuku" was thought to contain immoral or scandalous matter. how scandalous could it be, the place is crawling with hooters and fudruckers. i'm just saying. if fuku doesn't fly in florida, perhaps it can fly overseas. there are reports that the residents want to change the name because they're tired of english speaking tourists stealing their signs. the mayor said, nope, that's the name. they're sticking with it. at least for now, in one tiny hamlet it seems a town by any other name would not be as sweet. with that we bid you a hardy tgif on the ridiculist. that's it for us. thanks for watching. breaking news tonight, cnn identifying the agent at the center of the secret service sex scandal. then a special report. "outfront" debt collectors harassing patients in the emergency room. refusing treatment until people pay up in the hospital.