moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> brown: the papacy of benedict the sixteenth officially ended today as he became the first pontiff in modern times to resign. on his last day, he spoke with the cardinals who will now turn to choosing his successor, amid continuing scandals and tensions

within the vatican and wider church. we begin with our coverage with this report from james mates of "independent television news." >> reporter: looking a little frail, weary almost under the burdens of a tumultuous eight years in the holy see, pope benedict met his cardinals for a final time. in the magnificent surroundings of the vatican's clementine room, he thanked them and recognized that one of those now applauding will soon be in his place. "among you," he said, "there is the future pope to whom already today and i promise my unconditional reverence and obedience." he said a personal farewell to each cardinal, among them peter turksen of ghana who many believe may be the first black pope in more than a thousand years. but pope benedict's speech yesterday shows hints of trouble within the vatican itself has spelled out the task faced by his successor. >> it was a very unpapal address.

i would think it was one of the most remarkable papal addresses ever given, certainly that i have ever heard. was he hinting at power struggle? >> it would seem to be the popular opinion that there have been difficult times around him in his administration and that has certainly been spoken of openly as a challenge for next pope. >> reporter: that is what he is leaving behind. the papal swiss guard overseeing his final departure from office, as he headed for a helicopter and retirement. >> and so for first time in 600 years a living pope takes his leave from the vatican. he has promised to spend his remaining days in reflection and prayer. it is possible we'll never hear from him again. a final view of rome and the coliseum in the evening sunshine and then to the castello gandolfo in the hills south of the city where in just a few minutes he will take leave of his office.

>> brown: a short time ago i talked to john allen near st. peter's square. he's an analyst for cnn and a correspondent for the "national catholic reporter." so,, as we watch the pope fly away today, is his future role as emeritus pope clear? it's a new position, after all. >> it is. what benedict the 16th has told us is he is going to be hidden from the world which means he's not going to be, at least publicly, hearing him, secretary-general him. he's not going to hit the lecture circuit or give interviews. we assume he will see people in private but the vatican won't issue news bulletins about those encounters so for all intense and purposes he's had his swan song on the public stage. that much is clear. what is less clear are two points: one, if he is going to continue to have any sort of behind-the-scenes role of the next pope. whether the next pope will seek his counsel.

whether there will be conversation. and secondly how the role of a retired pope will play out in front of the broader court of opinion in the church. one of the fears about having a retired pope has always been that it risks what in catholic barter we talk about as schism. that is division. that there might be one camp in the church loyal to the new pope another camp loyal to the old one and creating the risk of sort of internal paralysis. now, the vatican has said it has no fear of that. certainly one presumes pope benedict xvi will not be seeking that. but in terms of what the reality on the ground is going to be, i would say we simply to wait to see how this is going to play out. >> brown: you mentioned behind the the scenes and i want to go back to the speech he made yesterday that got so much attention where he referred to the great weight of the office, the moments that weren't easy. is that being read as direct references to behind-the-scenes troubles? to various scandals?

and behind-the-scenes jockeying for what happens next? >> i think certainly in part it's being read that way. it is no secret that benedict's papacy has been dogged by a series of meltdowns and controversies and crises from the very beginning. one can think about the 2006 speech he gave that ignited a firestorm of protests across the islamic toward the cause celebre in 2009 over the lifting of the excommunication of the holocaust denying traditionalist bishop. to even in recent days a sensational allegations in roman papers of the gay lobby inside the vatican and, of course, cardinals participating in this conclave who have been linked in one way or another to the sex abuse crisis in the catholic church. all of that certainly is part of the picture. now, i don't think that's all that benedict meant in terms of the difficulties and the struggles and burdens of the

office. let me put it this way. on a pope's best days this an impossible job. we expect popes to be living saints and intellectual giants and political prizes and fortune 500 c.e.o.s. but fold into that the effect of the peculiar difficulties benedict has faced, some crashing from the outside, some self-inflicted, i think all of that is what he meant by the weight of the office. >> brown: so, john, what does happen next? how much is known about the conclave and how much is known at this point about what's going on behind the scenes in terms of jockeying for power or position? >> well, i'm not sure "jockeying" is quite the right word. i will tell you from personal experience having interviewed a substantial majority of the cardinals who will participate in this conclave over the years that it is a rare cardinal who actually wants to be pope. that's in part because they take

seriously if that this office is the successor of peter and the vicar of christ on earth. they have a hard time seeing themselves in that role. also because everyone know it is papacy a bone-crushing burden. if you want proof of that, look at the toll it took on john paul ii and how his final months played out. look at the fact that benedict xvi has confessed to the world that it was too much for him to go on. that said, there's certainly tensions among the cardinals about what the core issues are facing the church and who the right man would be to lead the church forward. there are different currents, different scoots of thought and the clash between those currents is playing out in ways large and small. you can see this in the interviews, for example, cardinals are giving in these days. some of them are saying somewhat contrasting things. some are talking about the need for a missionary pope who can be a salesman for the church. others are talking about the need for a stronger governor. some are talking about the

desirability of a pope from the developing world. others are talking about the need to make sure you have someone who can engage secularisim in the west. so it's playing out in that arena. even more and in a fashion that's even more frank and direct and blunt it is playing out as cardinals gather in twos and threes and tens and 20s in various private venues in rome to begin doing the heavy lifting of sorting out who the next pope of the catholic church is going to be e.. >> brown: john, let me ask you finally and briefly if you could. you have written of pope benedict's mixed legacy but i also saw you wrote today i think about knew might be impacted favorably by the way he's leaving. >> i think the first draft of history on benedict xvi is that this was a magnificent teaching pope but a mixed bag as a business manager. obviously a controversial pope in some ways. the liberal wing of the catholic church was disappointed in many elements of his pontificate. victims of sex abuse believe the

ball was dropped or at least benedict did not finish the business of reforming the church and so on. but i think in some ways without making those substantive debates go away his choice to resign and the very frank and honest and human way in which he explained that choice to the world in his final general audience on wednesday has created anew, if you like, an optic of generosity with which people are looking at this pope. that is to say, they may still have their issues with the papacy, but i think the humility and the courage in many ways that he has shown in the way he is stepping off the stage has created a situation in which more people are inclined to think fondly of the pope even if they might have objections to the papacy. >> brown: all right, john allen from rome, thanks so much. >> you're welcome. >> woodruff: online, we have a step-by-step guide to electing a new pope, plus a slideshow of photographs from the last days of benedict's papacy.

and still to come on the "newshour": guilty pleas in the wikileaks case; humanitarian aid for syrian rebels; opportunities and troubles for women in turkey and the passage of the violence against women act here at home. but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: this was sequester eve in washington-- the last day before $85 billion in automatic budget cuts are due to begin. eleventh hour votes to prevent the cuts failed, and lawmakers left for a long weekend. "newshour" congressional correspondent kwame holman has our report. >> reporter: as the senate began work this morning, majority leader harry reid was still saying it was not too late. >> we believe we have a balanced plan to remove the threat of the sequester. everybody agrees, republicans around the country, about 80% of the americans agree it's the right thing to do almost 60% of republicans around the country agree it's the right thing to do. the only republicans in america that don't agree are those that serve in congress. >> reporter: democrats offered a

plan to cancel the sequester and replace it with a mix of tax increases and targeted spending cuts phased in over ten years. >> it isn't a plan at all. it's a gimmick. >> reporter: republicans derided the bill. and minority leader mitch mcconnell charged president obama has manufactured a crisis. >> look: our country has a spending problem-- a pretty massive one; most of us in the chamber at least acknowledge that fact. but we can either address the problem in a smart way, or we can do it in the way he's proposed. >> reporter: another republican- - pat toomey of pennsylvania-- said the smart way is to rule out tax hikes and let the president decide the best way to implement spending cuts. >> it's not necessary if we pass this legislation because it would give the president the flexibility to cut the items, that would not be disruptive to our economy, not be disruptive in any meaningful way. >> reporter: the white house rejected that idea out of hand.

spokesman jay carney called it "the worst of all worlds." >> this bill is an effort to shift the focus away from the need for the congress to work toward a bipartisan compromise that would avoid sequestration. >> reporter: in the end, neither side could get the 60 votes needed to bring up its bill. the stalemate guaranteed the sequester will take effect before tomorrow ends. at the same time, the top house and senate leaders are due to meet with the president, at the white house. it will be their first formal discussion on the matter. >> sreenivasan: wall street mostly marked time today, in the run-up to the federal budget cuts. the dow jones industrial average lost nearly 21 points to close at 14,054, after coming close to its all-time high. the nasdaq fell two points to close at 3,160. the obama administration moved today to intervene in a challenge to california's ban on gay marriage. it was widely reported the justice department is urging the u.s. supreme court to strike down the ban. we get more from chris geidner, senior political and legal reporter for the website buzzfeed.

help us understand why this is significant that the administration is getting involved. >> well, this is the united states supreme court hearing a case involving whether or not same-sex couples have the constitutional righting to marry and this is the first time that they've heard such a case where the administration is weighing in and is saying that they think that this 2008 amendment is unconstitutional that it violates their constitutional rights to not be allowed to marry. is. >> sreenivasan: why did the administration get involved now? was there pressure building? because the president has said in the past that this is a states issue, right? >> right. well, i mean, there was pressure building from add vatsz based on the statements that the president made himself saying in his inaugural address that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters should be treated equally under the law. it was going to be very hardtor

gel that in his own personal support for marriage equality with not taking a position in this case which is obviously going to be at the fore of the important cases that the court's going to be hearing. >> sreenivasan: chris geidner from because feed, thanks so much. >> thanks. >> sreenivasan: president obama plans to name a former law school colleague edith ramirez to chair the federal trade commission. in that role, she'll confront several major merger cases and online privacy issues. ramirez worked with mr. obama on the harvard law review. later, as an attorney in los angeles, she specialized in business litigation. she has served on the f.t.c. since 2010. her designation as chairwoman does not require senate confirmation. bomb blasts erupted across iraq today, killing at least 22 people and wounding dozens more. in baghdad, a pair of bombs exploded almost simultaneously outside a fast food restaurant and a soccer field. bombers also struck in two other towns to the south of the iraqi capital. the targets were in areas that

are mostly home to shiites. the attacks came as sunnis have been mounting weekly protests against the shiite-led government. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to judy. >> woodruff: bradley manning, the u.s. army private who is charged with leaking massive amounts of classified material to the website wikileaks, entered guilty pleas today. he pleaded guilty to ten of the 22 charges against him, admitting to violating military regulations but not federal espionage laws. manning spoke for more than an hour in the military courtroom, explaining his reasons for leaking classified information. he said, "i believe that if the general public had access to the information, this could spark a domestic debate as to the role of the military and foreign policy in general." he added, "i felt i accomplished something that would allow me to have a clear conscience," for more on manning's statement,

his pleas and what comes next, we are joined by charlie savage of the "new york times" who was in the courtroom today. welcome to both of you to the newshour. charlie savage, what exactly, tell us, did private manning plead guilty to today. >> private manning pled guilty to ten charges that -- basically he took responsibility for being the personal who, indeed, downloaded massive archives of military reports about the afghanistan and iraq wars, videos of air strikes that killed civilians, dossiers about guantanamo detainees and a host of other issues and sent them to wikileaks. indeed, he said he took responsibility, it was him who did that and he pled guilty to ten specifications of violating military rules and regulations in the course of doing so. what he did not do was say that

those charges amount to the ferocious charges the government had against him including aiding the enemy and violating the espionage act. the charges he pleld guilty to could expose them to up to 20 years in prison if the government goes forward with the larger charges that are still on the table. it could be many, many more decades on that. >> woodruff: arun rath, help us understand what he did not plead guilty today-to-today. >> not pleading guilty to the biggest charge, which is aiding the enemy, that carries potentially the life sentence and it seems like what they're trying to do is peel away the leak from the criminal criminalalty of it, saying he was trying to hurt the country and that was a big part of the statement he made today, justifying what he did. he made a big point of saying he didn't want to release information that would damage the united states. he says he found information that he felt would be embarrassing but not damaging and they're trying to play that on those terms, i think. >> woodruff: charlie savage, what did you take away from

watching from him today as he read his statements, as he gave his explanation. what did you see in >> well, he was sitting at -- i was watching from the media center which is a filing center close to the courtroom, it has a closed caption circuit feed and most of the reporters were there today and he was sitting before the judge next to his lawyers. he's sort of a small person. and he was reading from the -- this prepared statement, this lengthy prepared statement that was basically his narrative, his statement at last about what he did what he did. for a few years now ever since this book his mental troubles, his struggles with his sexuality the, his suicidalal periods and the abuse he may have received in prison once he was locked up. and there's been all these surrounding conversations and this was the moment after all these years in which he was able to say here's what i did and here's why. and his message was squarely that he was a whistle-blower. didn't use that term but as he marched through the narrative of

how he came to download these documents just for his own work as a military analyst in iraq and then he became troubled by what he was seeing and he thought that what the american people needed to know if these documents came out would be enlightning, would spark a massive conversation about foreign policy and what the government is doing and so he decided to find a way to bring them to light. >> woodruff: arun rath, both of you have followed this case for a long time. just listening, reading what he was saying today, what did you take away from that? were you surprised? did it -- was it consistent with what you've been told until now? >> for me it was remarkable. we're now hearing bradley manning's voice very loudly and strongly and very articulately. charlie mention wed barely heard him talk. before he testified in november for the first time, the only term i heard bradley manning's voice was in the background on a

8911 call where he's almost hysterical, a 911 call involving his stepmother. in court back in november i have to say he was one of the most -- just in terms of a witness one of the most appealing articulate witnesses that took the stand. he seems like a very appealing articulate young man. what we heard today what charlie describes it sounds like he gave a very methodical, thoughtful, presentation, almost a manifesto about why he did what he did and why it was morally the correct thing to do. >> woodruff: charlie savage, i'm asking you to give us your own judgment on this but was it an explanation that held together? that made sense to you? >> well, think it was a very coherent presentation about what he was thinking and why he did and how he sort of got deeper and deeper into sending this information into wikileaks, becoming frustrated when wikileaks didn't publish some of the things that he was sending to them. i would say this, although that was also interesting.

he was doing this in the context of a confession. he was pleading guilty they may not be as bad as what the government is trying to charge me with but they're charges that could send me away for 20 years. so there was an interesting exchange throughout with the judge after he finished reading the statement and there was a break and came back in which he was making sure he understood what he was doing, was probing his thinking and at one point she circled back to this "if you're saying you had this motivation, you're doing for this for the greater good how can you say that and square it with the fact that you're pleading guilty to crimes you that you say you did the wrong thing? and several times he said back to her well, look, i understand now that i was a specialist now a private in the army that whatever my own judgment was about these documents there are procedures and processes for bringing things to light or keeping them secret, it's not up to me. i do not have the authority, it was above my pay grade to take

these massive archives and fling them into the world he was accepting responsibility and saying it was wrong. at the same time he was saying -- as arun said "i was not trying to hurt the country, i do not try to take these documents to harm the united states or help a foreign power, i may have been wrong but what i was trying to do was spark a national debate." >> woodruff: just very quickly, arun, finally to you, there is a trial on the remaining charges that will be coming up. any sense of what we'll hear from him then? >> we've seen a real preview of what the strategy is going to be which is, as we said, they're admitting the crime essentially but are going to justify it on moral grounds. so the argument won't be whether or not bradley manning leaked. we know he leaked and he's now -- the argument is going to be about whether or not he was justified in doing it. at least the argument that the defense would like to have.

if. >> woodruff: arun rath and charlie savage, we thank you both. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> brown: now to the conflict in syria and a change in the united states' role. ray suarez explains. >> the united states has decided that given the stakes the president will now extend food and medical supplies to the opposition including to the syrian opposition's supreme military council. so there will be direct assistance, though non-lethal. >> suarez: word of the shift in u.s. policy came from secretary of state john kerry in rome. the upshot: for the first time, humanitarian aid will be directly channeled to armed syrian rebel groups. the initial installment: $60 million. >> this funding will allow the opposition to reach out and help the local councils to be able to rebuild in their liberated areas of syria, so that they can

provide basic services to people who often lack access today to medical care, to food, to sanitation. >> suarez: additional pledges are expected from ten other european and arab nations attending the rome gathering. but after two years of war in syria and more than 70,000 dead what the rebels most want are guns. so far, the united states has refused, citing fears militant islamists would benefit. in rome today, the head of the syrian opposition council mouaz al khatib urged the world to focus more on the victims of syrian president assad, and less on bearded islamists. >> one month ago, the regime bombed 86 bakeries, where the flesh of the children was moulded with the bread. pay attention to this instead of the fighter's beards. those who are fighting inside

are most of them peaceful people, who were forced to carry arms. all the terrorists in the world do not have this brutal nature of the regime against the syrian people. >> suarez: several persian gulf states have long supplied arms and money to the rebels. just this week it was revealed that saudi arabia has been sending them croatian weapons. the shift in u.s. policy has come as the assad regime steps up its onslaught, using scud missiles against civilian populations. and last night, "the new york times" reported americans are now training syrian rebels at an undisclosed base in the region. meanwhile, as the battle for damascus grows, in syria's south, refugees are streaming into lebanon and jordan. u.n. officials estimate nearly a million syrians have fled the fighting. for more on us involvement in syria's conflict, we turn to two voices. steven heydemann, a senior adviser for middle east initiatives at the united states institute of peace. he's worked with the syrian

opposition on the challenges ahead if and when the assad regime falls. and steven simon, formerly a senior director for middle east and north africa on the national security council staff, he's now at the international institute for strategic studies. steven simon, let me start with you. does today's announcement represent a significant change from that of the first obama administration and secretary clinton? >> well, i couldn't say it's a huge leap because it's consistent with what the administration has been doing already for a year. the 60 million that secretary kerry has said will be allocated to these programs builds on $50 million that was already allocated for similar programs provled in training the opposition that is the political opposition and giving them

communications equipment and so forth. this new step, though is important because it will build capacity on the part of the co-locale counsels that are governing areas of syria that the regime is unlikely to return to this is the beginning of post-assad syria in places. it's essential that those governing in those areas and are responsible for the health and welfare of the people living there have the capacity to carry out those tasks and responsibilities. >> suarez: steven hide man, there was a public announcement, a widening of the materiel being sent over. what does this look like to you? >> i think it looks like more of

an important shift than my colleague suggested. i wouldn't go overboard in asses the scale of the shift now the extent that it is now possible for the u.s. to provide support not only to non-lethal actors but to reach out and engage directly with armed groups, this is a broadening of u.s. engage that was not possible before this decision was taken by the administration. we have never worked directly the supreme military council and now that opportunity exists so we have the chance to begin to provide support to the groups that are arguably most important in determining the future of the conflict and to do so in ways that were not possible under the previous policy. is. >> suarez: but all during the conflict there's been worries in the united states and other western capitals about who exactly opposition is and what kind of hands the material falls

into. now you heard instead of lampooning that saying don't worry so much about whose theme people are. should this be an american war? >> well, what he also said is look at the levels of violence and brutality visited by the regime the notion that the groups fighting the regime might engage in activities that we would find even more disturbing is very, very low. keep in mind, we are not going to be providing weapons or other kinds of equipment to the armed on sthags will expand our military capacity. we are providing them largely humanitarian assistance, with body armor, with food supplies, with medical supplies and training so the notion this this kind of support could backfire i would find very surprising.

i think --. >> suarez: i want to get steven simon in on that same point. should there be worry in washington about who's getting what we're sending and what use they're putting it to? >> i think the risk is really rather low in this case in part because the aid is going to groups with which we have already established relationships by virtue of this program that's been going on for nearly a year and for which $50 million has been spent. during this time u.s. personnel in the region, not inside syria have gotten to know a good number of the people who are active in the local councils and the material is going to go to these known entities and the risk that it will go to jihadist groups it seems to me to be

quite limited. >> suarez: if, steve simon, the united states intervened earlier in the conflict would at no time set of choices facing american policymakers have been broader? would the united states have had more room for maneuver? >> it's a very difficult question to answer. this is going to be-- and already is-- a long and grinding conflict. it's quite likely we're at the beginning of in the relative terms. so whether in that context the u.s. would have taken the step that it's taken now six months ago whether that would have had some kind of significant effect on the course of events thus far i think is just not plausible. i think we're in for a really long haul which is why the program secretary kerry announced today is important because it's building the

capacity of the opposition to sustain itself and tend to the care and feeding of the syrian people during this very long drawnout period where we're going to see some awful things, i would imagine. >> suarez: steven heydemann? >> i tend to take a different view. the relationships we're so concerned about between militant islamists inside of syria and their equally militant sponsors outside the country originated in part because there were no alternative sources of supply for armed groups in syria. they became important on the ground because the groups that we might have preferred to see emerge as the leading forces in the fight against the regime did not have the kind of backing or sponsorship that went to those militant islamist groups and the possibility does exist that if we had played a more active role

earlier nonproviding alternative channels of support the influence and capacity we now see concentrated in the hands of islamist actors could have been diluted and some of that could have shifted to groups that we're more comfortable with. >> suarez: so very briefly, before we go, given what you just said is it too late to make much of a difference on the outcome? getting in now? >> if we keep in mind that for many groups their association with radical islamist sponsors is largely instrumental, they do it because those are the people who have the funding and the wednesday. being able to provide alternatives i think could still draw those groups toward more moderate perspectives and persuade them to align themselves with different sponsors than the ones they rely on right now. >> suarez: steven heydemann, steven simon, thank you both.

>> woodruff: next, two stories about combating violence against women. in turkey, a fast changing society has brought new opportunities for women, but also increased domestic abuse. special correspondent fred de sam lazaro filed this story as part of our "agents for change" series. >> reporter: istanbul presents an elegant blend of history and modernity; a sprawling symbol of turkeys growing global importance. it is the world's 16th largest economy. modernization has transformed this nation of 75 million from a mostly rural, traditional society to a predominantly urban one. three out of four turks live in a city today. but by some measures turkey ranks among the worst places in the world for women: women are less educated than men, far fewer have jobs outside the home. and in the home, half of all

turkish women report having suffered some form of domestic violence. inci kerestecioglu is a sociologist at istanbul university. >> violence against women in turkey has increased in response to the demands women are making to become freer and men feel powerless and resort to violence. >> reporter: women have taken to the streets in recent years-- this demonstration was last march. a big problem, many say is the indifference of police and government officials even as turkey's government reports the number of women murdered in a year in this country went up 1,400% between 2002 and 2009. >> they don't want to deal with this problem, they don't see it as serious, this is a women's issue, that's why they don't see it. >> reporter: gulsun kanat-dinc works for a group called mor cati, one of few refuges for

women like this 39-year-old mother of three who endured almost two decades of abuse. >> ( translated ): my head would be split and bleeding and i would go to the police. i would tell them to rescue me and they would say, we cannot intervene between a husband and wife. and he would come and they would give me back to him. >> reporter: mor cati finds what resources it can and has lobbied for more to help dozens of clients who seek help each day like this 36-year-old mother of two. >> ( translated ): they helped me find psychological support for my children through the divorce, they directed me to a safe home and took me to the prosecutor's office for protection under article 4320. >> reporter: that article, a 1998 law that entitles women to protection was passed with pressure from mor cati. it was updated last year by turkey's prime minister. many of turkey's statutes now conform to those of the european union, which it has long wanted to join. but kanat dinc says things work

differently here compared to, say, sweden. >> if i go to the police in sweden, i will trust police, i wouldn't have this fear that police would send me to my home, they would judge me. but if i go here, i know they will easily judge me. >> ( translated ): turkey is a diverse country; you can find similarities to bangladesh and you can also find similarities to switzerland within turkey. >> reporter: kerestecioglu says turkey straddles europe and asia not just in geography but also a complex mix of social mores. she says although domestic violence affects all income groups, women from migrant families, newly arrived from rural areas, face some of the most daunting strains on family life. tradition confines them to the home, but financial pressures-- 20% in turkey live below the

poverty line-- demands they find acceptable work. >> they don't have enough education to have a job. they have domestic responsibilities, mainly childcare. >> reporter: sengul ackar started the foundation for the support of women's work 25 years ago to help poor migrant women get what they need to help themselves and their families. the first challenge was childcare. there were very few publicly run pre schools, ackar says, and daunting staffing and building regulations. she says turkey has long had centralized planning-- rigid rules laid down in this case by education ministry officials-- that prevented private start- ups, even non-profit ones. her foundation organized and trained women to negotiate with authorities to modify the rules. that's enabled new parent- managed, cooperative pre schools in low income areas of several turkish cities.

>> the community also they feel that this is... >> reporter: they own it? >> they own it. plus for the women they need some social legitimate reasons to go out i mean you cannot go out like that, it gives them legitimacy. >> reporter: it's socially acceptable? >> yes, it's socially acceptable so when they come together they run collectively these centers. >> reporter: the foundation for women's work provides a range of other services that are socially acceptable to the more traditional migrants: it taps into women's labor and craft skills, provides small business loans and even markets their products online and in an istanbul boutique. >> ( translated ): the products that you see, i started making them just to pass time, for my daughter. i knit shoes for babies out of wool and people like them and i started getting orders. >> reporter: this couple is one the women's foundation helped to straddle two worlds. emine and ahmet unal come from traditional family backgrounds, part of the vast migration to istanbul for better opportunities. they to make a better life for their six-year-old daughter zuha.

>> ( translated ): i really do want my daughter to have the opportunities that i never had. >> reporter: ahmet completed high school but emine unal only went through 5th grade. women traditionally were less educated in turkey but in her case it was state imposed modernity that kept her home. >> i couldn't go to school because of my headscarf, even if i would have gone to the school i wouldn't be able to find a job because at that time, nobody would give a job to someone like me with a headscarf. >> reporter: that ban on headscarves was part of predominantly islamic turkey's attempt to enforce a rigid secularism, which last for much of the 20th century, but like the rest of life in turkey, that is slowly changing says professor kerestecioglu. today turkey has a conservative prime minister whose wife covers her hair. >> ( translated ): the main issue here was having conservatively dressed women in the public sphere. as long as these women remained

in villages, in traditional roles, the educated did not consider wearing a scarf to be an issue. however when this group came with demands such as attending university and participating in the public sphere, their demands made the progressive elites uncomfortable. >> reporter: for their part ahmet and emine unal see much more of a blending than a clash of old and new in today's turkey. >> ( translated ): i'm really i didn't decide to cover my hair because of pressure from my family, it was my own decision, so i'm not going to pressure my daughter to cover her hair but she will make her own decision. >> ( translated ): it's her own life, i'm not going to intervene. >> reporter: ahmet unal is also grateful for his wife's income having struggled to provide enough from his own work. >> ( translated ): i run a cell phone and accessories store and business is tough because there are a lot of large stores and you can't match their advertising and discounts.

>> reporter: the women's work foundati has made a huge difference, emine says, providing self confidence as much as financial help. >> ( translated ): this organization represents the soul and the energy of many women, its wonderful to just breathe in such an environment. >> reporter: the foundation sengul ackar began has now organized 100,000 women into cooperative enterprises of various types across turkey. >> we gave them the confidence, collective confidence that they can change something. they are using their own energies and they're providing services for the community, for others not only for themselves. >> reporter: there's much more to be done, she says, but the first step to closing turkeys gender gap-- to reducing problems like domestic violence is giving women a voice. >> brown: fred's reporting is a partnership with the "under-told stories project" at st. marys university in minnesota.

you can meet other agents for change and learn their stories. you'll find that on our website. >> woodruff: we turn now to the problem of domestic violence here in the united states and the end of a political battle over legislation about that issue. it was the subject of long- delayed debate and a vote in the house of representatives today. >> the bill passed, without objection a motion to reconsider is on the table. >> woodruff: by 286 to 138, the house voted to renew the "violence against women" act almost a year and a half after it lapsed. the bill extends the law's protections to gays and lesbians, immigrants, native americans on reservations and victims of sex-trafficking. illinois democrat mike quiggly:

>> these victims are not nameless, faceless members of some group of others. they are our friends, our neighbors, our family members. we are a nation built on justice fairness and equal protection, >> woodruff: the original 1994 law provided grants for legal aid and transitional housing for victims of domestic violence. it also created funding for law enforcement training and assistance hotlines. but the statute expired in 2011 as house republicans resisted efforts to expand its scope to other groups. tennessee's marsha blackburn argued today for a more limited alternative. >> making certain that in a fiscally responsible, targeted and focused way, that those who need access to the help, the assistance, the funds, are going

to be able to receive the help, the assistance, the funds, the focus and the attention that they are going to need. >> woodruff: but cracks in republican ranks appeared after president obama's strong showing among women voters in last year's election. and today, moderate republicans joined democrats in defeating the g.o.p. bill and passing the senate version. the legislation now goes to the white house for president obama's signature. >> woodruff: for more on the political back-and-forth over the legislation and what it means for women and men going forward. we are joined by ashley parker, who covers congress for the "new york times." and, cindy southworth, a long- time advocate and vice president of the national network to end domestic violence. welcome to you both. ashley parker, the republicans, when they originally objected to this legislation back a year and

a half ago, what objections did they have and were those objections accommodated? >> the issues they had about a year and a half ago were they didn't want to go as far as the senate bill had gone which was extending protections to members of the l.g.b.t. community and to native american women and interestingly these were basically the same objections that we saw this time around, although this time they obviously managed to work them out. >> woodruff: so what happened was not so much that the language was changed but the number of republicans changed their position? >> well, what happened was eric cantor first started -- the republican leadership decided that politically, especially after the 2012 elections where they sort of took a drubing with female voters, that the republican party did not want to be on the wrong side, so to speak, of this issue. they didn't want to be responsible or seen as responsible-- fairly or unfairly-- for preventing the reauthorization of the violence against women act. so they said they wouldn't pass anything in the house that

didn't have bipolar support. the house version of the bill didn't have bipartisan support. democrats were united in their support against it so they allow this senate version to come to a vote and ultimately pass. >> woodruff: cindy southworth, how much difference has the violence against women act made since it was enactd? >> it's remarkable. since 1994 we've seen almost a 50% increase in reporting and that's not 50% increase in incidents of domestic violence, just more victimings reaching out. they're calling the police, they know there are services available and they're getting help. we've seen almost a 34% decrease in homicides of women and even more startling, almost 60% less homicides of men, primarily by their female partners when they felt they had no other choice. and now that we have shelters and resources they're not having to resort to self-defense. >> woodruff: you can directly connect that to this act? >> we can look at the time period under these remarkable things happening. some things we can talk about in terms of housing units we've

createed with violence against women act funds. hotlines open because of violence against women act funds. so we can directly connect that and others we can see what was happening before i started in this work before the violence against women act passed and we ran a shelter on a tiny shoestring budget and turned more women away than we helped. >> woodruff: ashley parker, is that consistent we the debate you've been hearing in the congress and among members about this? >> the debate on the floor we heard today was basically no -- no one came out against preventing the reauthorization of the bill. it was house republicans arguing their version of the bill went far enough. they said their version of the bill did, in fact, protect -- the phrase they always used was "all women." so they're arguing the same thing but obviously the democrats and a lot of women's groups and human rights groups disagreed and felt the senate version did a better job of extending protections to everyone e.. >> woodruff: cindy southworth, how much difference does it make to extend these protections to

these groups we mentioned, l.g.b.t., the native americans and so on? >> when it comes to victims on tribal lands, it's huge because what's happened previously is if you're a native american woman injured on tribal lands by a non-native the tribal courts have no jurisdiction. when it comes to misdemeanor domestic violence cases, the federal courts are overwhelmed so they weren't taking these cases up which meant you got off scot-free for harming a native woman on tribal lands. giving jurisdiction to the tribal courts means we can hold them accountable. that's pretty significant in terms of extending protections to tribal -- to native women on tribal lands. >> woodruff: just continuing with you on some questions about the law as it exists today and as it will exist, a new version, our staff here at the newshour talked today with several law professors who said overall the bill has had beneficial consequences but they said there's also been unintended consequences, namely that it still leans in favor of having the perpetrator arrested no matter whether the woman or the

victim wants that to happen or not. how do you see that issue? >> first of all, the violence against women act does not require mandatory arrest. what it does do, though, is train police officers on how to look at what's happening in the house. because if it's mandatory arrest you might arrest the wrong person. sometimes a woman has been beaten and you can't see the bruises but you see scratch marks on the offendser because of the self-defense wounds. so the violence against women act does not have a mandatory reporting focus to it but it has a mandatory training focus to it which is important for police on the scene to assess. and we've done a lot of work around issues beyond law enforcement within the violence against women act. there's housing provisions, there's a transitional housing grant program, a sexual assault services program. so while we have spent a lot of time in the last 20 years working to change the justice system, we are really focusing more and more on issues beyond criminal justice. is. >> woodruff: in fact, that was another complaint we heard from those who support the law overall but say that it still

leaning too far -- it puts so much money into law enforcement and prosecution and not nearly enough money into those other areas that you mentioned. >> i'm only smiling because i have yet to see the day where we have so much money in the violence against women movement. i would love that day! what it means is we would like more money in all those other service areas. we need more housing. we need more hotlines. we need more advocates. we need to beef up those services. we don't need bring police officers being able to respond. we've already seen that in just one day in the united states over 70,000 adults and children get help from local domestic violence programs and on the same day 10,5881 times a phone rang and someone asked far bed, a shelter an attorney, a counselor. they told a perfect stranger and couldn't get help. >> woodruff: ashley parker, how much of this came up in the house debate? >> you know, not a ton of that on the debate in the floor today. a lot of the debate sort of

focused on democrats stepping up time and time again and asking for members to come together to reach bipartisan compromise and get this through and also a lot of members-- both democrats and republicans-- telling personal stories of a woman in their district who was beaten or faced domestic abuse and either who met a tragic end because they couldn't get the protections necessary or in some cases were able to use these programs to get help. so it was sort of a little bit more of a personal touch as well as a plea to come together for something. >> woodruff: well, at the end of it all, the house of representatives voted to extend the violence against women act and we look for president to sign the legislation. cindy southworth and ashley parker, we thank you both. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. >> brown: again, the major developments of the day: pope benedict the 16th made a final appearance and then left

the vatican-- the first pontiff in 600 years to resign. and u.s. army private bradley manning entered guilty pleas to some of the charges against him in a huge leak of classified material to wikileaks. >> woodruff: online, we take a look inside a virginia gun show. hari sreenivasan has the story. >> sreenivasan: amid the national debate on gun control, hear what gun enthusiasts had to say at a recent exhibit just outside the nation's capital. our multimedia project is on our homepage. and 60 years ago today, two men discovered the secret of life-- d.n.a. learn more about james watson and francis crick on our health page. all that and more is on our website newshour.pbs.org. jeff? >> brown: and that's the "newshour" for tonight. i'm jeffrey brown. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. we'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with mark shields and david brooks, among others. thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

>> and the william and flora hewlett foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> this is "bbc world news america." funding for this presentation is made possible by the freeman foundation of new york, stowe, vermont, and honolulu, newman's own foundation, zte, and union bank. and fidelity investments. >> this is what a personal economy looks like, and as light changes, fidelity can help you readjust your investment along the way, refocus as careers change, and kids had off to college, and revisit as you get ready to retire. wherever you are today, we can

appeal fine-tune your personal economy. fidelity investments, turned here. >> at union bank, our relationship managers work hard to know your business, offering specialized solutions and capital to help you meet your growth objectives. we offer expertise and tailored solutions for small businesses and major corporations. what can we do for you? newsd now, "bbc world america." >> this is "bbc world news america." washington, i'm kathy kaye. for the first time, the u.s. offers direct aid to syria oppose the opposition, but stopping short of what they want. benedictaays goodbye, xvi leaves the vatican for a life of retirement and solitude.

it is an historic journey. and he went down in history as having the heart of a lion. a hundred years later, scientists investigate what making richard roman one -- what made king richard i seem so very brave. welcome to our viewers on public television in america and elsewhere around the globe. a few hours ago, history was made when the pope retired. it has not happened in 600 years. lasticta xvi made his public appearance, with his thanks, and then boarded a white helicopter to his summer residence. the dayd spent divesting himself of papal authority