A letter to Bill Clinton written by the co-counsel who successfully argued the Roe v. Wade decision urged the then-president-elect to "eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country" by liberalizing abortion laws.

Ron Weddington, who with his wife Sarah Weddington represented "Jane Roe," sent the four-page letter to President Clinton's transition team before Clinton took office in January 1993.

...

Weddington told the president-elect: "I don't think you are going to go very far in reforming the country until we have a better educated, healthier, wealthier population."

He said the new leader can "start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country."

Weddington qualified his statement, saying, "No, I'm not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can't afford to have babies.

"There, I've said it. It's what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged differently as discriminatory, mean-spirited and ... well ... so Republican."

Weddington explained he was "not proposing that you send federal agents armed with Depo-Provera dart guns to the ghetto. You should use persuasion rather than coercion."

He points to President Clinton and his soon-to-be first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton as the "perfect example."

"Could either of you have gone to law school and achieved anything close to what you have if you had three or four or more children before you were 20?" he asked. "No! You waited until you were established and in your 30's to have one child. That is what sensible people do."

Later, Weddington took a shot at the "religious right."

"Having convinced the poor that they can't get out of poverty when they have all those extra mouths to feed, you will have to provide the means to prevent the extra mouths, because abstinence doesn't work. The religious right has had 12 years to preach its message. It's time to officially recognize that people are going to have sex and what we need to do as a nation is prevent as much disease and as many poor babies as possible."

Weddington then argued that with 30 million abortions up to that point since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, America is a much better place.

"Think of all the poverty, crime and misery ... and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario," he said. "We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don't have a lot of time left."

Even if I didn't believe in hell, I'd still think this guy was going there. Still, I couldn't possibly be less surprised that he said any of this, which is sad in and of itself.

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Poor Jim Carrey. His movies have raked in nearly $2 billion at box offices, but now a leading entertainment magazine says the comedian's asking price of $25 million a film has become "a bit of a gamble."

In its issue out this week, Entertainment Weekly rates top stars on whether they are worth the money.

Among those whose asking prices have become too high are Carrey, Nicole Kidman, Will Ferrell and Eddie Murphy, the magazine said.

It added that after years of ever-rising star salaries, the prices for top talent are now coming down because the cost of making movies is going up, among other issues. "It's long overdue," former Twentieth Century Fox Chairman Bill Mechanic told the magazine.

Entertainment Weekly quoted several studio executives as saying the rising cost of production has led many stars to take large parts of their fees from revenue and profit participation that may never materialize if films flop at box offices.

...Carrey's not the only one. Kidman is considered a risky bet after the box office failure of "Bewitched" and "The Stepford Wives" among other recent films.

Will Ferrell's $20 million also made the list of risky bets given recent box office disappointments and Eddie Murphy's $20 million was considered downright "too pricey."

But Tom Hanks' $25 million was thought to be "worth every penny" because he remains "one of the most bankable brand names in the world." Oscar nominee Jake Gyllenhaal, at $5 million to $7 million a picture, and Rachel McAdams at $3 million to $4 million, were bargains.

May 4, 2006 -- IF Anderson Cooper isn't just a little embarrassed, he should be. Sure, he made the cover of Vanity Fair - but inside is a creepy photo of the CNN dandy in a mama's-boy pose with real-life mother Gloria Vanderbilt that has media types snickering. Worse, Cooper was sucker-punched with his April ratings that had his prime-time show down about 36 percent with younger viewers he's supposed to attract. Aaron Brown, whom Cooper ousted, was actually doing better this time last year.

Friday night's numbers are in for "Mission: Impossible III," and they aren't what Paramount or Tom Cruise might have hoped for.

The JJ Abrams-directed blockbuster took in only $17 million according to website www.boxofficemojo.com. That's a good $3 million off the lowest predictions, and $8 million off what a real mega hit would have been.

Box Office Mojo's Brandon Gray says that the weekend total should now be in the $45 million range. It's not a catastrophe by any means, but it does show that star Tom Cruise's public persona and negative publicity plus a raft of mediocre reviews for the film have put a dent in his plans to rule the universe.

Grays says the new "Mission" numbers are a disappointment because both installments 1 and 2 did much better. "They each sold around 50 percent more tickets on their opening weekends (Friday-Sunday)," Gray says, "despite opening on Wednesdays."

At this rate, Cruise may want some kind of pharmacological drug to ease the pain on Sunday night. Paramount execs definitely will.

Former Playmate of the Year Anna Nicole Smith won a unanimous U.S. Supreme
Court ruling on Monday and gets a new chance to collect millions of dollars she
says her late Texas oil tycoon husband promised her.
The justices overturned
a U.S. appeals court ruling that the former topless dancer was entitled to
nothing because federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear claims that are also
involved in state probate hearings.
Smith was 26 when she married oil tycoon
J. Howard Marshall, then 89, in 1994. They met three years earlier when she was
dancing in a Houston bar.