These meetings produced a plan, the Huston Plan, which advocated the systematic use of wiretappings, burglaries, or so-called black bag jobs, mail openings and infiltration against anti-war groups and others. Some of these activities, as Huston emphasised to Nixon, were clearly illegal. Nevertheless, the president approved the plan. Five days later, after opposition from the FBI director, J Edgar Hoover, the plan was withdrawn, but the president's approval was later to be listed in the articles of impeachment as an alleged abuse of presidential power.

Would you say that there are certain situations - and the Huston Plan was one of them - where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation, and do something illegal?
Richard Nixon: Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.

By definition.
Exactly, exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.

The point is: the dividing line is the president's judgment?
Yes, and, so that one does not get the impression that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate. We also have to have in mind that a president has to get appropriations from the Congress. We have to have in mind, for example, that as far as the CIA's covert operations are concerned, as far as the FBI's covert operations are concerned, through the years, they have been disclosed on a very, very limited basis to trusted members of Congress.

Speaking of the presidency, you stated: "It's quite obvious that there are certain inherently government activities, which, if undertaken by the sovereign in protection of the interests of the nation's security, are lawful, but which if undertaken by private persons, are not." What, at root, did you have in mind there?
Well, what I had in mind I think was perhaps much better stated by Lincoln during the war between the States. Lincoln said, and I think I can remember the quote almost exactly: "Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the constitution and the nation."

Now that's the kind of action I'm referring to. Of course in Lincoln's case it was the survival of the Union in wartime, it's the defense of the nation and, who knows, perhaps the survival of the nation.

But there is no comparison, is there, between the situation you faced and the situation Lincoln faced?
This nation was torn apart in an ideological way by the war in Vietnam, as much as the civil war tore apart the nation when Lincoln was president. Now it's true that we didn't have the north and the south ...

But when you said, as you said when we were talking about the Huston Plan, "If the president orders it, that makes it legal", is there anything in the constitution or the bill of rights that suggests the president is that much of a sovereign, that far above the law?
No, there isn't. There's nothing specific that the constitution contemplates. I haven't read every word, every jot and every tittle, but I do know that it has been argued that, as far as a president is concerned, that in wartime, a president does have certain extraordinary powers which would make acts that would otherwise be unlawful, lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the nation and the constitution, which is essential for the rights we're all talking about.

My reading of the transcript of the tapes tells me, trying to read them in an open-minded way, that the writing, not just between the lines, but on so many of the lines, is very, very clear - that you were in fact, endorsing at least the short-term solution of paying this sum of money to buy time. That would be my reading of it. But the other point to be said is: here's [John] Dean [White House Counsel] talking about this hush money, for [one of the Watergate burglars, E Howard] Hunt, talking about blackmail and all of that. I would say that you endorsed or ratified it. But let's leave that on one side ...
I didn't endorse or ratify it.

Why didn't you stop it?
Because at that point I had no knowledge of the fact that it was going to be paid.

What I don't understand about March 21 is that I still don't know why you didn't pick up the phone and tell the cops. You had found out about the things that [HR "Bob"] Haldeman [White House Chief of Staff] and [John] Erlichman [Nixon's chief domestic advisor] had done but there is no evidence anywhere of a rebuke. But only of scenarios and excuses etc. Nowhere do you say we must get this information direct to whomever: the head of the justice department criminal investigation or whatever. And nowhere do you say to Haldeman and Erlichman "This is disgraceful conduct".
Well, could I take my time now to address that question. I think it will be very useful to you to know what I was going through. It wasn't a very easy time. Here was the situation I was faced with: Who's going to talk to these men [Erlichman and Haldeman]? What can we do about it? Well, first let me say that I didn't have anyone who could talk to them but me. It took me two weeks to work it out, tortuous long sessions, hours and hours of talks with them, which they resisted - we don't need to go through all that agony. And I remember the day at Camp David when they came up. Haldeman came in first. He said, "I disagree with your decision totally". He said, "I think it's going to eventually ... you're going to live to regret it, but I will." Erlichman then came in. I knew that Erlichman was bitter because he felt very strongly that he shouldn't resign. Although he had even indicated that perhaps Haldeman should go and he should stay.

I said, "You know, John [Erlichman], when I went to bed last night I hoped, I almost prayed, that I wouldn't wake up this morning." Well, it was an emotional moment; I think there were tears in our eyes, both of us. He said, "Don't say that." We went back in, and they agreed to leave. It was late, but I did it. I cut off one arm and then cut off the other.

Now, I can be faulted; I recognise it. Maybe I defended them too long, maybe I tried to help them too much, but I was concerned about them, I was concerned about their families. I felt that they, and their hearts felt that they, were not guilty. I felt they ought to have a chance at least to prove that they were not guilty. And I didn't want to be in the position of just sawing them off in that way.

And I suppose you could sum it all up the way one of your British prime ministers summed it up, Gladstone, when he said that the first requirement for a prime minister is to be a good butcher. Well, I think, as far as summary of Watergate is concerned, I did some of the big things rather well. I screwed up terribly on what was a little thing and became a big thing, but I will have to admit I wasn't a good butcher.

You have explained how you have got caught up in this thing, you've explained your motives: I don't want to quibble about any of that. But just coming to the substance: would you go further than "mistakes" - the word that seems not enough for people?
What word would you suggest?

My goodness, that's a ... I think that there are three things, since you asked me. I would like to hear you say ... I think the American people would like to hear you say ... One is: there was probably more than mistakes; there was wrongdoing, whether it was a crime or not; yes it may have been a crime too. Second: I did - and I'm saying this without questioning the motives - I did abuse the power I had as president, or not fulfil the totality of the oath of office. And third: I put the American people through two years of needless agony and I apologise for that. And I say that you've explained your motives, I think those are the categories. And I know how difficult it is for anyone, and most of all you, but I think that people need to hear it and I think unless you say it you are going to be haunted by it for the rest of your life.
I well remember when I let Haldeman and Erlichman know that they were to resign, that I had Ray Price [Nixon's speechwriter] bring in the final draft of the speech that I was to make the next night and I said to him, "Ray, if you think I ought to resign, put that in too, because I feel responsible." Even though I did not feel that I had engaged in these activities consciously in so far as the knowledge of, or participation in, the break-in, the approval of hush-money, the approval of clemency etc, there are various charges that have been made. Well, he didn't put it in, and I must say that at that time I seriously considered whether I shouldn't resign, but on the other hand I feel that I owe it to history, to point out that from that time on April 30, until I resigned on August 9, I did some things that were good for this country. We had the second and third summits. I think one of the major reasons I stayed in office, was my concern about keeping the China initiative, the Soviet initiative, the Vietnam fragile peace agreement and then an added dividend, the first breakthrough in moving toward - not love, but at least not war - in the Middle East. And, coming back to the whole point of whether I should have resigned then and how I feel now, let me say I didn't make mistakes in just this period; I think some of my mistakes that I regret most deeply came with the statements that I made afterwards. Some of those statements were misleading. I noticed, for example, the managing editor of the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, wrote, a couple, three months ago, as far as his newspaper was concerned: "We don't print the truth; we print what we know, we print what people tell us and this means that we print lies."

I would say that the statements that I made afterwards were, on the big issues, true - that I was not involved in the matters that I have spoken about; not involved in the break in; that I did not engage in, and participate in, or approve the payment of money, or the authorisation of clemency, which of course were the essential elements of the cover-up - that was true. But, the statements were misleading in that enormous political attack I was under: it was a five-front war with a fifth column. I had a partisan senate committee staff, we had a partisan special prosecutors staff, we had a partisan media, we had a partisan judiciary committee staff, and a fifth column. Now under these circumstances, my reactions and some of these statements, from press conferences and so forth after that, I want to say right here and now, I said things that were not true. Most of them were fundamentally true on the big issues, but without going as far as I should have gone and saying perhaps that I had considered other things, but not done them. And for all those things I have a very deep regret.

You got caught up in something and it snowballed?
It snowballed, and it was my fault. I'm not blaming anybody else. I'm simply saying to you that as far as I'm concerned, I not only regret it. I indicated my own beliefs in this matter when I resigned. People didn't think it was enough to admit mistakes; fine. If they want me to get down and grovel on the floor; no, never. Because I don't believe I should. On the other hand there are some friends who say, "just face 'em down. There's a conspiracy to get you." There may have been. I don't know what the CIA had to do. Some of their shenanigans have yet to be told, according to a book I read recently. I don't know what was going on in some Republican, some Democratic circles as far as the so-called impeachment lobby was concerned. However, I don't go with the idea that there ... that what brought me down was a coup, a conspiracy etc. I brought myself down. I gave them a sword, and they stuck it in and they twisted it with relish. And I guess if I had been in their position, I'd have done the same thing.

Could you just say, with conviction, I mean not because I want you to say it, that you did do some covering up. We're not talking legalistically now; I just want the facts. You did do some covering up. There was some time when you were overwhelmed by your loyalties or whatever else, you protected your friends, or maybe yourself. In fact you were, to put it at its most simple, part of a cover-up at times.
No, I again respectfully will not quibble with you about the use of the terms. However, before using the term I think it's very important for me to make clear what I did not do and what I did do and then I will answer your question quite directly. I did not in the first place commit the crime of obstruction of justice, because I did not have the motive required for the commission of that crime.

We disagree on that.
I did not commit, in my view, an impeachable offence. Now, the House has ruled overwhelmingly that I did. Of course, that was only an indictment, and it would have to be tried in the Senate. I might have won, I might have lost. But even if I had won in the Senate by a vote or two, I would have been crippled. And in any event, for six months the country couldn't afford having the president in the dock in the United States Senate. And there can never be an impeachment in the future in this country without a president voluntarily impeaching himself. I have impeached myself. That speaks for itself.

How do you mean "I have impeached myself"?
By resigning. That was a voluntary impeachment. Now, what does that mean in terms of whether I ... you're wanting me to say that I participated in an illegal cover-up. No. Now when you come to the period, and this is the critical period, when you come to the period of March 21 on, when Dean gave his legal opinion, that certain things, actions taken by, Haldeman, Erlichman, [attorney general John] Mitchell et cetera, and even by himself amounted to illegal coverups and so forth, then I was in a very different position. And during that period, I will admit, that I started acting as lawyer for their defence. I will admit, that acting as lawyer for their defence, I was not prosecuting the case. I will admit that during that period, rather than acting primarily in my role as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America, or at least with the responsibility of law enforcement, because the attorney general is the chief law enforcement officer, but as the one with the chief responsibility for seeing that the laws of the United States are enforced, that I did not meet that responsibility. And to the extent that I did not meet that responsibility, to the extent that within the law, and in some cases going right to the edge of the law in trying to advise Erlichman and Haldeman and all the rest in how best to present their cases, because I thought that they were legally innocent, that I came to the edge. And under the circumstances I would have to say that a reasonable person could call that a cover-up. I didn't think of it as a cover-up. I didn't intend it to cover-up.

Let me say, if I intended to cover-up, believe me, I'd have done it. You know how I could have done it so easy? I could have done it immediately after the election simply by giving clemency to everybody. And the whole thing would have gone away. I couldn't do that because I said clemency was wrong. But now we come down to the key point and let me answer it in my own way about how I feel about the American people. I mean about whether I should have resigned earlier or what I should say to them now. Well, that forces me to rationalise now and give you a carefully prepared and cropped statement. I didn't expect this question, frankly though, so I'm not going to give you that. But I can tell you this ...

Nor did I.
I can tell you this. I think I said it all in one of those moments that you're not thinking sometimes you say the things that are really in your heart. When you're thinking in advance and you say things that are, you know, tailored to the audience. I had a lot of difficult meetings in those last days and the most difficult one, the only one where I broke into tears, frankly except for that very brief session with Erlichman up at Camp David, that was the first time I cried since Eisenhower died. I met with all of my key supporters just the halfhour before going on television. For 25 minutes we all sat around the Oval Office, men that I had come to Congress with, Democrats and Republicans, about half and half. Wonderful men. And at the very end, after saying thank you for all your support during these tough years, thank you particularly for what you have done to help us end the draft, bring home the POWs, have a chance for building a generation of peace, which I could see the dream I had possibly being shattered, and thank you for your friendship, little acts of friendship over the years, you sort of remember with a birthday card and all the rest. Then suddenly you haven't got much more to say and half the people around the table were crying. And I just can't stand seeing somebody else cry. And that ended it for me. And I just, well, I must say I sort of cracked up. Started to cry, pushed my chair back.

And then I blurted it out. And I said, "I'm sorry. I just hope I haven't let you down." Well, when I said: "I just hope I haven't let you down," that said it all. I had: I let down my friends, I let down the country, I let down our system of government and the dreams of all those young people that ought to get into government but will think it is all too corrupt and the rest. Most of all I let down an opportunity I would have had for two and a half more years to proceed on great projects and programmes for building a lasting peace. Which has been my dream, as you know since our first interview in 1968 before I had any, when I thought I might win that year. I didn't tell you I thought I might not win that year, but I wasn't sure. Yep, I let the American people down. And I have to carry that burden with me for the rest of my life. My political life is over. I will never yet, and never again, have an opportunity to serve in any official position. Maybe I can give a little advice from time to time. And so I can only say that in answer to your question that while technically I did not commit a crime, an impeachable offence - these are legalisms. As far as the handling of this matter is concerned, it was so botched up, I made so many bad judgments. The worst ones mistakes of the heart rather than mistakes of the head, as I pointed out, but let me say a man in that top judge job, he's got to have a heart, but his head must always rule his heart.

RADIATION therapy is a powerful tool for improving the survival rate of those diagnosed with certain forms of cancer. But the dozens of doses of high-energy radiation involved carry a risk, as healthy cells are zapped along with cancerous ones. Many short-term and long-term consequences are well known, including an increased risk of developing new cancers decades after successful treatment. But improvements in early diagnoses, chemotherapy and surgery (as well as, lately, immunology) have combined with radiation to produce larger numbers of cancer survivors living beyond the ten-year mark from the end of treatment. This has brought a previously suspected link into sharper focus: radiation-induced heart disease (RIHD). On July 16th a study called for higher level of cardiovascular screening in cancer survivors. But how can radiation therapy cause heart disease?

Oncologists use radiation, typically X-rays, to fight cancerous cells for many forms of the disease. The therapy may be used to destroy or shrink tumours, to halt malignancies, to reduce the odds of recurrence or to reduce the severity of the disease. Cancer cells tend to divide rapidly and often uncontrollably. Radiation causes the most harm to cells in the process of division. Bodies are remarkably resilient, however, and despite often challenging short-term effects, tissues recover and long-term damage in those that avoid the recurrence of cancer is often minor. However, the heart has been found to suffer the most, particularly with radiation to the thorax or mediastinum, the central part of the thoracic cavity. After radiation, the heart's efforts to repair itself appear to lead to thickening and calcification of tissues and inflamed arteries. This, in turn, substantially increases the risk of heart diseases, including atherosclerosis (thickening of the arteries), pericardial disease (damage to the heart's surrounding membrane) and congestive heart failure. Certain chemotherapy drugs may exacerbate some effects as well.

Suspicions that radiation therapy led to increased risk of heart disease date back to the 1970s. The British Medical Journal examined evidence in 1976 and dismissed concerns as minor. But the number of long-term survivors of cancers treated with radiation near the heart—notably Hodgkin's Disease, breast cancer and lung cancer—only began to swell in the 1990s, providing more data to study. A 2007 review by the American Society of Clinical Oncology put the incidence of some form of RIHD at between 10% and 30% by five to ten years after treatment. Now the European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging and theJournal of the American Society of Echocardiography have recommended that the link between radiation and heart disease is clear enough for oncologists and cardiologists to carry out heart checks on patients undergoing radiation therapy. Before the therapy begins, they say, tests should establish a patient's cardiovascular health; immediately after, tests should determine the extent of any short-term damage. Oncologists and general practitioners should look out for symptoms in the years that follow, even if deemed unlikely because of age or the absence of other risk factors. High-risk patients should receive non-invasive echocardiographic (sonogram-like) screening at five years following radiation, says Patrizio Lancellotti, chair of the group that produced the recommendation; others, at ten years. The recommendation may be enough to send former radiation patients scurrying to their doctors.

Patients face an unappealing choice: have radiation therapy and risk later getting heart disease; avoid it, and reduce the chance of surviving cancer. But the news is not all bad. Some forms of heart disease, notably atherosclerosis, appear to be far more common when radiation therapy is coupled with other risky behaviour, such as smoking or having a fatty diet. That knowledge may steer younger patients into healthier lifestyles. Catching problems earlier with screening can prevent medical or surgical interventions. Conventional cardiac therapies work for cancer survivors as well as the general population, even though the need comes earlier in life or for otherwise atypical sufferers. The best news of all is that because of the increased concern decades ago about RIHD, radiation therapy was modified to reduce energy to the heart both in intensity and by using shielding to limit the area exposed. As a result, researchers expect that even as the pool of cancer survivors who received radiation therapy will grow, the percentage suffering from related heart disease should shrink.

Extroverts are generally happier, studies show. And research shows introverts feel happier when they act extroverted.

Both introverts and extroverts can be adept at public speaking. But whereas an extrovert might afterward want to interact with others in a large group, introverts might feel the need for self-reflection and time alone, such as by taking a walk.

Finally, Dwight Howard felt Houston’s warm — a good 100 degrees worth of warm — embrace.

He was hugged by Hall of Famers at Toyota Center and hailed by throngs, an estimated 10,000 strong, outside. He was celebrated and cheered, welcomed as everything from a worthy member of the lineage of Rockets superstar centers to “the missing piece,” as Hakeem Olajuwon put it, to a championship team.

Yet for all the famous faces and all the festivities, Howard was simply happy. He is the Rockets’ center, having made his choice he said just for himself. All the insinuations and accusations were gone, at least inside that arena and on that downtown street. The shots that he said had thickened his skin were put aside.

Howard, 27, did not mind the expectations. He spoke of winning an NBA championship. He endorsed Rockets coach Kevin McHale’s suggestion he should dominate as he had when he had become Rockets general manager Daryl Morey’s target for two seasons of trade talks, roster manipulations and all-out recruiting pitches. He beamed that famous smile hour after hour.

Finally, as he took a seat in Rockets owner Leslie Alexander’s suite, he drank it all in, and said he was at last content and at home.

“It’s a great feeling,” Howard said. “All the stuff I’ve been through and the way people have tried to have me perceived, it’s a good feeling to be loved. It’s a good feeling to be wanted. After all these years, people still genuinely care. It means a lot.

“It’s a new beginning. A new age; that’s our team motto. But it’s really a new beginning for me. Coming here, having my family at the press conference. This didn’t happen when I first got in the NBA. It’s a great feeling. And then, having the fans and everybody show up, all the people who showed up today, it’s really, really big for me. I haven’t eaten all day, but I’m full. And I say I’m full it’s because people here just filled my heart with joy.”

‘One big family’

Howard had said all along that was what he wanted to find as a free agent, listing his happiness second after the pursuit of a championship-caliber team.

This was the message Alexander delivered two weeks ago in Los Angeles when he and Howard walked away from a dinner meeting at the Hotel Bel-Air and found a bench to talk privately. Howard said the conversation that night might have done more to convince him than anything else said by that large delegation of Rockets representatives, or the groups that would follow.

Alexander would not share what he said, but the point was clear.

“The theme was if he comes here it will be more like one big family,” Alexander said. “He will be taken care of. We take care of our players. And he’ll enjoy himself in a different atmosphere than he’s used to.”

Howard did not feel that level of acceptance in his one season with the Lakers. But by Saturday at Toyota Center, when Alexander introduced him, he left the script he had prepared to hit on that theme again.

“Happiness is really part of it,” Alexander said. “If you can be a great player and can’t be happy, what good is it? He will be very happy here. Dwight recognized his childhood dreams would come true as a Rocket.

“Dwight is a great player. I don’t think people realize how great he is. He’s going to show that in Houston. He’s going to have the staff around him. He’s going to have the players around him. And you’re also going to see what an engaging personality he is. He likes to smile. He’s a warm, engaging guy. People think because he smiles, he doesn’t care as much. That’s stupid. It’s just stupid.”

Those impressions of Howard have been common throughout his career before his indecision about remaining in Orlando or leaving L.A. led to other labels. Long before his seriousness was questioned on the cover of Sports Illustrated, his father questioned his 10-year-old son’s unrelenting smile on the court, approving only when Howard proved he could win happily.

Joy, winning can coexist

“You can do both,” said Rockets coach Kevin McHale, whom Howard called ‘Old School.’ “When I was back in college this guy in East Lansing, Magic Johnson, kicked my tail in college. Kicked my tail in the pros, too. He smiled while he did it. He had fun. You have to play hard. I don’t have any problem at all with Dwight having fun. You’re supposed to have fun. We’re truly blessed to play in the NBA. It is the best job you’ll ever have in your life. If you can’t enjoy it, you’re crazy.”

But McHale does have high expectations. He said he expects nothing less than domination.

“He can dominate the game so many different ways and he has dominated,” McHale said. “He’s had multiple seasons he’s been the most dominant big man in the NBA. He’s in his prime. Can he improve? Will he improve? Absolutely. You’re not taking a guy that’s not a well-established player. He has been the dominant big man in the NBA for multiple years.”
Howard, 6-11, said later that is what he expects, too.
“Before I got injured,” he said, “that’s what I did every night.”

But Howard chose the Rockets to chase a championship and knew that he will be measured against that standard. He reached the Finals in 2009 with the Orlando Magic, and the conference finals the next season. He has not won a playoff round in the four seasons since.

Following a feeling

“We have a great opportunity,” Howard said. “I’m not going to get up here and say we’re going to win five championships. I’m not going to do that. If we really dedicate ourselves and sacrifice everything we got for a championship, at the end of the season, we should be holding the trophy.”

For now, he was happy just to start over. Saturday marked not just the beginning of his tenure with the Rockets, but the end of the tumult of the previous two seasons, the end of the free-agency decision. The spotlight will follow him. The pressures and expectations will not change. But he seemed at peace with all of that, ready to embrace Houston back and to call, even a sweltering summer afternoon, “a beautiful day.”

“I had a good feeling in my soul about everything, the direction of the team, Les, Kevin, Daryl, everybody,” Howard said. “I just had a good feeling about what they were trying to accomplish. Talking to the guys, I just felt good about the situation.

“The one thing I kept telling myself is ‘I want to get past all of this. I’m not going to let this defeat me.’ Last year, I was really coming back off of injuries. I fought through that. This season, I get to start fresh. All that stuff is behind me. There’s no looking back. I know I made the right decision. I’m just ready. I’m ready.

“It’s a beautiful day, man. I’m excited to be here. I’m glad to have all that stuff over with and have a chance to start fresh. I’m looking forward to this opportunity. I think it’s going to be great. I’m ready. I’m ready.”

The crossing from Dublin to the Welsh port of Holyhead is sometimes quietly referred to as the Abortion Ferry. Ireland’s laws are so strict that a hospital let a woman die last year rather than give her life-saving treatment that might have harmed her fetus. Ireland is an outlier among European states on abortion rights, but a closer look at European laws might bring some valuable perspective to the U.S. debate.

In contrast to Ireland, abortion is available on demand almost everywhere in Europe during the first trimester. Each country varies in the details, but later term abortions are available only under exceptions related to the health of the mother or fetal abnormalities. These situations usually require some official medical review.

Some countries like Germany, Italy, Luxemburg, and Belgium require counseling or a waiting period even in the first trimester. Like Ireland, a handful of countries either outlaw the practice or make it highly impractical, including Poland, Malta, and Cyprus. Though abortion is broadly available and free, Western European countries have the lowest rates of abortion in the world.

Beyond Ireland and Poland, abortion rarely draws a much political interest. The more restrictive countries are beginning to liberalize their laws, but there is no meaningful political will to remove the modest abortion restrictions that exist in places like Germany and France. Across the bulk of Europe, abortion can fairly be regarded as a settled issue.

The consensus in Europe is more restrictive than abortion laws across much of the U.S. Technically, under the terms of the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence no U.S. state may bar an abortion before the fetus reaches viability, roughly 24 weeks. In practice of course, states are cooking up numerous different ways to make abortion impractical or at least humiliating without overtly violating that standard. And although late term abortions are legal across much of the US, they are extremely rare. There are four doctors in the US who perform third-trimester abortions.

Just last week Ireland passed legislation which may eventually let a woman receive an abortion if continuing the pregnancy threatens her life. A final vote is due this week. The Catholic Church remains staunchly opposed to even this very limited measure.

As protestors gather to challenge Rick Perry’s efforts to shut down most Texas abortion clinics, a glance at Europe might offer some suggestions for the shape of a more or less final compromise on the question of abortion. And for those who take solace from “it could be worse” scenarios, Ireland plays its usual role. Though a small crack is appearing in Ireland’s iron laws, “Mary still boards the ferry.”

If you give employees the right to telework, be careful!

The very technology that enables telecommuting and working from home could be destroying its value. Although productivity may increase in the short term, working from home may prevent your teams from working effectively.

When Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer sent a letter to all employees rescinding their right to work from home, gasps of shock were heard across the world—from Washington’s Bureau of Labor Statistics to Necker Island, Caribbean home office of Virgin boss, Richard Branson.

The Yahoo decision brought teleworking back into the spotlight for organizations and their staff. Towering above the should-they-shouldn’t-theydebate was this unasked question:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that one in four of U.S. workers works from home, at least some of the time.Why Not?
Why don’t we all work from home? After all, this is the age of hyperconnectivity, always-on devices, and high bandwidth connections:

Yet company bosses are busy renting more office space. Why?

Command And Control 
The intuitive answer would be that many companies worry about losing control of their employees. Teleworkers frequently back this perception by citing difficulties in performance reviews, when compared to their office-based peers.

There may be some truth to these, but neither is the full story.

Yes, remote workers may indeed be more carefree, happier and productive, but that doesn’t mean they’re good for their companies. A company is more than just the work that needs to be done, plus the workers who are there to do it.

A healthy organization has a culture that allows the sharing of values and ideas, the formation of a corporate identity, and the sense of competitive urgency that allows a company to be agile and innovative.

However, working from home can fail to fire up remote workers in the same way as a shared company environment. As a result, companies suffer—despite the increases in productivity and staff morale that come with teleworking.

The Case Against Teleworking 
While Yahoo raised eyebrows with its decision, resistance to teleworking comes from companies that would normally be expected to support it.

Google workers, for instance, are brought into Mountain View on a free wi-fi enabled bus, and they’re encouraged to spend up to 20% of their time on projects other than their own work. Yet when it comes to working from home, the company line is to keep it to the barest minimum, unless it involves putting in extra hours after leaving the office.

When even hyperconnected tech companies that want you to take time off work, at work, frown on working remotely, the suggestion that it’s all about controlling employees seems to stand on shaky ground.

Creativity And Institutional MemoryUltimately a company is only as good as its people. The value of each worker centers on the knowledge they have and the knowledge they can gain.

In work environments that see co-workers mingle and shoot the breeze around the water cooler, some real learning gets done. A lot of information exchange takes place, which allows the very same workers to increase their value to the organization. They’re able to tap into this undocumented flow of information and knowledge.

Marissa Mayer’s oft-cited letter to Yahoo employees stated:

(Emphasis mine.) She wasn’t referring so much to the quality of work done as to the qualities that employees bring to a company when they get together around the water cooler and talk shop.

She probably learned this while at Google. It’s a sentiment echoed by Google’s CFO, Patrick Pichette. In an interview with Australian journalist Ben Grubb, he explained Google’s counterintuitive anti-teleworking stance:

Magical or not, the fact remains that teleworking generally doesn’t work well, because corporations still haven’t solved the issues of remote learning, knowledge sharing, or firing up ideas. If that “magic” is to happen, you still need office face-time.

The Bottom Line
As technological change accelerates and marketplace pressures intensify, companies need to become ever more agile and innovative, just to keep up.

Paradoxically, the very technology that made teleworking a real option is now conspiring to keep workers in the office.