The following are editorial opinions from newspapers from around the world which may be of interest to Royal Gazette readers.The Columbian, Vancouver, Wash., on working mothersMommy guilt leads to mommy studies, and a recent one is receiving a collective sigh of relief.

Unlike studies that measure the number of hours working mothers spend away from home, a demographer at the University of Maryland, Suzanne Bianchi, analysed how any amount of time at home is spent. She found that when working moms are home, the direct time they say they spend with their children is ten or 11 hours a week. That amount of time rivals the number of hours stay-at-home moms of the 1970s reported spending with their children in direct activities, rather than just being accessible around the house.

It isn’t that the June Cleavers of the past were busy doing nothing. But kids likely were more in the background. Moms used to read the paper while kids played independently, for example. Now moms save reading until the kids go to bed — or skip such activities altogether. ...

We hope the study relieves some pressure on moms who are trying their best to do it all. Expectations of parents are, in some ways, higher than ever. And both working and stay-home parents are making a lot of personal sacrifices (sleep, free time, spouse time) in order to accommodate the schedules of a child-centered society.The Cincinnati Enquirer, on Elizabeth EdwardsThe recurrence of Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer has brought a sobering pause to a campaign trail where, 592 days before the next presidential election, pollsters are already obsessively calculating and re-calculating candidates’ “chances.” ...

The news sent political analysts hurrying to predict about the illness would affect John Edwards’ campaign — whether contributors would quietly back out, if the couple could endure the arduous campaign trail, whether voters would be sympathetic or sceptical about electing a public leader who would be forced to deal privately with a loved one’s fatal disease.

Meanwhile, the couple flew off on a fundraising sweep that took in both coasts.

The gesture wasn’t melodramatic or even overly symbolic. The fundraisers had been planned in advance. The Edwards simply kept their commitment. ...

But while others try to calculate the “cancer factor,” the Edwards are using their best weapon to fend off its intrusiveness. They are making decisions about those matters that are left in their hands to decide. ...The Watertown (N.Y.) Daily Times, on DNA database>The federal government and states have established databases containing the DNA of convicted criminals and in some states even the accused. The databases, though, are governed by laws that define who will be required to provide DNA samples and under what circumstances they may be retained in the ever-expanding systems.

The use of DNA in crime-solving is indisputable. The databases containing samples of millions of criminals and suspects nationwide serve that purpose. The system maintained by the FBI has solved more than 35,000 crimes since 1990.

But there are also limits to the databases. The FBI cannot store samples of suspects who have been acquitted or from those who voluntarily supply a DNA sample to prove themselves innocent.

Some states require samples from a broad range of crimes, including misdemeanours, while others demand genetic material from those convicted of more serious crimes.

However, while guidelines exist on the federal and state databases, some agencies at the local level are maintaining their own systems without the legislative controls. They operate in a grey area of the law with conflicting court rulings on the databases’ legality, USA Today reports. ...

At the least, the databases maintained by municipal police or other law enforcement agencies should be required to operate under the same restraints as those maintained by state and federal authorities. Otherwise they circumvent and effectively set aside restrictions meant to protect the innocent and ensure privacy.