Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' allies on Capitol Hill have grown more scarce as he left it largely to aides to carry out President Bush's order to straighten out the story behind the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

Senate Republicans leaving their weekly policy lunch Tuesday no longer bothered to defend Gonzales' response to lawmakers' questions about the firings. At most, they mustered an appeal to withhold judgment until the attorney general testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 17.

That was Sen. Arlen Specter's message during the closed-door meeting, according to three senators who were present.

"Senator Specter today said to give (Gonzales) a fair chance," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican and a staunch White House ally who lunched with Gonzales last week. "I think people are trying to do that. But there are some inconsistent stories he (Gonzales) is going to have to explain."

Among them: Why Gonzales said March 13 that he "never saw documents" and "never had a discussion" about the firings. Recently released documents show he participated in an hourlong meeting and approved a detailed plan on the dismissals 10 days before they were carried out.

Gonzales has maintained he was not closely involved in the firings, and did not help select which prosecutors would be told to resign.

Monica Goodling's announcement that she would take the Fifth Amendment to avoid possibly incriminating herself came as the embattled attorney general cast himself as misunderstood in his conflicting accounts of his involvement in the firings. Goodling is the Justice Department's liaison to the White House.

Gonzales was to be in Cincinnati and Chicago on Tuesday in the latest leg of a multistate tour to promote a crackdown on child sex abuse and soothe U.S. attorneys who might be smarting over the dismissals.

Fending off calls for his resignation, Gonzales on Monday said he was "really pained" by Republicans and Democrats who say he has lost his credibility in dealing with the firings. A growing number of critics say the dismissals were politically motivated.

He sought to stem the furor over his March 13 statement that he "never saw documents" and "never had a discussion" about the firings. His schedule for last Nov. 27 showed he participated in an hourlong meeting and approved a detailed plan on the dismissals. He maintained he was not closely involved in the firings, and did not help select which prosecutors would be told to resign.

Asked why he would want to remain as attorney general amid so many calls for his ouster, Gonzales said he‘s been asking himself lately whether it‘s appropriate for him to stay in his job.

But, he said, "at the end of the day, it‘s not about Alberto Gonzales. It‘s about this great Department of Justice that does so many wonderful things for the American people."

The House voted 329-78 to strip the attorney general of his power to indefinitely appoint federal prosecutors, approving a bill similar to one passed in the Senate. President Bush , who is standing by Gonzales, has signaled that he will not veto the legislation.

In the ruling, the judge said parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit the rights of others to free speech.

"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall.

The law would have criminalized Web sites that allow children to access material deemed "harmful to minors" by "contemporary community standards." The sites would have been expected to require a credit card number or other proof of age. Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.

Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other Web sites backed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law. They argued that the Child Online Protection Act was unconstitutionally vague and would have had a chilling effect on speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction in 2004 on grounds the law was likely to be struck down and was perhaps outdated.

Technology experts said parents now have more serious concerns than Web sites with pornography. For instance, the threat of online predators has caused worries among parents whose children use social-networking sites such as News Corp.'s MySpace.

The case sparked a legal firestorm last year when Google challenged a Justice Department subpoena seeking information on what people search for online. Government lawyers had asked Google to turn over 1 million random Web addresses and a week's worth of Google search queries.

A judge sharply limited the scope of the subpoena, which Google had fought on trade secret, not privacy, grounds.

To defend the nine-year-old Child Online Protection Act, government lawyers attacked software filters as burdensome and less effective, even though they have previously defended their use in public schools and libraries.

"It is not reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their children, rather than the government's addressing the problem at its source," a government attorney, Peter D. Keisler, argued in a post-trial brief.

Critics of the law argued that filters work best because they let parents set limits based on their own values and their child's age.

The law addressed material accessed by children under 17, but applied only to content hosted in the United States.

The Web sites that challenged the law said fear of prosecution might lead them to shut down or move their operations offshore, beyond the reach of the U.S. law. They also said the Justice Department could do more to enforce obscenity laws already on the books.

The 1998 law followed Congress' unsuccessful 1996 effort to ban online pornography. The Supreme Court in 1997 deemed key portions of that law unconstitutional because it was too vague and trampled on adults' rights.

The newer law narrowed the restrictions to commercial Web sites and defined indecency more specifically.

In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring schools and libraries to use software filters if they receive certain federal funds. The high court upheld that law in 2003.

The memos, organized as charts with entries for each of the federal prosecutors and labeled "for internal DOJ use only," offer new details about disputes over policy, priorities and management styles between the department and several of its U.S. attorneys.

The prosecutors' shortcomings also were listed in a talking-points memo, indicating the willingness of the Justice Department to make public what are normally confidential personnel matters in order to counter its critics.

Justice Department officials hoped that documenting specific reasons for terminating the prosecutors would satisfy demands for more information after Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales and his deputy, Paul J. McNulty, described the dismissals as vaguely "performance-related."

According to the charts, as well as e-mails and other documents made public Monday and Tuesday, Carol C. Lam in San Diego was dismissed for not prosecuting more firearms and border smuggling cases, and for repeatedly missing deadlines.

David C. Iglesias in Albuquerque traveled so much he was considered an "absentee landlord."

In San Francisco, where Kevin Ryan was fired, "the office has become the most fractured office in the nation, morale has fallen to the point that it is harming our prosecutorial efforts and [Ryan] has lost the confidence of many of the career prosecutors who are leaving the office."

The justification was equally sweeping for Paul Charlton in Phoenix: "Repeated instances of insubordination, actions taken contrary to instructions, and actions that were clearly unauthorized."

As for Margaret M. Chiara in Grand Rapids, Mich., the memo advised saying nothing about her dismissal because she had not made public statements in her defense. But the memo also said that "if pushed," the department should say morale in her office was low and that Chiara had lost the support of her staff.

The documents show that in a separate chain of e-mails, former White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers mused in November, a month before the firings, about whether President Bush should be briefed about the terminations.

With a number of Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress calling for Gonzales to step aside as the nation's chief law enforcement officer, Bush telephoned him early on Tuesday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

"The president reaffirmed his strong backing and support of the attorney general," Perino said.

Congressional committees plan to vote this week on whether to subpoena those who refuse to testify. They are particularly interested in hearing from White House political strategist Karl Rove. A former aide to Rove was named to replace one of the prosecutors fired last year.

Critics charge the administration dismissed the prosecutors to make room for its allies or because it felt some were too tough on Republicans and not tough enough on Democrats.

Recently released documents showed the administration had considered firing all the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys, each a Bush appointee, at the end of president's first term in January 2005. But later it decided to dismiss just eight.

The documents also showed the U.S. attorneys were judged on such factors as their effectiveness as well as their loyalty to the administration.

Former prosecutors said they were given little if any reason for their dismissal and were warned the administration might retaliate if they complained. The administration denied any such threats.

Many Republicans lawmakers have said publicly that no judgment should be made on Gonzales until the facts are determined.

A lawsuit alleging female inmates in Wisconsin receive deficient medical care took another step forward Thursday.

In a class action lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, female prisoners at the Taycheedah Correctional Institution argued their rights were violated by severe lapses in medical treatment including inadequate access to doctors and life-threatening gaps in prescription drug treatment.

Prison officials argued they were not aware of such healthcare conditions at the prison and asked Judge Rudolph Randa of the U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, to dismiss the suit.

Randa instead ruled the case should proceed.