GALLEGLY UNDER FIRE TO EXPLAIN CONDITION.

Byline: Lisa Friedman Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - After drawing attention to his health by first trying to bow out of upcoming congressional elections and then jumping back in to the race, Rep. Elton Gallegly should explain his medical condition to voters, the chairwoman of the Ventura County Republican Party said Thursday.

Gallegly, 62, R-Thousand Oaks, initially cited an unspecified medical problem when he tried to step out of the 2006 congressional race last week. But after intense pressure from GOP leaders and President Bush, he declared Wednesday that the health issues have now been fully resolved and he will, in fact, campaign for re-election and serve a full term if elected.

In calling for full health disclosure, Chairwoman Leslie Conejo joined a growing chorus of ethicists and political analysts who said Gallegly's most recent announcement raises more questions than it answers.

``He has a right to keep his health private. However, politically, it would be better to disclose his medical situation,'' Conejo said. ``It's left so much doubt out there. People want to know why it prompted him to pull out. People just want to understand.''

Meanwhile, Gallegly's Republican primary challenger Michael Tenenbaum sharply criticized the veteran lawmaker's handling of the entire situation. Tenenbaum said Gallegly has an obligation to reveal his medical condition to constituents.

``To the extent he has a health concern, I extend my sympathy,'' Tenenbaum said. But, he said, ``It's absolutely essential for the public to know whether the person on the ballot has the capacity to serve, and not just to take his word for that.''

Gallegly on Thursday released a two-paragraph letter from Capitol attending physician John Eisold declaring him to be in ``good health'' after a recent evaluation.

``There is no limitation on your activities,'' Eisold wrote to Gallegly. ``I encourage you to continue a healthy lifestyle and exercise regimen.''

Bruce Weinstein, the professional ethicist known as the Ethics Guy, said congressmen have a limited right to health privacy. That, he said, ``is for a good, moral reason. So the voters can decide whether this person will be able to promote their interests.''

Boston University bioethics professor George J. Annas said the question of whether Gallegly should be more forthcoming is more of a political issue than an ethical one. ``It really is up to the public whether they're satisfied with his explanations,'' he said.

Gallegly has said that in bowing out of the race, he was acting out of caution because he did not have full information about a medical issue and felt it would be unfair to constituents to leave mid-year should the health concern indeed crop up. By Wednesday, he said, he was reassured that he is in fact fit to serve.

``If you take him at his word, then you wonder about his judgment,'' Weinstein said. ``Would he be wiling to pass a bill without all the facts too?''

Lisa Friedman, [phone]

lisa.friedman(at)langnews.com