With the beginning of session only days away, Florida legislators have been busy filing a slew of anti-abortion bills. Add yet another to the list: a measure outlawing race- and gender-based abortions. The bill was filed by state Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Longwood.

House Bill 1327, or the “Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity for Life Act,” would make it a crime to have an abortion “that it is sought based on sex or race of child or race of parent of that child.” A similar bill was filed in the U.S. House by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., last month and became law in Arizona last year.

According to a summary of the bill, it:

• Requires person performing termination to first sign affidavit stating that he or she is not performing termination because of child’s sex or race and has no knowledge that pregnancy being terminated is because of child’s sex or race;
• Prohibits performing or inducing termination knowing that it is sought based on sex or race of child or race of parent of that child, using force or threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for purpose of coercing sex-selection or race-selection termination, and soliciting or accepting moneys to finance sex-selection or race-selection termination;
• Provides for injunctions;
• Provides for civil actions by certain persons; authorizes civil fines against physicians & other health professionals who knowingly fail to report known violations; provides that woman on whom sex-selection or race-selection termination is performed is not subject to criminal prosecution or civil liability.

Plakon says he did not file the bill to address any “Florida-specific” problem, but rather to address a “creeping problem” with gender- and race-based abortions worldwide. He says “we shouldn’t wait” until there is a rampant problem in order to address this.

“This is wrong,” he says. “We need to make sure this doesn’t creep into Florida from other countries.”

Plakon does, however, concede that it is hard to prove that gender- or race-based abortions are happening “on a micro-level,” which would make this law somewhat hard to enforce unless a woman were to mention the reasoning behind her abortion.

“If she volunteers that information,” Plakon says, “it would put the burden on the abortionist to not provide the abortion.”

There is no denying this is happening worldwide, Plakon says. “And you could argue that this country is a safe haven for this sort of thing.”

“At least we are doing something,” he says.

Reproductive rights and justice activists have long condemned bills like Plakon’s since Frank first introduced his measure the same week President Obama was elected.

Loretta Ross, the president of SisterSong — a reproductive justice collective for women of color — says there is no evidence that supports the need for such a bill. She believes these bills are a “blatant attempt for southern Republicans to look like they are champions of racial justice,” while they actually attacking women’s rights.

“The question to ask would be: Do you champion [racial minorities and women] once they are here?” Loretta says.

This sort of legislation has been the result of a concerted effort among anti-abortion activists to link abortion to racist aims. Groups have been touting the “black genocide” conspiracy in an effort to convince African-American communities to oppose abortion. In some cases, these arguments have taken root in the African-American community.

Ross says that painting women as propagators of genocide in this way is an “attack on women’s dignity.”

“Ultimately,” Ross says, “this shows contempt for women.”

As of now, the Legislature has filed eight anti-abortion/reproductive rights bill for the session starting next week — nine if/when this bill picks up a Senate sponsor.

Among the five women to undergo a public ultrasound at the kickoff event to the Voices from the Womb campaign was Mary O’Connor, who works for Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), sponsor of the bill being debated in the House. Pitts’ House Resolution 358, or the “Protect Life Act,” would ban women from using tax subsidies created under the new health-care reform law to purchase health plans that cover abortions. HR 358 is scheduled for a vote in the House as soon as Thursday evening.

O’Connor lay on a wooden table in the Congressional Auditorium of the Capitol Visitor’s Center, while Dana Miller, a registered nurse from Fredericksburg, Va., administered an ultrasound using a portable sonogram machine provided by Stanton Healthcare, a crisis pregnancy center in Boise, Idaho, and one of the three sponsoring organizations hosting the live ultrasound event. O’Connor, who was confirmed to be 15-weeks pregnant, said she and her husband are referring to her baby as “Pookie” in this early stage.

Brandi Swindell, Stanton Healthcare’s founder and president, acted as master of ceremonies, delivering commentary while Miller pointed out the fetuses’ appendages and their different stages of developments. She intermittently allowed the audience of more than 100 — most of whom belonged to various youth-led anti-abortion rights groups from Fredericksburg, Va. — to hear the fetal heartbeats.

“Everyone comes to Washington, D.C. to testify,” said the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, another Voices of the Womb sponsor. ”Because of technology, we have the opportunity for … the voices of millions of pre-born children to be heard.

Mahoney compared the anti-abortion-rights movement to the civil rights movement, arguing that fetuses should be given full human rights at the detection of a heartbeat.

“Today there is no question when life begins,” Mahoney said. “If we can prove it’s a child … then Roe v. Wade is invalid. We are doing that today.”

A live ultrasound was performed on one of Mahoney’s daughters, 26 year-old Kaitlin Martinez, who, along with the activists, reporters and her father, learned the sex of her child (female).

“We want to safeguard the mothers’ dignity and privacy,” Mahoney said, ensuring the audience that reporters were given consent from the women on display, to peek around the gray curtain to see the sonogram machine up close.

Swindell explained that Stanton Healthcare was named after Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a leader in the women’s suffrage movement, who has been quoted likening abortion to infanticide (she is also quoted as being in support of birth control). Swindell argued that the women’s suffrage movement was about distinguishing women from men’s property, and that the “pro-life” movement is about distinguishing pre-born babies from women’s property.

“We have to get the moms upon the tables so we can see our babies,” Swindell said. “Even if it’s tiny like a little grain of rice [they] should carry it to term.”

Mahoney explained to the audience that one woman, Mashawn Evans, has had two other abortions and that she was encouraged by the D.C.-based  Capitol Hill Pregnancy Center to carry her current pregnancy to term. After watching the other ultrasounds, Evans told Mahoney had she been given access to an ultrasound, she would have not had abortions previously.

Mahoney announced he would be using this statement from Evans throughout the Voices From the Womb campaign.

Evans came to the event believing she was 12 weeks along in her pregnancy, but after struggling to identify the heartbeat, Miller explained that Evans was closer to seven weeks. Eventually, a heartbeat was identified — distinctively quieter and weaker than the more developed fetuses. Mahoney reminded the audience that it is at this stage that states such as Ohio are attempting to ban abortion.

Though all 535 members of Congress were invited to attend the “Voices from the Womb,” only House Reps. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Tom Marino (R-Pa.), Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), and a representative from Rep. Michele Bachmann’s office spoke before the crowd of more than 100 anti-abortion-rights advocates.

Wicker, whose state has the opportunity next year to criminalize abortions by approving a “personhood amendment” on the ballot, told a story about counseling a young couple to have an abortion in the ’70s.

“We do a lot of things that are dumb when we’re not educated,” Wicker said. “I wish we had Voices From the Womb back in the late ’70s.”

Presidential contender Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who recently introduced an anti-abortion-rights bill (PDF) that would mandate sonograms for all women seeking abortions in the U.S., sent a legislative assistant, Renee Doyle to the event to speak in her absence.

“The beauty of [Bachmann's] bill is that the image will speak for itself,” Doyle said. “Once the mother chooses life, her heart changes … and she becomes a proponent of life.”

Doyle said Bachmann’s bill would require abortion providers to show women the sonogram image, describe cardiac activity present and make an available heartbeat audible using a hand-held Doppler monitor.

As TAI’s sister site The Florida Independent reported previously, the federal Food and Drug Administration has warned women against undergoing ultrasound procedures unless it is medically necessary, because the long-term effects of repeated ultrasound exposures on a fetus is not fully known.

Watch a live ultrasound of Mashawn Evans’ pregnancy at seven weeks.

During public meetings in Phoenix the last two days, activist groups have been rallying support for looming U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) clean-air regulations that would compel the plant to install the best retrofit technology available to scrub nitrogen oxide emissions from its smokestack. Besides respiratory problems for area residents, critics blame the 42-year-old power plant for haze over Grand Canyon National Park.

Last month the EPA ordered major pollution controls within five years at San Juan Generating Station 15 miles west of Farmington, N.M., ordering the facility to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 80 percent. Colorado lawmakers were seeking to avoid similar federal regulations when they approved the Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act that requires the conversion of aging coal-fired power plants on the Front Range to natural gas or renewable energy.

Conservation groups say the Department of Interior — whose Bureau of Reclamation owns the largest chunk of the Navajo power plant – is pressuring EPA to delay its ruling until the Golden, Colo.-based National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) can complete the first phase of an overall study on operations at the Navajo Generating Station. The plant, collectively owned by the Salt River Project, provides electricity in Arizona, Nevada and California and also supplies power to pump water through the Central Arizona Project.

“The pollution, health, and water impacts of Navajo Generating Station are huge costs — human and financial and environmental,” said Nikke Alex, a member of the Navajo Nation. “The fact that they’re ignored in the Department of Interior’s study is glaring and should be alarming for everyone in our region. Since the Department of Interior owns so much of this plant, there’s concern they may be using their influence to avoid an accounting of the true costs of keeping it running.”

As many as 18,000 homes on the Navajo Nation are completely off the grid despite the presence of nearby coal-fired power plants, which local health officials blame for a wide range of respiratory problems. But Republican lawmakers from Arizona have been actively trying to thwart the EPA push for cleaner air in the region, holding hearings and targeting various congressional committees.

U.S. Reps. Paul Gosar and Trent Franks sent a letter to the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power and the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs arguing the EPA regulations could cost jobs and endanger the state’s power and water supply. They blasted what they deemed “burdensome regulations that threaten the viability of the plant.”

“The plant and associated mine provides nearly 1,000 jobs in northern Arizona, is critical to the livelihood of the Pinal County and Native American agricultural community, and is essential to supplying water to 80 percent of the state’s population,” Gosar said. “We must carefully examine regulations that could threaten the state of Arizona’s water and power supply.”

Navajo and Hopi activists counter that they’ve suffered greatly from increased asthma and other respiratory problems traced to the plant. They also pointed to a study by the American Lung Association that found the Phoenix metro area is “one of the 25 worst of 277 U.S. metro areas for ozone pollution and is the second worst area in the nation for year-round exposure to fine particle pollution.”

Still, Navajo plant operators have reportedly indicated they might have to shutter the facility if the EPA requires the retrofits, which critics claim could unnecessarily cost more than $1 billion.

The Congressional HIV/AIDS Caucus, spurred by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), was formerly launched Thursday during a press briefing on Capitol Hill. U.S. Reps. Jim McDermott (D-Calif.) and Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) joined Lee and White House officials, experts and advocacy leaders in introducing the caucus and its funding proposals.

“I remember when having AIDS was a death sentence,” McDermott said, noting that the new caucus was the most significant AIDS-prevention effort since the Bush administration’s AIDS task force. “Believe me, there will be people looking at the AIDS budget [who will say], ‘Why are we putting money into that [during this] fiscal crisis.”

Franks identified himself as one of the most fiscally-conservative members of the House as a way of explaining why he supported the caucus’ AIDS-prevention efforts.

U.S. Reps. Jim McDermott (D-Calif.), Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduce Congressional HIV/AIDS Caucus. (Photo: Sofia Resnick/The American Independent)

“My two top priorities as co-chair of the HIV/AIDS Caucus are to better enable faith-based organizations to implement life-saving medical services and to make significant strides so no child is born with HIV after 2015, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to bring attention to this important humanitarian issue,” he said.

Lee said the caucus will focus funding attention on the most vulnerable communities in the country, many of which are communities of color.

“This is the launch time for a bold movement to stamp HIV and AIDS, for once and for all, off the face of the earth,” said Lee, who has been working on AIDS-prevention efforts for the past three decades and managed to get the travel ban repealed in order to secure the International AIDS Conference in the U.S., to be held in Washington, D.C., in July 2012.

No mention was made of federal legislation Lee is currently working on to repeal state laws that criminalize individuals with HIV. The Iowa Independent’s sister site The Michigan Messenger has extensively reported on cases where HIV-positive individuals have been charged with felonies, such as the case of Daniel Allen from Clinton Township, Mich., who in 2009 was charged with bio-terrorism for biting his neighbor during what Allen alleged was a violent anti-gay attack. Because he was HIV-positive, Allen was charged with one count of “possession of use of a harmful device” in addition to various assault counts. The following year, the bio-terrorism charge was dropped, and Allen was sentenced to probation.

Lee’s communications director, Kristal DeKleer, told The Independent that Lee’s legislation, currently known as the “Repeal HIV Discrimination Act,” is still in the drafting stage. Currently, 34 states, including Iowa, have criminal statutes based on exposure to HIV.

In response to a direct question about HIV criminalization, Jeffrey Crowley, director of the Office of National AIDS Policy at the White House, said the Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — as part of the Obama administration’s National HIV/AIDS strategy introduced in 2010 and updated this past June — are currently gathering data to come up with a public-health approach of dealing with HIV disclosure laws. Ultimately, though, Crowley said it is a state issue and did not comment on Lee’s not-yet-introduced federal bill.

Crowley told The Independent that the CDC and the National Institutes of Health are prioritizing funding on research that targets populations, such as gay and bisexual men, identified as being at the greatest risk for contracting HIV, in addition to geographic areas where prevalence is highest. He said new information has led the CDC to change priorities (PDF), for example, shifting prevention efforts away from those who are HIV-negative to those who are HIV-positive.

Crowley said efforts are being made to strike a balance between what is better for the health and well-being of the individual HIV patient in addition to preventing others from being infected. He noted anti-retroviral treatment is always voluntary (though there have been instances where prisons have violated HIV-positive protocol) and said he thinks some groups have mischaracterized the federal government’s perceived intent of putting the interest of the nation over infected individuals, but Crowley emphasized it is better to treat patients early “before their immune system is damaged.”

The three caucus members said Thursday the goal is to have 6 million HIV-positive Americans in treatment by 2013.

Tinselyn Simms-Hall, policy and advocacy coordinator of The Women’s Collective, a D.C.-based AIDS-prevention advocacy group, told The Independent she hopes the increased HIV/AIDS-prevention funding reaches women in proportion to their infection rates. She said national focus is often on men who have sex with men, which sometimes prevents other at-risk groups from realizing they are at risk.

“AIDS has a huge impact on heterosexuality,” Simms-Hall said. “There is a large community of women affected [by this virus] who don’t realize there are resources out there.”

Amid constant congressional squabbling over spending and the deficit in Congress, 59 Democrats and Republicans have united in pledging to spend more money for research and prevention efforts to combat the spread of AIDS domestically and worldwide.

The Congressional HIV/AIDS Caucus, spurred by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), was formerly launched at a press briefing on Capitol Hill Thursday. Reps. Jim McDermott (D-Calif.) and Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) joined Lee and White House officials, experts and advocacy leaders in introducing the caucus and its funding proposals.

“I remember when having AIDS was a death sentence,” McDermott said, noting that the new caucus was the most significant AIDS-prevention effort since the Bush administration’s AIDS task force. “Believe me, there will be people looking at the AIDS budget [who will say], ‘Why are we putting money into that [during this] fiscal crisis,” McDermott said.

Reps. Jim McDermott (D-Calif.), Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduce Congressional HIV/AIDS Caucus, Sept. 15, 2011 (AMERICAN INDEPENDENT/Sofia Resnick)

Franks identified himself as one of the most fiscally-conservative members of the House as a way of explaining why he supported the caucus’ AIDS-prevention efforts.

“My two top priorities as co-chair of the HIV/AIDS Caucus are to better enable faith-based organizations to implement life-saving medical services and to make significant strides so no child is born with HIV after 2015, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to bring attention to this important humanitarian issue,” he said.

Lee said the caucus will focus funding attention on the most vulnerable communities in the country, many of which are communities of color.

“This is the launch time for a bold movement to stamp HIV and AIDS, for once and for all, off the face of the earth,” said Lee, who has been working on AIDS-prevention efforts for the past three decades and managed to get the travel ban repealed in order to secure the International AIDS Conference in the U.S., to be held in Washington, D.C., in July 2012.

No mention was made of federal legislation Lee is currently working on to repeal state laws that criminalize individuals with HIV. The American Independent’s sister site The Michigan Messenger has extensively reported on cases where HIV-positive individuals have been charged with felonies, such as the case of Daniel Allen from Clinton Township, Mich., who in 2009 was charged with bio-terrorism for biting his neighbor during what Allen alleged was a violent anti-gay attack. Because he was HIV-positive, Allen was charged with one count of “possession of use of a harmful device” in addition to various assault counts. The following year, the bio-terrorism charge was dropped, and Allen was sentenced to probation.

One of Lee’s staffers told TAI that the representative’s legislation, currently known as the “Repeal HIV Discrimination Act,” is still in the drafting stage. Currently, 34 states have criminal statutes based on exposure to HIV.

In response to a direct question about HIV criminalization, Jeffrey Crowley, director of the Office of National AIDS Policy at the White House, said the Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — as part of the Obama administration’s National HIV/AIDS strategy introduced in 2010 and updated this past June — are currently gathering data to come up with a public-health approach of dealing with HIV disclosure laws. Ultimately, though, Crowley said it is a state issue and did not comment on Lee’s not-yet-introduced federal bill.

Crowley told TAI that the CDC and the National Institutes of Health are prioritizing funding on research that targets populations, such as gay and bisexual men, identified as being at the greatest risk for contracting HIV, in addition to geographic areas where prevalence is highest. He said new information has led the CDC to change priorities (PDF), for example, shifting prevention efforts away from those who are HIV-negative to those who are HIV-positive.

Crowley said efforts are being made to strike a balance between what is better for the health and well-being of the individual HIV patient in addition to preventing others from being infected. He noted anti-retroviral treatment is always voluntary (though there have been instances where prisons have violated HIV-positive protocol) and said he thinks some groups have mischaracterized the federal government’s perceived intent of putting the interest of the nation over infected individuals, but Crowley emphasized it is better to treat patients early “before their immune system is damaged.”

The three caucus members said Thursday the goal is to support 6 million HIV-positive people worldwide* on treatment through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) by 2013.

Tinselyn Simms-Hall, policy and advocacy coordinator of The Women’s Collective, a D.C.-based AIDS-prevention advocacy group, told TAI she hopes the increased HIV/AIDS-prevention funding reaches women in proportion to their infection rates. She said national focus is often on men who have sex with men, which sometimes prevents other at-risk groups from realizing they are at risk.

“AIDS has a huge impact on heterosexuality,” Simms-Hall said. “There is a large community of women affected [by this disease] who don’t realize there are resources out there.”

*Correction: TAI previously reported that the HIV/AIDS Caucus’ goal was to have  6 million HIV-positive Americans in treatment by 2013; in fact, the goal is to support 6 million HIV-positive people worldwide on treatment. We regret the error.

The Nov. 2 gala, to be held at the Newseum in Washington D.C., is intended to celebrate AUL’s 40th anniversary in the presence of about 80 federal lawmakers.

Co-chairing the event with Perry are U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.); the keynote speaker has yet to be confirmed.

AUL has listed as “honorary hosts” 16 U.S. senators — all Republicans — including Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), John McCain (Ariz.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.). Among the 63 U.S. House representatives listed as “honorary hosts” are 2012 GOP presidential contenders Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.). Other attending GOP representatives influential in the anti-abortion rights movement include Reps. Trent Franks (Ariz.), Mike Pence (Ind.), Joe Pitts (Pa.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Cliff Stearns (Fla.) and Allen West (Fla.).

Reps. Renee Ellmers (N.C.), Bill Huizenga (Mich.), Randy Hultgren (Ill.) and Chris Smith (N.J.) all participated in last month’s press conference about the report AUL drafted to encourage Congress to investigate — and then defund — Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

AUL’s gala is a pricey affair: The organization is asking supporters to become sponsors — for $5,000, $10,000 or $25,000 in order to offset the costs of the event.

In a recent lengthy profile on Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, the Christian Science Monitor describes how Yoest — who is not a physician, attorney nor lawmaker, though she has a doctorate of philosophy in government — has become “Public Enemy No. 1″ for abortion-rights advocates. In November, the group will celebrate its influence on select laws, such as defending the Hyde Amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court and establishing the “intellectual groundwork” for the fetal homicide legislation that has passed in 38 states.

Despite four decades of lobbying and drafting model legislation to enact abortion restrictions throughout the country, much of the national recognition AUL has earned has come in 2011. Yoest’s group has taken credit for 22 of 86 anti-abortion laws enacted this year, according to the Christian Science Monitor.

In February, Mother Jones blamed AUL for controversial laws cropping up in Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota that, if interpreted in a certain way, would have allegedly legalized the killing of abortion providers. AUL denied the accusation, claiming that however lawmakers might have adapted AUL’s model “Pregnant Woman Protection Act” was out of the organization’s control.

Ten days after the AUL gala, Yoest will set sail as a guest speaker on a National Review-sponsored cruise.

As of yet, Perry has not signed the Susan B. Anthony List’s highly-publicized anti-abortion pledge, but in other ways, Perry has already presented himself as an ardent abortion opponent and dedicated evangelical Christian. Perry’s relationship with AUL has been positive since he became governor of Texas in 2000. When AUL released its annual “Defending Life” publication of model legislation, Perry’s testimony was used to promote the publication:

This state-by-state scorecard of progress in the effort to defend life lets elected officials, grassroots activists and citizens know exactly where we are on our shared priority. I am proud that the report reflects the sweeping reforms we have enacted in Texas, saving thousands of lives in the process. This is not a book you leave on the shelf to collect dust. This information is ammunition in a fight that is far from over. I know you will find this guide informative and useful as you continue to promote and protect life in your state.

In AUL’s latest “State of the States” report card, Texas ranked fifth — making it one of the most restrictive states regarding abortion rights.

In May, Perry signed a controversial Texas bill into law requiring women seeking abortions to wait 24 hours after seeing a sonogram of their fetus. The law is facing litigation. He also signed into law a bill making “Choose Life” license plates available to Texas drivers, directing the revenue from those plates to state crisis pregnancy centers.

According to a recent analysis by NARAL Pro-Choice America about Perry’s abortion-related legislative record, “many of the laws he signed inject political interference into women’s private decision-making.”

Among the highlights of Perry’s record, NARAL noted that the governor signed a proclamation declaring April 2009 “Abortion Recovery Awareness Month” in Texas.

At the start of business on Tuesday, Aug. 2, according to the Daily Treasury Statement, the national debt subject to the legal limit was $14.293975 trillion. Obama signed legislation that day lifting the limit by as much as $2.4 trillion—with an initial and immediate increase in the limit of $400 billion. By the close of business on Friday, Aug. 5, according to the Daily Treasury Statement, the national debt subject to the limit had grown to $14.536130 trillion.

Over just four days, the debt had jumped $242.155 billion.

By contrast, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, over the ten-year period from the end of fiscal 1950 to the end of fiscal 1960, the national debt grew from approximately $257.36 billion to approximately $286.33  billion—an increase of approximately $28.97 billion.

Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, $28.97 billion in 1960 dollars equals $220.92 billion in 2011 dollars.

Thus, the $242.155 billion in 2011 dollars that the Obama administration increased the debt between last Tuesday and last Friday is more in inflation-adjusted terms than the combined debt increases of the Truman and Eisenhower administrations in the ten-year period from the end of fiscal 1950 to the end of fiscal 1960.

The figures in the article are accurate, although the author of the piece understates the amount of debt taken out during the 1950s by adjusting for the value of the dollar in 1960, and not adjusting for its value during each year in the 1950-1960 period. The claims made in the article are nevertheless misleading because they obscure the fact that any debt taken on from August 2-5, 2011, was done so in order to spend on programs and agencies whose budget was already authorized — and thus mandated — by an act of Congress.

Because the U.S. Treasury reached the debt ceiling on May 16, the budgetary obligations that accumulated during the weeks and months that followed had to be immediately paid for once the debt limit was raised. The fact that the Treasury immediately took on $242 billion doesn’t mean that the Obama administration arbitrarily took on that amount of additional debt during those four days. Rather, spending had already been authorized by Congress and the Treasury was obligated to pay for it with additional debt, or face the legal consequences of failing to do so.

In order to accurately compare the 2011 deficit with the deficit of the 1950s, it’s important to recognize that the government is currently taking in revenue at a much smaller proportion to GDP than it did in the 1950s, a fact that cannot be directly attributed to the Obama administration. The primary reason for decreased federal government revenue is the ongoing economic slump, with secondary reason being the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, federal government receipts averaged at 17.2 percent of GDP from 1950 to 1960, while in 2010, they were 14.9 percent of GDP. Federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is currently the lowest it’s been since the year 1950, after which it did not go below 16 percent until the year 2008, the start of the Great Recession.

As for spending, while it’s true that total federal discretionary spending averaged 17.6 percent of GDP in the 1950s and was a substantially higher 23 .8 percent in 2010, much of that can be explained by the one-time American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the 2009 stimulus law, which is already phasing out. Discretionary spending is projected to shrink in proportion to GDP in 2011 according to the Congressional Budget Office(PDF). Of course, that leaves off mandatory spending programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The latter two programs were created after the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, so including them in the comparison is also misleading.

The increase in debt during the August 2-5 period therefore reflects not an arbitrary effort on the part of the Obama administration to take advantage of increased borrowing authority, but rather a natural consequence of the profundity of the recession and the legal obligation to pay the costs of mandatory spending programs.

The campaign, which largely targets states where Republicans won control of legislatures or governorships, has garnered the support of Republican political superstars such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.), Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Jon Kyl (Ariz.), and Rep. Trent Franks (Ariz.). The groups intend to pass anti-gay marriage amendments, curtail abortion rights and, in at least one case, ban “transgender bathrooms.”

Family policy councils — a creation of Focus on the Family in the 1980s — have launched the Ignite plan in 15 states. Each family policy council has a three-prong plan to achieve their legislative goals over the next two years: lobbying for legislation, mobilizing pastors and social conservatives and supporting candidates that have backed their initiatives. Each group has used a stock brochure containing nearly identical wording to explain their plan and to solicit funds. In many cases, an Ignite plan was launched with an anonymous matching-grant donor.

Requests for information from many of the policy councils were denied, and Focus on the Family told The American Independent that they have no involvement, declining to offer information on any organization that might back the plan.

Focus on the Family says that while the groups are “fully associated” with FoF, they “are independent entities with no corporate or financial relationship to each other or to Focus on the Family.”

While Form 990s — revenue and expense documents that nonprofits file with the IRS — don’t provide detailed information on political organizing expenditures, The American Independent has provided each group’s average yearly revenues for comparison to their two-year spending under the Ignite plan.

Already, the groups are seeing success in their respective states.

The South Dakota Family Policy Council is spending $72,600 in the next two years as part of the Ignite campaign (PDF), specifically to pass legislation that would force women seeking an abortion to speak to counselors at religious-based crisis pregnancy centers.

SDFPC lobbied heavily for the bill in the media, testified before the South Dakota legislature and organized a pastor’s day at the state Capitol in Pierre in February to advocate for the bill. It passed the legislature and was signed into law in late-March.

The SDFPC is also pushing legislation that would ban surrogate mothers, but thus far the bill has yet to get out of committee. The group lists “Defeat Equality-SD’s radical gay-rights legislation,” as a goal of the Ignite campaign.

All told, SDFPC plans to spend $72,600 under the campaign, a small chunk of the average $304,000 the group took in as normal operating revenue each year over the last 5 years.

SDFPC did not return a request for information about the campaign.

Anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballot in 2012

In several states — such as Indiana, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and West Virginia — Ignite plans seems to be targeted at getting anti-gay marriage amendments passed.

The Family Policy Council of West Virginia (FPCWV) plans to spend $168,000 through 2012  (it’s average yearly budget is $132,000) during its two-year Ignite campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, and also to defeat laws that would prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians.

In West Virginia, both houses of the legislature are overwhelmingly held by Democrats, and Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin is a Democrat. The planned anti-gay marriage amendment there was voted down in the House of Delegates in February, even though many of the Democrats in the state oppose gay marriage.

FPCWV did not return a request for information about the Ignite campaign.

The Pennsylvania Family Institute plans to spend $1.5 million through 2012 on anti-abortion rights measures as well as a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage in the state. The average yearly revenue for the group over the last three years was $1.4 million.

The group also received a matching donation of $7,500 at the end of 2010.

On Tuesday, Pennsylvania Republicans introduced the anti-gay marriage amendment that PFI says they’ll push over the next two years.

“Ignite may well be the most important plan we’ve ever undertaken,” wrote PFI president Michael Geer in a message to supporters about the plan. “We want to ensure that Pennsylvania’s pro-family citizens don’t ‘go home’ thinking election results alone will stop those who undermine the timeless values you and I share. Our plan is designed to take back lost ground in the areas of life, liberty, marriage, and the family.”

Indiana Family Institute plans (PDF) to spend $498,000 to defund Planned Parenthood and to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment. IFI’s revenues have averaged $313,896 over the past three years.

The IFI did not respond to a request for comment on the Ignite plan.

In Minnesota, the Ignite plan calls for adding an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution banning gay marriage; the Minnesota Family Council is planning to spend $4.71 million in the next two years. The group averaged $832,000 in revenue over the last three years between the Council and it’s affiliate, the Minnesota Family Institute. If the Ignite campaign goes according to plan, the group will spend more than twice its historical average in working to abolish gay marriage in the state.

Big endorsements

Family Foundation of Virginia plans to spend $1,170,277 over the next two years to push legislation on “wrongful death for the unborn,” school choice and religious liberty protections.

The group’s revenues over the last four years have averaged $510,000. They did not return a request for information on the campaign and increased spending.

Like many of the family policy councils, the Family Foundation got a year-end bump from a matching grant:

“In order to get us off to a strong start in implementing this plan, a small group of The Family Foundation’s donors have offered to match every contribution The Family Foundation receives before December 31 — up to $25,000!” the group said in a recent fundraising pitch.

And the group has been busy this year. It’s former executive director, Martin Brown, was tapped by Gov. Bob McDonnell to head Virginia’s Social Services Department. Under Brown’s leadership, the state social services board has tightened adoption rules so that agencies may discriminate against gay and lesbian couples.

The Family Foundation lobbied heavily for the pro-discrimination policies.

Its plan (PDF), which was sent to donors, includes this endorsement from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor: “It is difficult to imagine how Virginia would look today without The Family Foundation’s vigilant grassroots programs and the dedicated men and women who are the heart and soul of this proud institution.”

The Massachusetts Family Institute also had a message to its supporters last fall: “We must ensure Massachusetts’s pro-family movement doesn’t ‘go home’ after a tough election. We must work to ensure the “moment” that was the 2010 elections, both the January Special Election and the general in November, becomes a “movement” that takes back lost ground in the areas of life, liberty, marriage, and the family.”

MFI plans to spend $148,000 to defeat a “transgender bathroom bill,” to pass a student religious freedom bill and to pass anti-abortion rights initiatives, all uphill battles in a heavily progressive state.

The group’s website includes an endorsement of their Ignite plan from presidential candidate Mitt Romney. “MFI has a track record of getting things done on behalf of Massachusetts families and is uniquely positioned to accomplish even more in the years to come.”

The Louisiana Family Forum got a big endorsement from Gov. Bobby Jindal, a rumored candidate for president in 2012. “LFF had another great year, scoring an impressive 31 legislative victories,” Jindal wrote in support of LFF’s Ignite plan (PDF). “[LFF president Gene Mills] and his entire group do a great a job day after day, month after month, year after year showing up on behalf of Louisiana’s families. We look forward to many more pro-life, pro-family victories in the years ahead.”

LFF plans to spend $225,000 under its Ignite plan to defeat “homosexual adoption and marriage” and to “shrink the size and scope of government.” The group’s average revenue over the last two years was $600,000. The group received a $50,000 matching grant from an anonymous donor to launch the plan.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida loaned his name to the Florida Family Policy Council’s Ignite plan, which calls for spending $300,000 to mandate that women view an ultrasound before having an abortion and to “defeat the radical homosexual agenda.”

The group averaged revenues of $384,000 over the last three years.

FFPC president John Stemberger told his supporters that their plan was meant to stave off victories by “non-religious right friendly legislators.”

“The people who work to undermine the values you and I share may have suffered a historic defeat in this year’s election, but both you and I know they won’t just go home,” he wrote. “As a matter of fact, they’re already planning how to turn things around in the next election. The “Ignite Plan” that I’m working on right now… is focused on making sure that doesn’t happen.”

Sen. Rubio wrote in support of the the group’s Ignite plan (PDF), saying, “FFPC’s successes in education, legislation and accountability have made them an indispensable asset in promoting and defending traditional values.”

The Center for Arizona Policy’s Ignite plan (PDF) has the endorsements of Rep. Trent Franks and Sen. Jon Kyl.

“With all the external challenges that we face in this country, the internal one is the greatest,” Franks wrote in support of the plan. “And I believe that a few people can make the vital difference. Center for Arizona Policy is the flagship of that effort here in Arizona.”

Sen. Kyl added, “It is very clear that Center for Arizona Policy has become an important force to influence public policy here in the state of Arizona.”

CAP doesn’t list its legislative goals on its website. CAP did get an anonymous donor to provide a matching grant for $115,000 for the plan. The group did not return a request for information about the plan.

Activity in other states

Other state groups include the New Jersey Family Policy Council, which is spending $1.326 million to defeat any same-sex marriage laws and to pass a parental notification law for minors seeking an abortion. The group’s average yearly revenue has been $864,000 over the last three years.

Cornerstone Family Council of Idaho is also using the Ignite plan, and got a matching grant from an anonymous donor for $6,300. Cornerstone did not return a request for comment. Neither did Wisconsin Family Action, which got a $13,000 matching grant.

Family Action Council of Tennessee and the Kansas Family Policy Council both have adopted the Ignite strategy.

The District of Columbia is being singled out in this proposed law, which, if passed, would ban “the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government or the District.”

Already the measure is backed by 227 co-sponsors, but what remains to be seen is how the Democrat-controlled Senate will vote. Senate Democrats previously knocked down the GOP-backed 2011 budget proposal to remove all federal funding from Planned Parenthood, which at an annual $383 million, amounted to a minuscule portion of the overall budget.

But with HR 3, Republicans look to focus on its fiscal effects rather than the social angle in order to leverage more support in the Senate for the bill, as Roll Call reported Wednesday.

From Roll Call:

The decision to put [HR 3] on the floor is giving new hope to some social conservatives who want their issues swept up into the debt limit debate.

Rep. Trent Franks, an anti-abortion advocate, said that House Republicans “have some leverage” to get the Democratically controlled Senate to take up the legislation, similar to the way House Republicans forced an amendment onto the continuing resolution that would defund federal funding for Planned Parenthood. As part of a larger agreement on the final CR, Senate leaders agreed to hold a separate vote on the Planned Parenthood amendment.

[...]

While Franks, a two-term lawmaker from Arizona, acknowledged that a balanced budget amendment may be better suited to be part of a compromise debt limit vote, he still has hope for a Senate vote on an anti-abortion bill.

[...]

Although conservative organizations have not yet begun pushing for this as part of the debt limit debate, activists said they would support the effort and argued that Republicans should make it a matter of routine that deals include requirements that the Senate vote on social issues. “Republicans making such demands shouldn’t be out of the ordinary,” Family Research Council’s Tom McClusky said.

[...]

While social conservatives have highlighted the anti-abortion measure as being tied to federal funding, the Congressional Budget Office reported on March 15 that the bill has “negligible effects on tax revenues,” which has led such groups as Americans for Tax Reform to stay out of the debate.

The U.S. House Subcommittee on the Constitution is scheduled to hold a hearing Friday titled “Defending Marriage,” called by subcommittee chairman Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who has recently called for the impeachment of President Barack Obama because of his decision to order his administration to no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Neither the witness list nor the intent of the hearing has been made public. A representative of the Subcommittee on the Constitution told The American Independent to expect release of probably three witness names and written testimony by 10 a.m. Thursday morning via the committee’s website. (Update: The list is now posted on the Judiciary Committee’s website.)

People For the American Way Senior Fellow Peter Montgomery predicts Franks’ hearing will be a parade of “extremists.”

Montgomery told TAI during a phone interview that Rep. Franks is “at the far-right fringe of the far right.” Montgomery also assumed the only purpose of the Franks Defending Marriage hearing would be “To promote that far-right agenda and provide them propaganda against the administration from here until 2012.”

Franks is the founder of an official Focus on the Family affiliate called the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP). Formerly known as the Arizona Family Research Institute, the CAP was instrumental in the passage of Arizona’s Prop 102 adding an amendment to Arizona’s constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Montgomery would not speculate on who would be called as witnesses. But according to a recent article in The Washington Blade, Maggie Gallagher, chair of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage (NOM) said that she would appreciate the chance to speak at a hearing on DOMA. (Update: Gallagher is scheduled to appear at the hearing.) Gallagher has testified on marriage laws before the Subcommittee on the Constitution previously and recently before the New Hampshire and Maryland legislatures. The Maryland legislature unexpectedly shelved a bill to legalize same-sex marriage last month that was believed to have broad support.

Montgomery told TAI he experienced Franks’ views first hand at the Take Back America conference in St. Louis in 2009. In a speech at the event, Franks called President Obama, “An enemy of humanity.” During the conference, Franks also staked claim on his belief in the “birther” conspiracy.

“This is the kind of ranting you would expect to hear from a talk show host, not a subcommittee chair,” Montgomery said of Franks’ statements.

But the statements made at the 2009 conference are just a sample of Franks’ far right positions.

Franks, along with other representatives, claimed a Muslim civil rights group was using congressional interns to spy on Congress. Franks also aligned himself with a movement that believes abortion policy is committing genocide against African Americans going so far as to introduce legislation barring so-called “race-based” abortion — a bill that led the chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation to praise Franks for being “a trailblazer.”

Franks’ co-sponsor of that bill was fellow Judiciary subcommittee member, Vice-Chair Mike Pence (R-Ind.). Pence has been in the national spotlight since introducing the eponymous Pence Amendment aimed at defunding Planned Parenthood –- an issue that nearly caused a government shutdown last week.

TAI recently reported on Pence’s connection to Focus on the Family affiliate — the Indiana Family Institute — that led the successful effort to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment in the Indiana Senate last month.

A call for comment to Representative Franks’ office was not returned.