These centers use various methods to attract women facing unplanned pregnancies, such as offering free pregnancy tests, locating next to abortion clinics, advertising for abortion services, and intercepting online searches for abortion on the Web.

But an emerging trend is for states to push women through these centers’ doors as part of new legislation that increases waiting times and mandates pre-abortion ultrasounds, something CPCs increasingly offer.

Last year, South Dakota passed a controversial anti-abortion law requiring women to visit anti-abortion pregnancy centers for counseling before they can receive an abortion. A federal judge blocked the law — which also mandated a 72-hour waiting period –after Planned Parenthood sued the state on the grounds that the law created an unconstitutional burden on a woman’s right to an abortion. On Wednesday, a state Senate committee is scheduled to hear a revised version of the bill, which still requires women to seek counseling at anti-abortion pregnancy centers but demands that the counselors be licensed.

Another anti-abortion law in Texas, which recently went into effect after surviving the majority of legal challenges lodged against it, provides women wanting to have an abortion with a list of state-sanctioned places to obtain a sonogram, a list that includes crisis pregnancy centers.

South Dakota and Texas are just two states where CPCs are slowly gaining more political power, taxpayer funding, and legitimacy from lawmakers. And with the growing movement of state legislatures adopting abortion laws that require women to first undergo an ultrasound, it is likely that these centers will begin to play an even bigger role in a woman’s unplanned pregnancy.

‘Pregnancy Resource Center Month’

In the U.S., there are approximately 4,000 crisis pregnancy centers, the bulk of which are affiliated with one of three CPC networks: Heartbeat International, Care Net, and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. Each has ties to political organizations that have lobbied for anti-abortion legislation.

A legislative trend sweeping the country is the enactment of resolutions that “honor” crisis pregnancy centers. Last month, the Florida Legislature passed a bill that declared January “Pregnancy Resource Center Month” and commended “the compassionate work of the volunteers and staff at Florida’s pregnancy resource centers.” Ohio’s legislature passed similar legislation last month.

Several states passed pro-CPC resolutions last year, including Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Oklahoma passed a pro-CPC resolution in 2010.

In these resolutions, much of the language was lifted straight from model legislation (PDF) developed by Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion policy group based in Washington, D.C. AUL’s resolution calls for recognizing services these centers have provided to citizens for free – services like baby supplies, referrals for public services and anti-abortion counseling. But a key provision, which has generally made it into the states’ version of these resolutions, is:

That the [Legislature] disapproves of the actions of any national, state, or local groups attempting to prevent pregnancy care centers from effectively serving women and men facing unplanned pregnancies.

This provision subtly refers to efforts at national, state and local levels to regulate crisis pregnancy centers, in response to allegations that these centers sometimes mislead women about what services they offer and provide them with misinformation about abortion, pregnancy, and contraception.

For instance, in Washington state, legislation was introduced last year that would require CPCs to be explicit about what services they do and don’t offer. It would also prohibit these centers from withholding medical records, such as pregnancy test results, from clients. The bill text was partially influenced by a report (PDF) co-authored by women’s rights group Legal Voice and the policy arm of the Northwest Planned Parenthood affiliate. Undercover investigators documented evidence of CPCs withholding medical records. According to the report: “Care Net in Gig Harbor and Tacoma provided volunteers with paperwork stating that it had the right under RCW 70.02.090 to withhold a person’s medical records if the center reasonably believes the information will be used to obtain an abortion. Care Net in Puyallup provided paperwork stating that it would be ‘illegal’ for a patient to use medical records generated by Care Net for the purpose of ‘abortion or abortion-related services.’”

These measures have generally been unsuccessful. Ordinances requiring CPCs to post signage stating that they do not offer abortion services were overturned in Baltimore and New York. And a federal bill that would authorize the Federal Trade Commission to fine organizations that falsely advertise as resources for abortion services has been reintroduced into Congress every year since 2007 with little movement. A similar bill passed in San Francisco last year but is being challenged in federal court.

Another provision in AUL’s pro-CPC resolution model, which is featured in Ohio’s bill, could serve as a portal for crisis pregnancy centers to obtain public money:

That we encourage the Congress of the United States and other federal and state government agencies to grant pregnancy resource centers assistance for medical equipment and abstinence education in a manner that does not compromise the mission or religious integrity of these organizations.

It is a state version of a federal bill regularly reintroduced by U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), which would authorize the Department of Health and Human Services to allocate money for ultrasound equipment to tax-exempt organizations that provide free medical services to pregnant women – a classification that applies to most CPCs.

An (ultra)sound strategy

With more states mandating that women obtain sonograms sometimes 24 hours before a scheduled abortion, going to a crisis pregnancy center that will do the ultrasound for free is an attractive option, especially for women on a tight budget.

Speaking at a pro-life conference hosted by the D.C.-based Family Research Council last month, Karen Snuffer, the executive director of a group of Virginia-based pregnancy resource centers affiliated with Care Net, said her centers serve more than 17,000 women and their families annually and “provide $1.1 million in free goods and services, including 2,900 ultrasounds, free of charge, by medical professionals.”

“Like centers all around the country, Care Net PRCs represent hope to these women and their families, and we do that because we have access to many resources within the community,” Snuffer said.

An FRC study (PDF) of 1,969 crisis pregnancy centers in the U.S., found that in 2010, about 230,000 ultrasounds were performed – at no or very little charge to the client – at 1,000 centers, for an estimated total cost savings of $57.5 million. (To get this statistic, FRC estimated each ultrasound at $250.)

Founded in 1993, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates was the first CPC network to promote ultrasounds in crisis pregnancy centers; ultrasounds were seen as a new, persuasive tool to talk women out of abortions. Additionally, centers that offered ultrasound services could now be considered medical centers, giving CPCs more legitimacy. Then, in 2004, Focus on the Family started the Option Ultrasound Program, which – in tandem with a medical consultant from NIFLA – provides funding grants to pregnancy centers to obtain ultrasound machines and convert their centers to medical-style clinics.

Based in Colorado Springs and founded by James C. Dobson in 1977, Focus on the Family has grown into a $100 million tax-exempt nonprofit. In its fiscal year ending September 2010 (PDF), the group reported giving about $900,000 to about 50 CPCs for either ultrasound machines or ultrasound training. Option Ultrasound’s purpose is to convert “pregnancy resource centers” into “pregnancy medical clinics.” Medical services at these centers are usually confined to “limited obstetrical ultrasound services” and over-the-counter pregnancy tests.

Focus defines a pregnancy medical clinic as:

a medical clinic that operates under the supervision of a licensed physician and nurse manager. A PMC [pregnancy medical clinic] offers pregnancy tests, limited obstetrical ultrasound services and peer counseling to women facing an unintended pregnancy. As well, some may offer STI testing/treatment and/or prenatal care. A PMC may also offer additional support services or refer women to helpful community programs, but the focus is on providing medical services for abortion-risk women.

By contrast, a regular pregnancy resource center, according to Focus:

offers pregnancy tests, peer counseling and other supportive services to women who are facing an unintended pregnancy, which may include childbirth education and parenting classes, adoption counseling and support, post-abortion support, and practical support such as maternity/baby clothing, diapers, and furniture.

Focus on the Family demands that grant recipients undergo ultrasound training, operate the ultrasounds only under the direction of a licensed physician, and comply with the national standards defined by the American Institute of Ultrasound Medicine. Focus puts up 80 percent of the costs of the ultrasound machine (between $21,000 and $33,000) and sonography training (between $13,000 and $17,000).

As of Jan. 31, 2012, Focus reports funding 396 grants for ultrasound machines and 140 for sonography training. The group asserts that since the program began in 2004, “the estimated number of babies saved is more than 120,000 precious lives!”

“These mothers will likely never forget the day they first saw the image of their baby, kicking her feet and waving her arms on the ultrasound monitor,” reads an article on the Option Ultrasound website titled, “How Option Ultrasound Helps At-Risk Women.” “They will recall the day that their hearts were changed, with gratitude they can hardly put into words, and they will be forever thankful that they had the opportunity to choose life, all because someone cared enough to give them the option of seeing their baby on an ultrasound.”

The efficacy of sonograms as abortion-deterrents has been challenged by new research.

Political connections

Heartbeat International, previously named Alternatives to Abortion, was the first of the crisis pregnancy center networks to arrive on the scene, in 1971. It was followed by Care Net, which was founded in 1975 as the Christian Action Council, a Washington, D.C.-based evangelical organization that at the time functioned as a lobbying organization, according to a 2009 report (PDF) on pregnancy resource centers produced by the Family Resource Council.

On its website, Care Net refers to its approach to abortion as “a refreshingly apolitical and practical approach to reducing abortions in North America.” But the organization’s affiliations and its founding as a lobbying group suggest a more political identity. Care Net’s “board of references,” for example, includes Beverly LaHaye, who chairs the national lobby group Concerned Women for America and is now part of presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s “Faith Leader Dream Team.”

Heartbeat International’s board of directors includes Charles A. Donovan, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which is one of the most active anti-abortion lobbying groups in the country. Donovan, who previously worked for Ronald Reagan’s administration and the Family Research Council, now works the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Another political player on Heartbeat’s board is Derek A. McCoy, president of the Maryland Family Council, a Focus on the Family affiliate that lobbies for anti-abortion legislation in Maryland. McCoy is also on the board of directors for the anti-abortion media group Life Always, which provoked a firestorm last year for erecting racially charged billboards in overwhelmingly black communities, with messages like, “The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb” and, next to image of Barack Obama’s face, “Every 21 minutes, our next possible leader is aborted.”

NIFLA was initially founded, according to FRC, as a legal support system for pregnancy centers to defend against the types of laws that seek to regulate CPCs. On NIFLA’s National Advisory Council sit James D. Bopp, Jr., attorney at Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom, and Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver, both of whom defend anti-abortion laws that are challenged in court. NIFLA’s advisory council also includes representatives from Americans United for Life and Concerned Women for America and Virginia state Rep. Robert Marshall (R-Manassas), who sponsored Virginia’s controversial personhood bill that passed the state House last week.

Taxpayer subsidies

Back in January, Karen Snuffer boasted that the Virginia CPCs she oversees take in “no government funding whatsoever.” But many CPCs – which are generally tax-exempt 501(c)3 groups – do receive state taxpayer money.

Several state health departments allocate money for CPCs as part of programs that promote alternatives to abortion. For instance, Texas’ seven-year-old “Alternatives to Abortion” program got a $300,000 bump last year, for a total of $8.3 million, after the state legislature cut family-planning funding from about $112 million to $38 million and reduced funding for the social-service programs. Florida’s legislature recently voted to maintain $2 million in funding for the state’s CPC network, for the seventh year in a row, after making deep cuts to community health services.

During the George W. Bush administration, CPCs benefited handsomely from federal grant funding for abstinence-only education programs. The Obama administration cut most of those abstinence-only programs, but CPCs can still receive federal funding through the National Fatherhood Initiative, which each year gives $25,000 “capacity building” grants to 25 community groups, as Sarah Poster has reported. Award recipients in 2011 included Care Net Pregnancy Resource Center in Rapid City, S.D., which is one of the CPCs approved by the state to disuade women under South Dakota’s new law. This Care Net affiliate is also one of the CPCs defending the South Dakota law in court. Other subsidized CPCs include Sav-A-Life, Inc., in Birmingham, Ala., and Women’s Hope Medical Clinic in Auburn, Ala.

In the past few years, a series of investigative reports by journalists, congressional committees (PDF), and abortion-rights groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America and the National Abortion Federation (PDF) have raised serious questions about crisis pregnancy centers.

The directors of most of the major CPC networks would not respond to repeated requests for comment from The American Independent about their organizations. A spokesperson for Heartbeat International told TAI that all the information we needed to know was on its website.

At FRC’s pro-life conference last month, Rebecca Lewis, who worked for a Care Net-affiliated crisis pregnancy center in Alexandria, Va., for nine years (as a volunteer for five years and a director for four), told TAI that she appreciates that people are digging into CPCs — to keep them honest. But she said she didn’t see the sort of unethical tactics at her center that CPCs are often accused of.

“I didn’t see that where I was,” Lewis said, when asked whether her center engaged in misinformation or misrepresentation.

Lewis said her center stood for the idea that if a woman has a choice to have an abortion, she should also have a choice not to have one. She said her volunteers were taught not be judgmental of the women coming in. And the women who chose not to have an abortion were given services and material support and tracked for at least a year, Lewis said.

“We do not condemn a person who has an abortion,” she said. “I never made them feel small.”

“While there are other GOP candidates who are worthy of our support, Sen. Santorum is the man of the hour,” Dobson said in a statement released Thursday, according to the Washington Post. “His knowledge of international politics, especially Israel and the turmoil in the Middle East, is highly relevant to the dangerous world in which we live. This is why I am endorsing former Senator Rick Santorum for president of the United States, and urge my countrymen to join us in this campaign.”

Santorum, like most Christian-right American leaders, is a staunch defender of Israel and the sad history of its hardline approach to the question of Palestinian citizenship rights and statehood. He also adopts the corollary position on Middle East affairs that Iran is an enemy state to be opposed aggressively by the United States.

On the stump recently in Greenville, South Carolina, Santorum said he would launch military attacks on Iran to halt its nuclear program but said that the Israel-Palestine conflict, a leading issue in foreign affairs around the world for half a century, is effectively an Israeli domestic issue and that no state had the right to interfere on behalf of either side.

“These people are there in the state of Israel and it’s up to Israel to decide” their fate, he said of the Palestinians in response to questions from Ali Younes of al Arabiya News. Younes noted that during the conversation Santorum never once referred to Palestinians using the word “Palestinians,” seeming to adopt the Newt Gingrich line that “the Palestinians are an invented people.”

The Texas conclave of conservative leaders last week apparently failed to produce the kind of unity participants had hoped for, reportedly reflecting a long-running split in the Republican party exacerbated by this year’s primary field. Participants split roughly half and half on whether to support Newt Gingrich, who touts his record as fiscal conservative, and Santorum, the race’s staunchest social conservative.

Dobson’s opposition to Gingrich, whom he believes lacks moral standing, will be bolstered today by the views of the second of Gingrich’s three wives, Marianne. In an interview set to run tonight, she told ABC News that Gingrich cheated on her for years and pleaded with her to accept an “open marriage” before casting her aside when she was struggling with illness, as he did his first wife.

Gingrich defended himself against such charges this year by saying he was giving too much to the country to devote himself properly to the kind of family values he champions in his political life.

“There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate,” he said.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

“Is the president going to have the authority to decide if the Supreme Court has deliberated too little on a case?” CitizenLink quotes Yoo writing on the matter. “Does Congress have the right to decide whether the president has really thought hard enough about granting a pardon? Under Obama’s approach, he could make a recess appointment anytime he is watching C-SPAN and feels that the senators are not working as hard as he did in the Senate (a fairly low bar).”

CitizenLink identifies Yoo only as “a law professor at the University of California at Berkley, who is well known in legal circles for advocating executive power.”

Yoo is perhaps one of the most controversial figures in U.S. legal history. His torture memos were eventually disavowed by the Bush justice department. The Office of Legal Counsel where Yoo worked repudiated them as unsound and dangerous. After a five year inquiry, the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility reported that Yoo had “committed intentional professional misconduct when he advised the CIA it could proceed with waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques…” During the inquiry, Yoo told investigators the “president… had the constitutional power to order a village to be ‘massacred.’” Three years ago, Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzón Real launched an investigation of Yoo for war crimes.

By contrast, the Obama appointments this week can be seen in context less as any kind of historic overstep and more as just another strategic move in a Capitol Hill chess game.

The appointments come after three years of deep congressional dysfunction and after the president in recent months vowed to act where he can to use executive orders to bypass congressional obstructionism.

“We’re not going to wait for Congress… Where they won’t act, I will, through a series of executive orders… We’re going to look every day to see what we can do without Congress,” he told a crowd in October gathered on the downtown Denver Auraria Campus.

The argument against the appointments is that the Senate was not in fact in recess when Obama made them. The White House says the Senate was “in session” in name only, opening up for do-nothing 30 second meetings in order mainly to keep the president from appointing Cordray to head the two-year-old leaderless Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPFB), which was created by Congress over the objection of bank lobbyists to protect credit card holders, for example, from gouging interest rates and fees.

Republican senators have for months blocked confirmation of Cordray, who is a Republican and a former attorney general of Ohio. The senators say they do not object to Cordray but only to how the CPFB is organized. Its financing, for example, comes from the Federal Reserve, which means Congress can’t influence the agency by controlling its budget. Yet, in two years, none of the senators have introduced legislation to rework the CPFB, leading most observers to conclude that, on one hand, the Republicans, acting on behalf of the banks, don’t want the bureau to ever functionally exert its regulatory mission and, on the other, don’t want to go on record with that stand in an election year where the commitment of lawmakers to represent the interests of their constituents instead of the interests of corporations is being seriously called into question.

Jon Stewart on Thursday laid out the controversy in typical succinct and damning fashion:

It’s sad commentary on the way partisan beltway contagion has spread across the country when a national Christian organization gives less credence to a president seeking to protect millions of consumers from clear financial-industry abuse than it gives to a man who wrote waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” into our history and who argued that our democracy’s commander-in-chief should no longer be bound by the War Crimes Act.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

In an appearance at CitizenLink, Focus on the Family’s political media outlet, Minnery hoped Romney would come around.

“I believe Romney is having some difficulty with evangelical Christians…. At the value voters event a pastor hit upon his Mormonism, called it a cult and suggested that such a person should not be president. That’s pretty rough language and I can see how Gov Romney might be hesitant to come back into an evangelical atmosphere like this. So we will make the event very respectful.

“We’re not getting into theology as such because we are not going to solve theological questions in the short time we have. We want to get into the underlining ways in which a fervent and vibrant belief in God impacts decision-making upon a president. That’s what we’ll be getting at.”

The event is technically being sponsored by CitizenLink and The Family Leader, Focus on the Family’s Iowa policy group headed by controversial anti-gay state politico Bob Vander Plaats.

Vander Plaats, the man behind the move to oust the Iowa justices who in 2009 overturned a ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional, has also been pushing a 14-point candidate marriage pledge, which includes a promise to ban pornography in the country and describes homosexuality as a health risk. Romney refused to sign it, dismissing the exercise as “undignified and inappropriate.”

The Des Moines candidate forum is scheduled to be held November 19 at the First Federated Church. The main moderator will be Frank Luntz.

Minnery called Luntz an “exquisite asker of questions.” CitizenLink Media Director Stuart Shepard described Luntz as the Fox News pundit who uses dial meters to gauge realtime voter responses to the candidates. “He’s that guy,” said Shepard.

Luntz is also the Republican Party talking-point spinner who advised GOP candidates last year to discredit proposed Wall Street regulation by referring to it as a “bailout.” He’s also the man who advised George W. Bush to reframe “global warming” as “climate change” to make it sound less threatening.

If the CitizenLink introduction to the coming event is any measure, there aren’t likely to be a lot of tough questions posed, at least not to the non-Mormon attendees, even on the glaring social issue of sexual harassment, which has dominated this week’s campaign news.

“Are you going to hit Herman Cain with tough questions about what’s been in the headlines?” Shepard asks Minnery. “No we aren’t,” says Minnery, assuming that Cain will still be in the race in ten days. That matter will surely be covered elsewhere, he says.

“We’re wishing [Herman Cain] the best. The truth will come out and we hope it’s a truth that will not hurt his campaign.

“It’s amazing how that man has caught the imagination of so many voters. He’s bold. He’s upbeat. He has business experience that’s very solid…. It would be a deflation of a lot of enthusiasm were he to be lowered in the polls because he’s not able to respond well to these allegations.”

Shepard takes that line a step further.

“One of the fascinating things about it… We’re hearing some things about what may or may not have happened. He is saying nothing happened. We have at least one accuser who finally after a week and a half put a fact into the story. For a week there were no facts at the heart of this, there were just these hints at what may or may not have gone on…

“American people appear to have a certain cynicism about the way the mainstream media goes after these stories. Rasmussen Reports did a poll after this. [Cain's] poll numbers are up. That’s a fascinating perspective on the American people. We have just seen enough of this from the mainstream media.”

“Well we have,” Minnery said. “There’s a real hunger for a candidate such as Herman Cain to prevail.”

For the record, at least four women as of Wednesday had accused Cain of harassment. Sharon Bialek, a one-time employee of the National Restaurant Association, was the first woman to go public. Two other women received settlements in response to claims Cain harassed them when he was head of the association. One of those two women, Karen Kraushaar, is a spokesperson at the Treasury Department and a Republican voter. The identity of the other woman paid by the association has yet to leak to the press. Cain called the payments made to the women by the association– reportedly tens of thousands of dollars– “agreements” not “settlements.”

That these are credible accusations and that they are beginning to credibly establish a pattern of behavior is as clear as is the fact that Cain has been struggling to tell the truth about what he knows of the allegations. It’s also worth noting that, as Shepard is surely aware, at least two of Cain’s accusers have been barred from speaking about their experience by the legal arrangements tied to the payments, which is why they have been slow to “put a fact into the story.” More facts are being put into the story by the hour.

—-
*Edit note: Carrie Kintz, media coordinator at CitizenLink, writes to underline the point that Focus on the Family is not directly hosting the candidate event in Des Monies: “The organization hosting the event with NOM is CitizenLink. We are Focus on the Family’s advocacy affiliate,” she said in an email. Focus on the Family is a nonprofit and, for tax reasons, can’t perform direct political advocacy.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

CitizenLink leans on high-profile religious-right attorney James Bopp to make the case against disclosure.

“We are certainly going to pursue the case vigorously, because the result of the judge’s decision is going to literally be a free-fire zone when we talk about the court sanctioning harassment of people who participate in our democratic process,” Bopp is quoted to say. “Absent the prospect of protection in future cases, I think the whole idea here by the homosexual lobby is they now have a threat. They [will seek the names of donors] and put them on the Internet. So they already know they’ve got a weapon of intimidation, and without the courts’ protection, they’ll continue to use it.”

The ruling upholding California’s campaign finance disclosure laws was handed down by U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr on Thursday. California requires political campaigns to disclose the identity of anyone who donates more than $100.

During the 2008 heated Prop 8 campaign, gay-rights websites like Californians Against Hate that opposed the ballot initiative posted information such as the names, addresses and employers of donors to the campaign. In Washington state a similar proposal saw the same kind of websites appear. There, the sites included Whosigned.org and Knowthyneighbor.org.

CitizenLink refers readers to the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation report on harassment against Prop 8 supporters. The Heritage authors placed the harassment into three categories: vandalism, hostility and slurs, and violence and threats of violence.

Vandals also hit houses of worship. Perpetrators used orange paint to vandalize a statue of the Virgin Mary outside one church. Offices at the Cornerstone Church in Fresno were egged. Swastikas and other graffiti were scrawled on the walls of the Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in San Francisco, a parish known widely as being “gay-friendly.” In San Luis Obispo, the Assembly of God Church was egged and toilet-papered, and a Mormon church had an adhesive poured onto a doormat and keypad. Signs supporting Prop 8 were twisted into a swastika at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic Church in Riverside. Someone used a heavy object wrapped with a Yes on 8 sign to smash the window of a pastor’s office at Messiah Lutheran Church in Downey.

Fear of harassment on the part of Christian groups has been a marked and ironic aspect of the Prop 8 campaign and its aftermath. At the trial that followed passage of the initiative and that considered whether the new law was constitutional, the team defending the law fought hard to keep the proceedings from being broadcast, fearing that witnesses for the defense would be harassed. Yet LGBT people have been one of the most harassed and discriminated against classes of American citizens in the post-slavery era.

In a previous ruling on the matter, Judge England pointed out that, if there were crimes committed by supporters of either side of the debate, those crimes could and should be prosecuted. As for the rest, he said, heated exchanges are part of the political process and aren’t reason to limit the ability of Californians to fully inform themselves on questions they’re asked to answer at the ballot box.

Bopp plans to appeal England’s decision once the written version is made available for review.

Bopp recently filed a brief with the US Supreme Court on behalf of Catholic Answers, a nonprofit group that has been penalized by the IRS for performing express advocacy against 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

While gay soldiers and veterans in Colorado react today with a mix of joy and relief that the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy barring them from serving openly has been repealed, Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family continues to express concerns. The Christian-right group’s political-action news outlet, CitizenLink, worries that repeal might impinge on soldiers’ freedom of religion and expression and that it could also further erode the shaky standing of the Defense of Marriage Act, which precludes federal recognition of same-sex unions.

CitizenLink reporter Karla Dial wrote that what she described as the “murkiness of the post-DADT era” is “troubling” and made more troubling by the fact that gay-rights groups she doesn’t identify are “ramping up activism.”

“For the last few months, various organizations have been… seeking to have gay literature distributed on post, gay recruiting quotas, and spousal benefits and on-base housing for soldiers’ same-sex partners as soon as possible.”

Religion and expression

Anxiety over encroachments on free religious practice and expression is a common concern for the nation’s predominantly Christian opponents of gay rights.

One of the main and hotly contested cases made against new school bullying statutes, for example, is that, in teaching children acceptance of homosexuality, schools are practicing a form of indoctrination that goes against church teaching that homosexuality is not acceptable.

Whatever the validity of such an argument, it would be a stretch to apply fears of school-child “indoctrination” to the training of adult soldiers.

Where freedom of expression is concerned, legal analysts (pdf) have argued for years that a policy like DADT that explicitly restricts the expression of all gay soldiers is a considerably greater threat than a policy that prompts some religious soldiers to more carefully state their beliefs so as to not denigrate their comrades.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is the only law in this country that authorizes the firing of an American simply for coming out as gay, lesbian, or bisexual,” wrote the Georgetown Law School anti-DADT group Solomon Response. “Some Americans view the policy as a benign gentlemen’s agreement, with discretion providing the key to job security. But “discretion” is not a fail-safe mechanism. An honest statement by a servicemember of his or her sexual orientation to anyone, anywhere, anytime may lead to discharge from the armed services. Moreover, discretion in the form of mandated silence is itself a form of oppression and discrimination.”

Military and marriage

The status of the same-sex partners of soldiers and their access to partner rights and benefits does remain an open question, however, at a time when the federal Defense of Marriage Act hangs in legal limbo.

“So much of the [post-DADT] training has been based on the Defense of Marriage Act as being federal law,” Ron Crews, director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, told CitizenLink. “…[B]ut we know this administration has said they think [DOMA] is unconstitutional and won’t defend it. So where does that leave all those [military] PowerPoint slides that say ‘This is our policy on the repeal of DADT because of DOMA’?”

University of Denver Law Professor Geoffrey Bateman, author of a book on the national debate over Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, told the Colorado Independent that the repeal certainly does “raise an immediate human resources question.”

“If my memory serves, in other countries where bans on open gay military service have been lifted, this is where the conversation has gone. There will certainly be a new conversation here. But the military is not obliged to lead on the matter [of gay marriage]. It has sometimes led in the realm of social change and sometimes, you know, it stands apart… It depends on military leaders, quite frankly. ”

Bateman said military leaders could well hold out and simply let the partners of gay soldiers gain access to rights and benefits as federal marriage law evolves in response to court or legislative action.

Indra Lusero, director of operations at UCLA’s Palm Center, home to leading research on gender and the military, said the repeal has been viewed as a major step toward full citizenship rights for gay Americans.

“The military is one of the largest employers in the country and, from that perspective, this policy has been discriminatory,” Lusero told the Independent. That’s the good news for LGBT Americans she said. She cautioned against expecting any other major advancements from the military.

“We know that the partners of gay and lesbian soldiers won’t get the same benefits as their straight counterparts. Not at this point. And I can also tell you that military clergy were sort of up in arms about performing marriages for gay service members. So I think that moment of potential recognition has passed.”

Lusero was loath to draw causal connections off the top of her head but said that, in other countries, lifting bans on openly gay military service did signal a larger shift toward marriage equality for gay people.

Colorado US Rep Diana DeGette, for one, seems determined to see that happen.

“While today represents a monumental achievement in the pursuit of full equality for LGBT Americans, we cannot forget the work that is still left to be done,” she said in a release. “Today’s accomplishment proves that progress is unavoidable, and I look forward to working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to repeal further discriminatory legislation such as the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure that all Americans are treated equally regardless of who they love.”

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Influential conservative social policy group Focus on the Family announced Friday it will eliminate about 50 jobs due to a significant drop in donations that has led to a $15 million budget shortfall, as the Denver Post initially reported. The group also experienced a $27 million budget reduction in 2010.

The Colorado Springs, Colo.-based, group, which James Dobson founded in 1977, is projected to end the 2011 fiscal year, on Sept. 30, with a $105 million budget; however, Focus only brought in $90 million to $95 million in donations this year. The organization is responding to the funding reduction with a 7-percent staff reduction.

“God has never promised us a certain budget number,” said Gary Schneeberger, vice president of communications for Focus on the Family (FoF), in a statement. “He’s only called us to spend the money He provides responsibly and to help as many families as possible. That’s what we’ll continue to do.”

In the last 10 years, FoF’s staff has been reduced by more than half. In 2002, FoF had about 1,400 employees; once the layoffs go through, it will have about 650 people on staff.

FoF has blamed reduced donations on the economy.

“Many nonprofit and for-profit organizations have had to close their doors due to the ravages of these tough economic times,” Schneeberger said. ”We’re encouraged by our donors’ trust in us and will continue to honor and earn it.

“Tears have been spilled on both sides of these decisions, because these aren’t numbers on a spreadsheet,” he continued. “These are friends who share our passion to do the Lord’s work. Given economic realities, though, we had to ensure we continue to maximize the resources we have to help spouses in their marriages, help parents raise their kids and help Christians walk out their faith with boldness and joy.”

In the past three years, FoF — along with its Washington, D.C.-based affiliate the Family Research Council – has used its donations to fight initiatives to legalize same-sex marriage at the state level. In 2008 (PDF) and 2009 (PDF), the group contributed about $200,000 to anti-gay-marriage political campaigns in California, Maine and Washington, D.C., according to financial statements submitted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). FoF donated about $50,000 Exodus International, the country’s larges “ex-gay” ministry. FoF also spends significant funds on donations to crisis pregnancy centers and on supporting anti-abortion-rights ad campaigns throughout the country. This year, FoF paid for a controversial anti-abortion-rights Super Bowl commercial that starred Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow.

Many of FoF’s state-based affiliates have benefited from a massive political funding campaign called “Ignite an Enduring Cultural Transformation,” where funds are funneled to states with majority-Republican control to oppose same-sex marriage, abortion rights and transgender rights. As The American Independent has reported, most of the Ignite plans were launched with an anonymous matching-grant donor, and FoF has claimed it has no involvement in the program despite being “fully associated” with its affiliates.

FoF experienced a slight budget surplus in 2008, ending the year with about $130 million in revenue. The following year however, FoF ended the year with $109 million in revenue and a $12 million deficit. Further budget reductions in 2010 led the organization to eliminate more than 100 jobs.

Overtly religious backup Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow is the fan favorite in Denver these days over laid-back, hybrid-driving, conservation-minded starting quarterback Kyle Orton. And their hardcore Republican boss, Hall of Famer John Elway, will ultimately decide who takes the snaps.

Orton struggled in the home opener against the rival Raiders, prompting fans to chant Tebow’s name and then start raising money for billboards calling for his ascension. The “Tebow thing,” as one Denver Post columnist called it, won’t go away, even if Orton salvages a win against the Cincinnati Bengals on Sunday. That’s because no one sees Orton as a Super Bowl quarterback, and that’s the only goal worth chasing in Bronco Nation.

Tim Tebow

The question, for some fans, is the degree to which politics and religion will play into that decision, or whether both players will simply be judged on their performance in games and practice. Already some ardent Tebow fans say he keeps moving down the depth chart because he wears his religion on his sleeve, asks God to bless reporters and last year participated in a controversial pro-life ad aired during the Super Bowl and paid for by Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family.

Orton, by contrast, has a slow pulse that some fans have labeled apathy. That mellow persona hasn’t inspired his teammates, critics argue, although it may be a perfect fit in Colorado, where his green leanings and low-key mentality is likely in line with a majority of residents.

Kyle Orton

Elway has supported numerous Republicans in Colorado, including Scott McInnis, Pete Coors, Bob Beauprez, Tom Tancredo and George W. Bush, tossing campaign dollars their way like screen passes and lending his famous face and voice to GOP get-out-the-vote efforts with fundraisers, campaign appearances and robo-calls.

In 2008, Elway’s name came up again in connection to the 2010 U.S. Senate race, and in 2009 he starred in a controversial FBI anti-terrorism TV ad partially paid for by the Department of Homeland Security.

Still, nothing Elway does in the political and public policy spotlight will stir anything close to the controversy the Tebow-Orton saga is generating.

It will come as no surprise to Coloradans force-fed a fire-hose stream of ugly and untrustworthy campaign election material over the last two years that independent spending– spending directly tied to no candidate and mostly free of accountability– more than tripled in the state from 2008 to 2010. This according to a recent report released by watchdog group Follow the Money, which singles out Colorado for study. The authors report that, although the state has relatively strong disclosure laws, larger changes in campaign finance rules have let loose here as everywhere in the country a storm of money and a sea of roiling paperwork that can cover over as much as it reveals.

The report makes clear that independent expenditures will continue to pour into the state in the tens of millions, generating high-volume few-strings-attached propaganda. Groups affiliated with other groups spun off from still other groups will continue to set up front companies to buy air time, create ads, and then essentially disappear. The ads will be a mess of exaggeration and distortion and it will become increasingly difficult to hold anyone responsible. We are living through a turbocharged age of Floyd Brown‘s “Willie Horton.”

In 2006, in statewide and legislative races, independent spending equaled only 2 percent of money donated directly to candidate campaigns in Colorado. Independent groups spent $380,000.

In the 2008 statewide, legislative and judicial races, independent spending shot up to 76 percent of money donated directly to candidate campaigns. Independent groups spent $7.5 million.

In post-Citizens United 2010, independent spending overtook donations to candidates to reach 130 percent. Independent groups spent $26 million.

In 2010, on the right, the big spending came from corporations and their representatives. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $4 million. American Justice Partnership, which pushes anti-regulation legislation, spent $1.7 million. Karl Rove’s American Crossroads spent $1.2 million and Altria, a tobacco industry group, spent $1.2 million.

On the left, advocacy and union groups doled out the cash. Top spending groups included Twenty First Century Colorado, which gave $2.7 million, Accountability for Colorado, which gave $1.5 million, and The Neighborhood Project, which gave $1.4 million.

Adding to those menacing statistics, the Follow the Money authors write that the state’s tough transparency laws are being absurdly undermined by well-funded groups who bungle their disclosure forms.

“Filers seem to be filling out the independent expenditure and electioneering forms incorrectly,” they write. “For example, several conservative groups, such as Focus on the Family and Colorado Citizens for Accountable Government, reported spending in support of Democrats, an unlikely event.”

The Follow the Money report is worth reading in full. It includes links to donations made by the organizations listed.

Fix Congress First is one of the groups formed in the last election cycle to try and do something to combat the waterfall of corrupting money in politics.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.