Yesterday, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman (R-NE) signed legislation “banning most abortions 20 weeks after conception or later on the theory that a fetus, by that stage in pregnancy, has the capacity to feel pain.” The new rule replaces existing law which already prevents women from seeking an abortion after a fetus reaches viability, which is usually reached at about 24-26 weeks of gestation (or 22-24 weeks after conception).

Both the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologist disavow the “science” behind the claim that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks postconception, but the so-called “Pain Capable Unborn Child Act” is more of a political statement than a policy proposal. The bill is “created almost entirely as a vehicle for getting anti-choice legislation challenged and potentially reviewed by the Supreme Court” and grew out of an effort to push one of the nation’s late term abortion providers out of the state:

The Nebraska law grew out of a battle over abortion waged in a far different forum. After an abortion opponent killed Dr. George R. Tiller, a leading late-term abortion provider in Wichita, Kan., last year, Dr. LeRoy H. Carhart, who sometimes worked with Dr. Tiller, said he would carry on his legacy by performing some later-term abortions in his clinic in Bellevue, Neb. Lawmakers in Nebraska were outraged at the prospect of becoming, in the words of one of the state’s leading anti-abortion groups, the next “late-term abortion capital of the Midwest.” Early Tuesday, the state’s nonpartisan unicameral legislature passed the new measure overwhelmingly, 44 to 5.

“I didn’t find this bill,” Mike Flood, the legislature’s speaker said, alluding to Dr. Carhart. “It found Nebraska.” Dr. Carhart could not be reached for comment.

The new law grants exceptions in cases of medical emergency, the pregnant woman’s imminent death, or a serious risk of “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function,” but it’s still ripe for legal challenge. My colleague Jessica Arons has identified at least 3 problems:

1) Under Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, no state can place an undue burden on a woman’s right to abortion before viability, which must be determined on a case by case basis. This bill bans abortion starting at 20 weeks, which is several weeks before most fetuses achieve viability.

2) This bill only has a very narrow physical health exception and a life exception, even though precedent requires exceptions for serious mental health concerns as well.

3) The bill is based on a legislative finding that fetuses can feel pain as early as 20 weeks, when there is no medical consensus on that point and in fact it is hotly disputed. Unfortunately after Gonzales v. Carhart, the legislature may now pass laws based on minority medical views, no matter how fringe and unsubstantiated they are.

“The intention of its supporters is to bring an abortion rights challenge before the United States Supreme Court, where they’re counting on Justice Kennedy to be their swing vote, based on the language he used in his brief from the Gonzalez vs. Carhart decision in 2007. Make no mistake: this is a national issue that impacts us all,” Julie Burkhart of TrustWomenPAC, observes.

Heineman also signed another abortion measure discouraging providers from offering abortion by allowing women to sue doctors that don’t follow a meticulous pre-abortion review process.

Before long, insurance companies will jack up premiums and blame the increases on rising medical costs and the new taxes in the health care reform law. And when they do, please remember that even during times of economic recession — when an increasing number of Americans are actually losing their coverage and insurers are shedding customers — insurers used your premium dollars to double the salaries of their CEOs.

WellPoint CEO Angela Braly’s total compensation for 2009 skyrocketed 51% from 2008 to $13.1 million, even as the company was requesting double digit premium increases in California to cover it’s “loses” and now Business Week is reporting that UnitedHealth CEO’s 2009 pay more than doubled:

UnitedHealth Group Inc. overcame a sluggish economy to manage 28 percent profit growth last year and rewarded CEO Stephen J. Hemsley by more than doubling his total compensation.

Hemsley, 57, received 2009 compensation valued at $8.9 million from the Minnetonka, Minn., managed care company, according to an Associated Press analysis of data filed with regulators Wednesday.

That included a salary of $1.3 million for the third straight year, a performance-based cash bonus of nearly $2 million and stock options and restricted stock valued at about $5.6 million on the days they were granted. He also received $86,916 in other compensation, including matching contributions to his 401(k) and executive savings plan.

In 2008, Hemsley received total compensation valued at $3.2 million. He saw no option awards that year or in 2007.

To be clear, insurers aren’t wrong to argue that health care spending increases premiums. They are wrong, however, in pretending that they are doing all they can to contain health care spending and that they’re taken unprecedented steps to lower their administrative costs and overhead.

Georgia has announced that it is joining the 18 other states suing the federal government over the constitutionality of health care reform, despite Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker (D)’s insistence that any such lawsuit would be without “legal merit.”

Last month, Baker — who is also running for the Democratic nomination for Governor — rebuffed Governor Sonny Perdue’s (R) calls to file a lawsuit, telling Perdue, “Considering the state‘s severe budgetary crisis, with vital services like education and law enforcement being cut deeply, I cannot justify a decision to initiate expensive and time-consuming litigation that I believe has no legal merit.” But Republicans persisted, drafting legislation that would have forced the attorney general to sue the federal government and introducing a bill to impeach Baker for refusing to take part in the lawsuit.

Having failed to force Baker’s hand, however, Perdue has now appointed “Frank Jones as a special assistant attorney general to file the lawsuit.” Jones and at least seven other attorneys will fortunately work without pay on the frivolous lawsuit. As Baker explained to Rachel Maddow last month, ” I could find absolutely no basis to file a lawsuit”:

BAKER: I took a look at the Constitution of the United States. I took a look at applicable law. I looked at all of the claims that are being raised around the country. I could find absolutely no basis to file a lawsuit. We took a look at the Commerce Clause. Commerce – the legislature has a broad expansive power when we talk about the Commerce Clause. There‘s been a lot of discussion about the government taxing and spending for this effort. Listen. That question has been settle since 1937 in this country. Congress absolutely has the power to do it.

At least 20 different states are now suing the federal government (19 have joined the Florida suit and Virginia is pursuing its own case) over health care reform and the tactic has created a rift between Governors and their AGs. Republican Governors have questioned the motives of Democratic Attorneys General in Georgia, Nevada, and Mississippi and at least three other Governors — Govs. Jim Gibbons (R-NV), Jane Brewer (R-AZ), Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) — have announced that they would sue the government over the objections of their AGs.

Earlier this week, Georgia’s insurance commissioner John Oxendine, a Republican who is also running for Governor, said that the state won’t participate in the first phase of a new federal health care law which requires that states establish interim high-risk pools to provide coverage for individuals cannot find affordable coverage in the individual health insurance market.

Republicans have characterized the Democrats’ push to pass health care reform and their subsequent dismissal of GOP efforts to repeal the legislation as “arrogant,” pointing to opinion polls which show that Americans overwhelmingly oppose the new health care law and support its repeal. But if Republicans want to govern based on public opinion, they should be careful what they ask for.

A new national survey conducted between April 6th and 10th by researchers from Indiana University’s Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research (CHPPR) finds that while 58% of Americans support repealing the law a majority of those that favor repeal want Congress to pass more liberal legislation that includes a public option:

When asked how important they thought it was for Congress to work on “establishment of a public option that would give individuals a choice between government provided health insurance or private health insurance,” 67 percent of Americans rated this as an important topic to address. This finding is even more striking given the fact that 59 percent of those in favor of repealing the health care reform legislation rated the public option as important to pursue. Another surprise is that 67 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of Independents also agreed that the public option was an important topic to be addressed by Congress.

Look:

In some ways this isn’t very surprising. The public option remained the most popular element of health care reform throughout the 17 month debate. In fact, public opinion turned against the bill as it moved through the legislative process and became more conservative and both Republicans and Democrats continued to tell pollsters that they would like a choice between private and public coverage. Incidentally, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has promised to hold a vote on the public health care option as a stand alone measure and Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) has introduced public option legislation which has attracted 80 co-sponsors in the House.