Today, the Ohio House approved three anti-abortion efforts, including the nation’s most radical anti-abortion bill. Known as the “heartbeat bill,” the legislation prohibits a woman from seeking an abortion if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can be as early as “six to seven weeks into pregnancy.” As NARAL Ohio pointed out, the bill targets “a point when many women don’t even know they’re pregnant.” Nonetheless, the GOP-led state House offered a myriad of reasons to drastically roll back a woman’s constitutional right to choose.

However, one state Republican lawmaker in particular found the most extreme reason to vote for the “heartbeat” bill. On the state house floor today, state Rep. Matt Huffman decided that the “heartbeat bill” is a “significant step” in the history of civil rights in all of western civilization. Declaring a fetus to be “a person,” Huffman likened lawmakers who oppose the bill to slave owners who would eventually see the errors of their ways:

HUFFMAN: Really this bill that [state Rep. Lynne Wachtmann (R)] has brought forth is another significant step in a long trail of civil rights, not only in this country but in western civilization. I would guess today, if Thomas Jefferson were here, he’d say “You know, I was probably wrong about that slavery thing.” You know, the drafter of the Declaration of Independence actually owned slaves. He’d probably be willing to admit he was wrong about that, he was an enlightened fellow. George Wallace decided, “You know I was probably wrong about that integration thing,” and he came out and admitted that. Are the folks who don’t believe an unborn child is a person going to admit that? Probably not today,. But maybe someday. And that’s where the march of history is taking us with this bill.

Watch it:

Huffman then simply declared, “I believe an unborn child is a person and is entitled to rights under the Constitution.”

As ThinkProgress’s Marie Diamond reported, this once-fringe position that redefines life as beginning at the moment of fertilization is becoming increasingly more popular among Republican lawmakers. Pushed by the “Personhood” movement, this view would not only prescribe a complete ban on all abortions, it would also “turn common forms of birth control into the legal equivalent of a homicide.” Such laws determine every fertilized egg to be an individual imbued with full rights, and because contraceptives like the pill or intrauterine devices (IUD) can prevent an egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus, they would consider birth control an abortion that is punishable under the law.

According to the Guttamacher Institute’s 2008 study, more than 11 million American women use these forms of birth control and would lose control of their bodies under Huffman’s view. In all his reasoning today, how one reconciles the loss of personal control over one’s body with the civil rights movement is a logic Huffman failed to provide.

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that Kaiser Permanente plans to raise rates by more than 10 percent for about 300,000 Californians enrolled in policies offered through small businesses. Kaiser Permanente, which operates as a quasi-nonprofit, has reported record profits of $921 million in the first quarter of 2011 alone. The company reportedly has healthy reserves, and has filed disclosures noting that it has rewarded top executives with million-dollar bonuses in recent years.

While public outcry temporarily stalled California insurers from forcing through egregious rate hikes last year, pending legislation may provide a better path. This week, the California state Senate is expected to vote on AB 52, legislation sponsored by Assemblyman Mike Feuer’s (D-Los Angeles) to allow regulators to review proposed rate hikes by health insurance companies. However, California health insurance companies are fighting back with an onslaught of lobbying.

Like the national legislative battle over President Obama’s health reforms, insurance companies in California are attempting to undermine AB 52 by showcasing widespread opposition to the bill. The California Association of Health Plans — the trade association representing major insurers in the state like Kaiser Health Plans, Anthem Blue Cross (WellPoint), Aetna, UnitedHealth, HealthNet, and Cigna — is leading the charge, firing off press release after press release noting the “diverse group” of California organizations against the rate review bill. However, a closer look at the groups the insurers are touting reveals multiple financial ties to insurers opposed to AB 52:

– The California Chamber of Commerce has announced that AB 52 is on the top of its list of “Job Killers,” meaning they will make killing the legislation a top priority. The Chamber purports to represent all businesses in the state, but its board membership reveals mostly multinational corporations. Health insurers have a seat at the table. California Chamber board members include Greg Adams, a top Kaiser Health Plans official, David Anderson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare of Southern California, and Pam Kehaly, President of Anthem Blue Cross of California. Diamond membership to Chamber requires annual dues of at least $100,000, suggesting that top insurers have funneled hundreds of thousands of their customers’ premium money to a right-wing lobbying group, rather than spending it on actual medical services. Although the Chamber has not registered with the Secretary of State for grassroots lobbying, the Chamber’s e-lobbying platform is calling for members to contact legislators to oppose the bill.

– The Pacific Research Institute (PRI), a conservative think tank based in San Francisco and Sacramento, has attacked the legislation. PRI fellow John Graham has claimed there is “little or no evidence” rate review provides relief to consumers. In fact, numerous studies, like this one from Families USA, have found broad benefits to consumers through rate reviews instituted in other states. Perhaps PRI’s opposition is partially rooted in the fact that Michael Carpenter, a top lobbyist for Kaiser Health Plans, is a former board member of the group who has been featured at PRI events.

– A number of the other local chambers of commerce touted as opponents of AB 52 are funded by health insurance companies. For example, the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce receives annual donations of at least $50,000 from Kaiser Health Plans.

– The Civil Justice Association is paraded around as an opponent of the AB 52. Health insurers like Kaiser Health Plans and Anthem Blue Cross are among the dues-paying board members.

ThinkProgress has learned that the lobbying firm Fiona Hutton and Associates has been charged with helping to recruit and push these insurer allies.

Earlier this month, Los Angeles Times columnist Mike Hiltzik absolutely eviscerated the policy arguments insurers have advanced to discredit AB 52. But policy arguments are only part of the equation when it comes to legislative debates. According to disclosures filed with the state, health insurers like UnitedHealth, Cigna, and Anthem are hiring top Sacramento lobbyists and pouring more than $1 million dollars into lobbying. As the Courage Campaign highlighted in a recent letter, despite its registration as a nonprofit, Kaiser is spending vast amounts of money on direct lobbying as if they were a normal for-profit insurer. Sadly, the searchable donations reveal only part of the picture. Health insurers have not only purchased lobbyists with their customers’ premium money, they have purchased friends to build their anti-AB 51 “coalition.”

Since last year, low-income Arizonans have been feeling the impact of a series of brutal Medicaid cuts that officials predict will kick at least 135,000 people off the state’s health care rolls by next year. Now, thanks to these cuts, a Yuma man may be unable to afford a heart surgery he needs to survive.

Steven Stephenson recently quit his job over health issues. While he was working, his income fell under the federal poverty limit, and he would have been covered by the state’s Medicaid system, the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS). Yet when he quit his job, he enrolled in Social Security. His income actually increased thanks to this, and while he would have been still covered under AHCCCS just a few years ago, the new cuts actually will make it impossible for him to enroll.

Why? Because thanks to his Social Security payments, he earns $12 too much to apply. Due to his medical condition, he has been ordered by his doctor to not work, and he desperately needs surgery:

Stephenson said he cannot work anymore based on doctor’s orders and has been told not to do anything to avoid stressing himself out. This is a problem for Stephenson. “I love working. I can’t sit around and do nothing,” Stephenson said, evidently frustrated with his situation. [...]Stephenson did not have heart problems until he reached his 40s. While he has not had a heart attack, both of his parents died from one. “It’s what you inherit from your parents. Too bad it wasn’t good looks, I’d be better off,” Stephenson said with a laugh. [...]

[Stephenson's best friend] Weissman said he plans to organize a series of fundraisers in the community to help his best friend out with his medical bills and to get the heart surgery under way. “You know how somebody passes away and all of a sudden they hold carwashes to help bury them … Well, I’m going to do fundraisers to keep mine alive,” Weissman said.

Last week, the Arizona Supreme Court announced that it will not be taking action to stop planned Medicaid cuts or an enrollment freeze; activists had hoped their lawsuit would compel the state to reverse some of its harsher cuts, much like the Washington state supreme court reversed some cuts in that state. While Stephenson’s situation is a direct result of Arizona choosing to cut its Medicaid program, it bears repeating that the United States is the only rich country that does not provide comprehensive universal health care coverage to all of its citizens. In no other wealthy country would a man be told he can’t afford a life-saving surgery.

A funny thing is happening between the two Republicans who ran the Department of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush and did so little to expand access to health insurance: they’re now both supporting President Obama’s health care exchanges — the new market places that will allow Americans to easily compare and purchase health insurance in 2014.

Bush’s first HHS chief — former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson — has written an editorial for the Huffington Post urging Republican governors to adopt exchanges, and Mike Leavitt, his successor under the Bush administration, recently told Kaiser Health News that “even if the courts or Republicans succeed at unraveling the law, companies and states are likely to keep moving ahead with exchanges.”

So what’s driving this new-found love for what some have described as the most important part of Obamacare? Well as KHN notes, Leavitt’s consulting firm, Leavitt Partners, is heavily invested in the law’s exchanges. It “has been advising companies and state legislatures on how to create exchanges” and even hired two former government officials who helped build the Utah exchange soon after the federal health law passed.” Thompson’s connection is less direct, but as a partner for Akin/Gump, he “focuses on developing solutions for clients in the health care industry, as well as for companies doing business in the public sector.” His clients potentially include America’s Health Insurance Plans — the powerful health insurance lobby — Aetna, and other sectors of the health care industry that may stand to benefit from the very exchange structure he’s advocating.

As Politico’s Sarah Kliff notes, “for health consultants and information technology vendors, it’s already shaping up to be a gold mine“:

State health exchange planning documents obtained by POLITICO read like a who’s who of top health consulting firms, with contracts awarded to health vendors large and small. Between Indiana and Washington state — two of the three states that have received grants to establish exchanges so far — Deloitte Consulting, Mathematica Policy Research, Wakely Consulting Group and Milliman all have received exchange-related federal dollars….

“It’s a tremendous opportunity,” said Steven Auerbach, president of the health IT company Connextions, which has added more than 2,000 jobs this month alone as it gears up to compete for both private and state exchange business.

The Department of Health and Human Services is expected to release its exchange regulations sometime around July 7, prompting what will likely be a great scramble of consultants, vendors, and lobbyists all trying to help states comply with (or in some cases change) the new rules.

Former Wisconsin Gov. and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson (R) has long been out of step with today’s conservative Republican orthodoxy. He’s supported the individual mandate, argued against repealing the Affordable Care Act and even opposed portions of the Paul Ryan budget. Now, this potential GOP Senate candidate is going a step further, calling on Republican governors to implement the health care exchanges that are part of the Affordable Care Act:

I am writing to suggest that governors of both political parties have tremendous opportunity to use free market principles and set up health insurance exchanges which work and give constituents freedom of choice. There is a lot of discussion about health insurance exchanges as it relates to President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Some governors have a negative opinion of insurance exchanges and I believe that by doing so they are giving up a tremendous opportunity to use marketplace choice and allow insurance companies to compete in their respective states. It would be a terrible mistake to have governors give up that opportunity to set up exchanges and forfeit that opportunity back to the federal government which would limit states’ rights and their constituents’ ability to pick and choose the best insurance for themselves and their families.

Now to be clear, Thompson isn’t proposing that Republicans adopt the kind of robust insurance exchanges that Massachusetts and California are pursing — exchanges that act as a prudent purchasers and negotiate price and coverage on behalf of their beneficiaries. He’s calling for something far milder. It’s a model that many Republicans have supported in the past, one that’s rooted in Utah’s flea market-like exchange where any insurance company can offer a plan and consumers could potentially be suckered into some fairly inefficient and costly coverage. That’s a far less effective approach — the Massachusetts Connector has connected about 217,000 people to coverage while Utah’s exchange reached 3,583 enrollees — but at least it’s some kind of start towards implement the health care law rather than resisting it.

And Thompson offers one final warning: “If states do not build an exchange, the Affordable Care Act requires that the Federal government step in and run the exchange…If you give control of the exchange to the Federal government, you also give them control of the Federal Medicaid grant program. Do we really need to provide the Federal government day-to-day control into the largest liability items on the state budget?” That’s a question some Republican governors already know the answer to.

The Columbus Dispatch’s Catherine Candisky reports that the Ohio House is set to vote on a potentially unconstitutional measure that would effectively outlaw abortions six or seven weeks into pregnancy — before most women have even discovered that they’re expecting:

House Bill 125 by Rep. Lynn R. Wachtmann, R-Napoleon, would outlaw abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, generally six to seven weeks into pregnancy.

“This is a historic vote,” said Janet Folger Porter, the former legislative director for Ohio Right to Life who has led efforts to pass the legislation. “When passed, the heartbeat bill will be the most protective legislation in the nation.” [...]

[A]ssuming the bill’s sponsor and 48 co-sponsors vote for the bill, it will need only one more supporter to get the 50 votes required to pass. It would then go to the Senate for consideration, where its fate is uncertain.

The measure goes much further than bills passed in at least six states — Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma and Alabama — which ban abortions after the 20th week of gestation and establishes a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. That 1973 Supreme Court decision held that abortion cannot be banned until the fetus is viable, which is generally believed to be at the 24 week.

Interestingly, some abortion opponents have conceded that HB 125 is unconstitutional. Ohio Right to Life opposes the bill and “urged lawmakers to vote against it” in committee. That didn’t stop Rep. Todd McKenney (R), however, who supported “the legislation even though he does not think it is constitutional.”

Ohio will also consider several other anti-abortion measures that would “outlaw post-viability procedures” and “prohibit insurance plans from covering abortions in the health-insurance exchange that Ohio will create as part of the federal health-care reform.” The state budget proposal also “includes a provision banning publicly funded hospitals and clinics from performing abortions.”

The “heartbeat” bill also does not include exceptions for rape, incest, or health of the mother.