Yesterday, Kansas Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer clarified that Sam Brownback’s administration will not establish a health insurance exchange “until the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act,” and criticized some of the regulations promulgated by the law. Colyer claimed that early innovator grant the state rejected last month would require bureaucrats to ration health care:

Colyer held up a stack of papers written in 8-point font that he said are the preliminary rules and regulations accompanying the grant. [...] He also cited part of the rules that he said means the health care exchange would determine whether procedures for a person who could die are “inappropriate or too costly.” “That troubles me greatly,” he said.

Last month, Brownback and Coyler folded to political pressure and returned the $31 million they initially accepted from the law’s early innovator grant (designed to assist states with the technical aspects of establishing exchanges). Now, Coyer is going even further, misrepresenting the law by claiming that it says the opposite of what it actually says. The law specifically prohibits exchanges from determining which treatments are “necessary to prevent patients’ deaths“:

Certification.—
(1) In general.—An Exchange may certify a health plan as a qualified health plan if—

(A) such health plan meets the requirements for certification as promulgated by the Secretary under subsection (c)(1); and
(B) the Exchange determines that making available such health plan through such Exchange is in the interests of qualified individuals and qualified employers in the State or States in which such Exchange operates, except that the Exchange may not exclude a health plan—

(i) on the basis that such plan is a fee-for-service plan;
(ii) through the imposition of premium price controls; or
(iii) on the basis that the plan provides treatments necessary to prevent patients’ deaths in circumstances the Exchange determines are inappropriate or too costly.

Republican Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger dismissed Colyer’s criticism, saying, “I can guarantee you that there are no death panels in the federal law,” and Republican Sen. Pete Brungardt said the state passed on “a rather huge opportunity” in turning down the federal dollars. In fact, the alleged rationing provision is a new discovery for Colyer, who failed to mention it in explaining why the state sent back the dollars during a recent interview.

The GOP’s concerted campaign against women’s health has resulted in about 1,000 anti-abortion bills in state legislatures across the country and numerous federal attempts to eradicate a woman’s right to choose. The extremity of the efforts include attempts to redefine “personhood,” put warning labels on contraception, and criminalize birth control altogether. But while they smother women’s rights with one hand, Republicans insist “we are not attacking women” on the other. “This is not a war against women,” said Republican founder of WomanTrend Kellyanne Conway.

Texas Rep. Wayne Christian (R), however, begs to differ. With Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) at the helm, Texas Republicans have passed an “emergency” law forcing women to view a sonogram before an abortion, threatened a poor women’s health care program over Planned Parenthood funding, are seeking to restrict hospitals and physicians over abortion procedures, and has cut funding for family planning clinics by two-thirds.

When asked whether Texas’s anti-family planning efforts were “a war on birth control,” Christian replied, “Well of course this is a war on birth control and abortions and everything”:

The goal is to get government money out of the abortion process and if contraceptive services have to suffer a bit of collateral damage in the process, so be it. When The Texas Tribune asked state Rep. Wayne Christian (R-Nacogdoches), a supporter of the family planning cuts, if this was a war on birth control, he said “yes.”

“Well of course this is a war on birth control and abortions and everything, that’s what family planning is supposed to be about,” Christian said.

Family planning clinics are routinely referred to by many Texas Republican legislators as “abortion clinics” even though none of the 71 family planning clinics in the state that receive government funding provide abortions. Texas and federal law prohibits that, but most women’s health clinics will refer women or teens who want an abortion to a provider.

“They’re sitting here, referring women out to receive abortions,” Christian said in an interview with NPR. “Those are the clinics, including Planned Parenthood, we were targeting.”

While disturbing, Christian’s honesty is a refreshing change from Republicans’ more common defense that cuts to women’s health care will save money. As NPR notes, the state estimates that 300,000 women will lose access to family planning services because of these cuts, resulting in roughly 20,000 additional unplanned births. “Texas already spends $1.3 billion on teen pregnancies — more than any other state.”

There is no doubt that Republicans across the country are waging a comprehensive war against women’s health. At least Christian is willing to admit it.

Presidential contender Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has been on the defensive ever since suggesting last week that the HPV vaccine, which prevents cervical cancer, may cause mental retardation. Her completely bogus charge was immediately debunked by public health experts, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

But the New York Times reports today that far-reaching damage to public health may already have been done. Experts are predicting that Bachmann’s comments may set vaccination rates back for three or four years and instill unfounded fears in parents who would otherwise have their children vaccinated:

But the harm to public health may have already been done. When politicians or celebrities raise alarms about vaccines, even false alarms, vaccination rates drop.

“These things always set you back about three years, which is exactly what we can’t afford,” said Dr. Rodney E. Willoughby, a professor of pediatrics at the Medical College of Wisconsin and a member of the committee on infectious diseases of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The academy favors use of the vaccine, as do other medical groups and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The vaccine, recommended by the medical groups for 11- and 12-year-olds, protects against the human papillomavirus, or HPV, a sexually transmitted infection that can cause cancer. Use of the vaccine was disturbingly low even before the Bachmann flap, health officials say.

Dr. Willoughby went on to say that historically, these types of false scares have caused vaccination rates to drop for three or four years, and have led to outbreaks of diseases that had previously been under control, like measles and whooping cough.

But setting back HPV vaccination rates is particularly dangerous because “there will be no symptoms to scare parents back into vaccinating their daughters until it is too late.” Willoughbay said that with cervical cancer, “unfortunately, the outbreak is silent and will take 20 years to manifest.”

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted disease in America — millions of new infections occur each year, and researchers believe at least half of all adults have been infected at some point in their lives. Yet vaccination rates are lagging far behind where they should be. Bachmann’s remarks essentially gave ammunition to parents who were already on the fence about the vaccine, worried that it somehow implies that they are accepting or condoning their daughters into having sex.

Gov. Rick Perry and even conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh have criticized Bachmann for spreading dangerous misinformation about the vaccination. Perry compared her rumor-mongering to conspiracy theories that vaccines could cause autism.

During a brief speech at a factory in Waterloo, Iowa this afternoon, Michele Bachmann reiterated her support for deregulating health insurance policies. She argued that issuers should be able to circumvent sate-based rules that require policies to offer certain health care benefits and should instead be permitted to offer “Kia” or “strip-down” plans with minimal coverage:

BACHMANN: Right now every state has a monopoly on their health insurance so here in Iowa you could only buy a policy that is written according to Iowa law. If we make it so that you can buy a health insurance policy anywhere in the United States with no minimal mandates, then you buy only what you want to have. Under ObamaCare, President Obama said that you buy a health care policy that’s basically a Cadillac plan. Well, let’s say you don’t want a Cadillac plan. You can’t afford a Cadillac plan. You want a Kia plan, let’s say…a strip down plan. But you buy what you want. That will give you access to having more control over that.

Watch it:

Bachmann’s Kia analogy is meant to contrast with so-called Cadillac health care plans, overly-generous policies that drive up health care costs. A tax in President Obama’s health care law will discourage employers and insurers from offering these plans, while all new policies will have to provide a basic benefits package similar to what most Americans currently receive through their employers. The Affordable Care Act will, in other words, establish a floor of coverage to ensure that all individuals receive basic care when they need it.

Republicans like Bachmann want to move in the other direction and allow young and healthy Americans who don’t think they will ever become sick to purchase “what you want” — plans with extraordinarily high deductibles and skimpy benefits packages. Under their proposal, insurers would be able to circumvent consumer protections in certain states and sell bare-bone policies to the healthiest beneficiaries. Companies would have little incentive to do business in states that currently require coverage for cancer screenings, mammogram services, or other benefits and and will instead sell empty plans across the country to the most profitable applicants.

These beneficiaries will see short term savings — as long as they don’t become sick, they will be paying less than if they had a more comprehensive policy. But once they do fall ill, their “Kia strip down” plan won’t offer coverage for the treatments they need and they will either go bankrupt trying to pay for their medical bills out-of-pocket or spend substantially more on comprehensive coverage. These kinds policies, meanwhile, will experience an increase in costs because they will be overrun with the sick people who are either uninterested in a “Kia” plan — because it doesn’t offer coverage for their health needs — or can’t qualify for it.

So eventually, all beneficiaries pay more, while insurers profit from selling “strip-down” subprime products that don’t work when you need them.

The bulk of the $320 billion in health care savings in President Obama’s new deficit plan come from the pharmaceutical industry and other providers, including rural hospitals, teaching hospitals, and biotechnology firms. Beginning in 2017, some Medicare beneficiaries will also pay more for coverage: individual seniors with a Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) of more than $85,000 with an MAGI of more than $170,000 will see a 15 percent bump in their premiums for physician visits and drug coverage, while all new beneficiaries will be encouraged to use care more efficiently by paying a $25 deductible for doctor visits. Beneficiaries enrolled in Medigap policies that cover the cost sharing of Medicare Part B with also pay slightly more, as away to discourage over treatment.

Generally, the plan spreads the pain among all groups, but finds its greatest savings in drug rebates and modernizing provider payments to achieve greater efficiency: