Today marks one year since the Affordable Care Act’s Patient’s Bill of Rights went into effect. The White House unveiled the regulations in 2010 to expand coverage and better control costs for patients before the full health care reform law goes into effect in 2014. And so far, people are seeing a difference, according to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Patient’s Bill of Rights prevented insurance companies from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions (this protection goes into effect for adults in 2014), and it allowed young adults to stay on their parent’s insurance plans until age 26 — allowing 1 million young adults to have health insurance in the last year. And the report highlights how regulations in the Patient’s Bill of Rights have allowed states to have more authority over health care costs in its state, using these examples:

-Connecticut’s Insurance Department rejected a proposed 20 percent rate hike by one of the State’s major insurers.
-In August 2010, a major insurer in Massachusetts agreed to a significant reduction of proposed increases – less than 13 percent instead of the nearly 23 percent they initially requested.
-In 2010, Oregon disapproved health insurance premium requests of 10 percent, 18 percent, and 20 percent in the individual market.
-Rhode Island’s Insurance Commissioner used his rate review authority to reduce a proposed rate increase by a major insurer in that State from 7.9 percent to 1.9 percent.
-Nearly 30,000 North Dakotans saw a proposed increase of 23.7 percent cut to 14 percent following a public outcry.
-In 2010, Californians were saved from rate increases totaling as high as 87 percent after a California insurer withdrew its proposed increase after scrutiny by the State Insurance Commissioner.

The report also outlines the stories of people who were helped by the Patient’s Bill of Rights, like Kylie Lodgson who was able to stay on her father’s insurance and receive a heart transplant. Providing the new regulations has helped families and individuals get insurance and keep their coverage, all while holding the insurance companies accountable. “By cracking down on insurance industry abuses and making sure we are spending taxpayer dollars wisely in our health care programs, we are ushering in a new day for American consumers,” writes Richard Sorian in an HHS blog post about the one-year anniversary of the regulations.

As ThinkProgress has been reporting, Personhood USA and its affiliates in the states are fringe anti-abortion groups that are determined to redefine life as beginning at the moment of fertilization, effectively outlawing contraceptives like birth control pills. Personhood Mississippi has succeeded in getting a “personhood” amendment on the Nov. 8 ballot that will allow voters to change the state’s constitution to say life begins at the moment of fertilization.

Yet Missisissippi Democrats are too afraid of challenging the anti-abortion lobby in a conservative state to stand up against Republicans to fight the measure. Laura Bassett reports in the Huffington Post that many are asking “where are the Democrats” in this debate:

Members of the medical and legal communities have raised concerns that the amendment could have unforeseen, far-reaching implications for women’s health, such as banning certain kinds of birth control, in vitro fertilization and stem cell research.

But state Democrats have been cautious of publicly opposing or even questioning the amendment for fear of alienating Mississippi’s pro-life majority.

In defining a legal human being from the moment of fertilization, Initiative 26, often called the “Personhood Amendment,” would criminalize abortion in Mississippi, with no exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups are challenging the measure, but could have a hard time finding Democratic allies, since many have already come out in favor of the amendment. That includes Jim Hood, the Democratic Attorney General, who endorsed the amendment said he would defend it if it were challenged. The Democratic candidate for Mississippi governor, Johnny DuPree, told Huffington Post that that he supports it as well, despite his “concerns about some of the ramifications.”

In fact, only one senate Democrat would publicly oppose the amendment, and the Mississippi Democratic Party has declined to take a position on Initiative 26.

Leola Reis, a spokesperson for the No on 26 campaign, commented, “it’s really disappointing to not see state leadership publicly talk about the shortcomings and dangers of this initiative for the women and families of Mississippi.”

The personhood amendment does far more than restrict abortion rights. It would recognize every fertilized egg as a complete human being with full rights, and place millions of women in legal jeopardy. The medical community has long been in agreement that fertilization does not mark the beginning of a pregnancy — fertilized eggs must first be implanted, and only about half of fertilized eggs actually result in a pregnancy. But Personhood USA considers contraceptives that can prevent fertilized eggs from implanting tantamount to abortion, and wants to make it a punishable offense for women to control their own fertility.

The Kaiser Family Foundation published the results from its September tracking poll, which questioned respondents about the health reform law and what they know about the pre-existing conditions provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). According to the poll, Americans remain split along mostly party lines about ACA, with 41 percent viewing it favorably and 43 percent unfavorably.

Fifty-two percent of people polled said they or someone in their household a pre-existing condition — people who will be helped by new regulations in the Affordable Care Act to prevent those with pre-existing condtions from being denied coverage. Of those, 21 percent said they or a family member had trouble getting insurance because of their pre-existing condition; 14 percent said they had been denied coverage. Americans are aware of some of the benefits ACA provides for people with pre-existing conditions, but a sizable minority are unaware of the benefits: 60 percent said they knew that insurance companies cannot deny coverage because of medical history, and 56 percent said they knew the government would create high-risk insurance pools to make insurance more affordable. And only 46 percent said they knew the insurance companies could not set lifetime limits on how much they will spend on a person’s health care.

However, when it comes to how ACA will help patients with pre-existing conditions, only 44 percent of people who say someone in their household has a pre-existing condition think that the law will make health conditions better for those with pre-existing conditions. And 27 percent think they would be worse off. Here’s the chart from Kaiser:

As Matt Yglesias points out, Republicans and some Democrats have opposed the insurance mandate that is included in the health reform law. But without it, the pre-existing conditions regulations and other parts of ACA would be unaffordable. Preventing coverage denials because of pre-existing conditions has been a popular proposal over all, but that message has not fully reached those who actually have a pre-existing condition.

In last night’s Republican presidential debate, Gov. Rick Perry (R) faced harsh criticism over his decision to mandate that all Texas girls receive the HPV vaccine. Not only were conservatives uncomfortable with the idea of a health care mandate, but the fact that the vaccine’s drugmaker, Merck, was a major donor to Perry and had hired the governor’s former chief of staff as a lobbyist drew accusations of cronyism.

After his attempts to deflect the issue in earlier debates proved unsuccessful, Perry took a different tack this time. “I got lobbied on this issue,” Perry said solemnly. “I got lobbied by a 31-year-old young lady who had stage 4 cervical cancer. I spent a lot of time with her. She came by my office talked to me about in program.” Watch it:

However, contra to Perry’s insinuation that his relationship with Heather Burcham led him to require the HPV vaccine for all Texas girls, ABC News’ Arlette Saenz pointed out that he hadn’t befriended the woman until after issuing the mandate:

Months after the Texas state legislature revoked the executive decision, Perry expressed in very personal terms the potential the HPV vaccine holds for preventing cervical cancer in young women. Perry spoke of the missed opportunity of the Texas government at a memorial service for Heather Burcham, a 31-year-old woman who died from cervical cancer after contracting HPV.

Perry and Burcham, a teacher from Houston, Texas, struck up an unusual friendship in the months after he issued his executive order. While the Texas legislature was working to revoke the mandate, Burcham traveled to Austin to testify about her personal experience with cervical cancer and how the HPV vaccine might help spare other young women from suffering a fate similar to her own.

Perry’s first explanation to conservatives was that it couldn’t have been cronyism because Merck’s $5,000 donation (which was actually $30,000) wasn’t sufficiently large for him to “be bought.” Last night’s account was that a dying cancer patient prompted his actions, yet it’s now revealed that their friendship didn’t begin until after the mandate order. What will Perry’s new explanation be in the next Republican debate on Oct. 11?

Fox News anchor Chris Wallace challenged Rick Perry over his claim that the federal government is responsible for Texas’ high number of uninsured during last night’s GOP presidential debate in Orlando, Florida, pointing out that Texas “has imposed some of the toughest eligibility rules for Medicaid of any state in the country” and ranks “49th in Medicaid coverage of low income residents.” Perry, who has said previously that Texas has the best health care system in the country, refused to take responsibility. He blamed the federal government for tying his hands and even insisted that people still come to Texas to take advantage of the state’s health care system:

PERRY: We’ve had a request in for the federal government so we could have a Medicaid waiver for years. The federal government has stopped us from having that medicaid waiver…that is how we go forward with our health care, each state deciding how they’re going to deliver that health care. Not one size fits all. [...]

The fact is, people continue to move to the state of Texas, some of the highest rates in the country because we’ve created a state where opportunity is very much the word of the day there, if you will, for finding work and what have you. Our health care is part of that. Our education is part of that. We are proud of what we put together in the state of Texas.

Watch it:

The fact of the matter is, Texas has has 16 Medicaid waivers, on par with other states its size and just last week received a thumbs up from the Obama administration “on a proposed overhaul of the Texas Medicaid program.” If the federal government grants its final approval, it will be Texas’ 17th Medicaid waiver. So the problem Texas faces isn’t one of flexibility — it’s the state’s unwillingness to expand its Medicaid program — despite escalating demand — the proliferation of low-income jobs and a relatively small rate of employer-based health care options — and a fairly high immigrant population. Meanwhile, eligibility rates remain narrow and Perry continues to undercut provider reimbursements, creating mass doctor shortages.

But of course, if Perry believes that the existing Medicaid program is hurting the state, he should be offering alternatives — something he has yet to do as a presidential candidate or governor. The fact of the matter is, for all the GOP’s talk of states as “laboratories of democracy” and innovation, the only state that has independently achieved universal coverage is Massachusetts (in a way in which Republicans loathe) and even it required additional federal assistance to implement its program.