Following up on last week’s contraception hearing, the House Judiciary Committee held another hearing yesterday afternoon on the subject, which featured the rantings of Rep. Steve King (R-IA). In a lengthy screed against the Obama administration’s contraception rule, King scoffed at the progress made in women’s rights over the passed 60 years and suggested that Connecticut had a right to ban contraception in the landmark Griswold v. Connecticut:

KING: Why should I care about the conclusions that have been brought forward by the Supreme Court if we can race from 1965, Connecticut having a Tenth Amendment right to establish a policy, a Supreme Court that creates a right to privacy that’s the foundation for mandated abortion, and here were are discussing whether we’re going to mandate everybody in America fund and provide that contraceptives. … Why should I care?

Watch it:

The Griswold decision overturned a law in Connecticut that prohibited the use of birth control, even for married couples, but King apparently thinks the state had a right to enforce that ban.

ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos raised this very issue during a GOP presidential debate in January and was roundly pilloried by conservatives. “George, this is an unusual question you’re asking,” Mitt Romney replied and suggested that nobody was seriously considering outlawing contraceptives. King’s answer, however, would suggest otherwise.

While most states are considering measures that curtail women’s access to abortion, in the state of California, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and nurse midwives may soon be permitted to perform routine abortions in a woman’s first trimester of pregnancy if a bill authored by state Sen. Christine Kehoe (D) passes in the Senate. Bill SB1501 would make aspiration abortions — the most common method for terminating early pregnancies — more accessible and more affordable, especially for women who live in rural areas (where 97 percent of rural counties have no abortion provider).

Most nurse practitioners and physical assistants are skilled at administering a wide range of routine gynelogical care to women — including Pap smears, IUD insertions, prenatal care, and labor and delivery assistance and in California, non-physician professionals are allowed to provide medication that causes an abortion under a doctor’s supervision. Bill SB1501 would only expand the law to include aspiration abortions:

“We believe it will give many California women access to earlier, safer procedures in the first trimester of their pregnancy,” Kehoe said at a news conference in Sacramento on Tuesday.

Abortion rights proponents celebrated Kehoe’s measure as one that bucks the national trend of restricting access to the procedure. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive health issues, found that legislators across the country proposed a record number of laws limiting abortion last year and that 135 became law.

California isn’t alone in expanding women’s access to abortion, however. Washington state is currently considering a measure that would require all health insurers who cover maternity care to also insure abortions, so that women “continue to have easy access to abortions once changes in federal health-care laws take effect in 2014.” According to the Guttmacher Institute, New York is the only other state considering similar legislation.

– Fatima Najiy

Yesterday, ModernHealthcare reported that Mike Leavitt, a top adviser to Mitt Romney, believes that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) can move the health care system in the right direction. The comments fly in the face of Romney’s pledge to repeal the measure, but fail to capture the full scope of Leavitt’s support for key elements of the law.

While the former Health and Human Services Secretary has generally called for greater state flexibility and argued that the ACA transfers too much power to his successor, Kathleen Sebelius, Leavitt has consistently argued that government must play a role in regulating the health care system. For instance, during a speech at the Hudson Institute on September 15, 2011, Leavitt maintained:

LEAVITT: I argue routinely that government ought not to be playing a large role here. But I need to acknowledge, and I believe we all do, many of these things given the circumstances will require government. [...]

I’m here to argue that government’s got to play a role, it’d be far better to have it organizing an efficient system than to owning it. And I think the incumbent situation that we’re moving toward now in the Affordable Care Act is clearly about government operating the system, and we need to move more toward — and Medicare ought to be in the lead. Now, you didn’t ask all that but I enjoyed saying it. Thank you for — (laughter).

Consequently, Leavitt’s consulting firm, Leavitt Partners, is heavily invested in the law’s state-based exchanges and “has been advising companies and state legislatures on how to create exchanges.” The group hired two former government officials who helped build the Utah exchange soon after the federal health law passed” and its websites brags about its abilities to help clients implement the measure:

The release goes on to say, “Our team now has policy expertise and information system and process expertise as it relates to all of the detailed components of setting up an exchange. We offer clients our knowledge of the requirements of the Affordable Care Act and the technical know-how to create a successful health insurance exchange.”

The site even includes a separate “Health Insurance Exchange Intelligence Team” page:

A spokesperson for Leavitt did not dispute that the consulting firm has been helping states implement the law, but told ThinkProgress, “Gov. Leavitt supports the repeal of the ACA. His firm has advised states to prepare for every alternative as it relates to the ongoing implementation or repeal of the law.”

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) came out today against a piece of legislation her fellow Republicans are advancing to stop the Obama administration’s new birth control rule. The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), would go much farther the Obama rule and allow any employer to deny coverage for contraceptives and other preventative health care services to their employees. The measure puts “your boss in your bedroom and in between you and your doctor,” as ThinkProgress’ Josh Dorner noted, and could endanger millions of women’s insurance coverage for preventive health care.

Republican lawmakers have rallied around Blunt’s amendment. A vote is scheduled for tomorrow, attached to an unrelated transportation bill. But Snowe — who announced her retirement yesterday — said on MSNBC today that the Blunt Amendment goes too far:

SNOWE: With respect to the Blunt amendment, I think it’s much broader than I could support. I think we should focus on the issue of contraceptives and whether or not it should be included in a health insurance plan and what requirements there should be.

Watch it:

 

 

Fellow Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins joined Snowe in breaking ranks with the GOP to support Obama’s contraception rule, after he made an accommodation to religious organizations. So far, Collins is undecided on the Blunt amendment and others may oppose it too.

Sixty-seven percent of voters oppose legislation like Blunt’s, a recent poll found.

Lawmakers in at least four states are considering legislation requiring women to view an ultrasound before undergoing an abortion, but the most extreme and far reaching bill may be in Pennsylvania, where technicians would be required to provide women with “personalized copies of the results.” Elizabeth Nash, policy analyst at the Guttmacher Institute, “explains“:

In addition to mandating the much-maligned transvaginal ultrasound requirements since rejected by the state of Virginia, Pennsylvania legislators proposed strongly encouraging women to view and listen to the ultrasounds, forcing technicians to give the women personalized copies of the results and mandating how long before any abortion the ultrasound much be performed — and that’s just for starters. [...]

“This bill definitely suffers the legislators-playing-doctor problem. … There are a number of requirements in this bill that are medically unnecessary,” Nash said, pointing out that so many requirements packed into the 22-page bill could make it logistically difficult for abortion providers to comply with them. “This bill is something that would be unacceptable to most women seeking an abortion.”

Additionally, Nash points out that the length of the legislation hides bizarre and unprecedented requirements, such as asking women who gets an ultrasound more than 14 days before her abortion to view a state-approved video on fetal gestation. The bill, unlike many other ultrasound requirements, does offer exceptions for victims of rape and incest; the bill does not require victims to have reported the incidents to the authorities.

The House Health Committee passed the bill, and the Pennsylvania House should vote on it in mid-March.

The bill’s sponsor state Rep. Kathy Rapp (R) defended the legislation by saying it’s a matter of women being well-informed. “As a woman, I believe when a woman makes a crucial decision about her health and her body, she should be fully informed,” Rapp said. And state Rep. Marcy Toepel (R), a co-sponsor of the legislation, said, “Getting an ultrasound is a good thing for pregnant women.” The bill even attracted 113 co-sponsors — enough for passage.

But studies have proven that viewing an ultrasound does not lead women to not have abortions. And while seven states already require doctors to give women the option of an ultrasound before an abortion procedure, Pennsylvania’s bill goes well beyond simply making sure that women have enough information.

Mike Leavitt, President George W. Bush’s former Secretary of Health and Human Services and a senior adviser to Mitt Romney, says the Affordable Care Act could help reduce health care costs and transform America’s existing fee-for-service health care model. In an apparent break from Romney’s pledge to “easily” repeal the law, Leavitt told ModernHealthcare that the measure could help move the nation in the right direction:

Mike Leavitt, the former secretary of HHS under President George W. Bush and current Romney adviser, said the federal government’s historic $15 trillion debt will drive “hard” changes in healthcare system to reduce its costs. Those changes, including moving across healthcare from a fee-for-service model to outcomes based payment, may be facilitated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Romney has repeatedly urged repeal and replacement of the law.

The law “gives the secretary authority to do certain things that are clearly aimed at trying to move us in this direction,” he said in a brief interview after addressing a Washington gathering of the Cancer Action Network. “A lot of it will depend on how aggressively the secretary chooses to use the authorities in the law to move us in that direction.”

Leavitt’s consulting firm, Leavitt Partners, is also heavily invested in the health law’s exchanges and “has been advising companies and state legislatures” on how to build the new marketplaces. He has also said that companies and states will likely implement the measure despite the GOP’s efforts to unravel the law, arguing that “they recognize that individual insurance shoppers and small businesses have long been at a disadvantage, lacking the negotiating power of large companies that can demand better prices.”

In November of 2010, Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) joined the public outcry against the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) security precautions in airports by describing body scans and mandatory pat downs as crossing “the line” in regard “to people’s concerns about privacy” and “beneath the dignity” of air travelers. But just two months later, the anti-abortion McDonnell had no problem violating women’s privacy and freedom to make medical decisions by throwing his support behind a measure that originally required women seeking abortions to undergo ultrasounds in which a wand is inserted into the vagina.

Following a public outcry, McDonnell revised the measure to exempt women from the more invasive procedure, but not before encountering the wit of comedian Jon Stewart, who characterized the bill as “a TSA pat-down inside their vagina.” McDonnell addressed the contradiction between supporting mandatory ultrasounds for women and opposing “invasive” TSA pat downs during a radio interview this morning on WTOP and claimed that there is no comparison between the legislation and the enhanced security procedures:

MCDONNELL: There are things that are required in the interest of public safety, like TSA procedures. There are ways to accomplish the same result without an invasive patdown. [...]

I believe this is something that respects the dignity of women by making sure they have necessary information.

And while McDonnell has regularly attacked President Obama’s health care reform plan as an unfunded mandate, he brushed off concerns that the ultrasound bill would create an unfunded mandate for women. He described the ultrasound as a necessary mandate that provides women with more information before having an abortion. “If there are legitimate mandates for health and safety, obviously I’m for those,” he explained.

The ultrasound bill passed the Senate earlier this afternoon and now heads to McDonnell for his signature.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) launched a pre-emptive strike against the GOP’s forthcoming budget during a committee hearing Tuesday morning, arguing that the Republicans’ plan to transform Medicare through “premium support” would increase costs for seniors. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) is expected to release the party’s budget sometime next month, which will call for lowering federal health spending by providing seniors with a “premium support” voucher to purchase insurance from an exchange of private health care plans.

During a question and answer session before the house committee, Rick Foster, the program’s chief actuary, confirmed that traditional Medicare is more efficient than private insurers and went on to say that shifting beneficiaries from fee-for-service Medicare into private plans does not lower overall health care costs. “If you’re simply transferring the Medicare beneficiary from the Medicare system into the private health market and the growth in cost in the private health care market is the same or higher than Medicare, they’re not going to contain any less, are they?” Van Hollen asked. “Other things being equal that’s correct,” Foster responded.

Foster also agreed that the GOP’s “premium support” plans are different than the health care policies members of Congress enjoy through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP), where each member’s “premium support credit” keeps up with actual health care costs:

VAN HOLLEN: The Federal Employee Health Benefits System (FEHBP) — which every member of Congress is on — is targeted to the market price. But members of Congress are guaranteed a certain share of their premiums will be paid by the federal government, I think that’s right.

FOSTER: That’s correct.

VAN HOLLEN: Ok, and there is a big difference between that — in terms of economic security — between that and a system where the amount of the voucher or premium support (whatever you want to call it) is not linked to the market price, but could be linked to an indicee that does not rise as the same rate cost-wise as the market. Right?

FOSTER: Yes. [...]

VAN HOLLEN: In your testimony, you point out that in those cases where your support — the amount of your voucher doesn’t keep pace with the market cost of health care, you may have to choose to either pay a lot more out-of-pocket or not get a health care plan that covers all your needs. Is that correct?

FOSTER: That’s certainly a risk and it’s a pretty important risk.

Watch a compilation of the exchange:

This year’s House budget will likely be similar to Ryan’s proposal from last year, which passed in a vote of 235-193 with no Democrats in support, but may include some changes to the Medicare provisions, akin to the plan Ryan unveiled with Senate Democrat Ron Wyden (D-OR). The proposal may maintain traditional Medicare as an option and grow the premium support credit with the actual cost of the policies. Ryan’s 2011 budget grew the premium support substantially slower than actual health care costs, shifting health care costs to beneficiaries.

In a Virginia-like turn around, the sponsor of a bill in the Alabama legislature mandating a physician “to perform an ultrasound, provide verbal explanation of the ultrasound, and display the images to the pregnant woman before performing an abortion” says he will water down his measure to give women more say over the procedure. SB12 will no longer require “a woman seeking an abortion to first undergo an ultrasound in which a doctor or technician inserted an ultrasound transducer, or wand, inside her,” State Sen. Clay Scofield (R) explained in a statement Monday, allowing the woman to determine which “method of ultrasound that she would be more comfortable with.”

Under the measure, physicians and technicians who failed to administer the ultrasound prior to an abortion could still face up to 10 years in prison and a $15,000 fine. The bill does not provide exceptions for rape an incest and would allow “the woman, the father of the fetus or the grandparents to sue the physician for “actual and punitive damages.” Critics also charge that the provision would permit “a rapist to sue a doctor who aborted his victim’s baby.”

Last week, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) backed away from supporting the same measure after almost 1,000 women protested the measure and national media mocked the extreme bill. He explained that he backtracked after the state’s attorney general told him that “these kinds of mandatory invasive requirements might run afoul of Fourth Amendment law.”

Eight days after getting roundly-chastised for holding an all-male anti-contraception, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) admitted on Friday that the episode did not go as well as he expected.

“I won’t call it my greatest success to get a point across on behalf of the American people,” said the six-term congressman.

Issa, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, held a hearing on February 16 to discuss the Obama administration’s new regulation that requires employers and insurers to provide birth control coverage. During the hearing, Issa prohibited a woman who supported expanding access to contraception from testifying.

However, after enduring more than a week of embarrassment in the media, Issa was chastened while speaking at the California Republican Party’s Spring Convention in Burlingame:

ISSA: Right now there are attacks on the Constitution. Some of them are subtle, and some are less subtle. I’m just going to relate one thing to you. Last week there was a hearing that was spun, it was terrible spun. We all saw it. I won’t call it my greatest success to get a point across on behalf of the American people.

Listen to it:

One need look no further than a picture of the witness table at the hearing on women’s health to recognize why the episode was heavily criticized:

Hat-tip: @lhfang