Tea Party firebrand Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) is apparently unsatisfied with the number of meaningless symbolic votes Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is holding, saying in a recent interview that he would prefer to repeatedly waste the House of Representatives’ time by voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act every single month. He told Accuracy in Media for an upcoming documentary:

WALSH: If I were the Speaker, starting last year, every month we would have voted to repeal ObamaCare. I would have pulled ObamaCare up on the floor of the House yesterday.

Watch it:

Walsh’s scheme is an exercise in both redundancy and futility several times over, because no matter how many times the House passes a repeal (it only takes one time to matter), the Senate, controlled by Democrats, is not going to do the same. And even if they did, President Obama would certainly veto a bill killing his signature legislative accomplishment.

Meanwhile, Walsh would continue to enjoy his government healthcare while wasting everyone else’s time.

Our guest bloggers are Rebecca Friendly and Araceli Ruano from the Center for American Progress’ California office.

At all levels of government there has been a serious push for increasing access to food among low income households and fostering more nutritious eating habits in communities and schools.
Last July, First Lady Michelle Obama and the Partnership for a Healthier America secured pledges from Wal-Mart, Walgreens, SuperValu and several other stores to open or expand stores in “food deserts”, bringing healthy affordable food to approximately 10 million people over the course of five years.

That same month the First Lady also announced the California FreshWorks Fund, a public-private partnership loan fund with $264 million available to support grocery stores and other healthy food retailers in low-income, underserved communities in California. The California Endowment and a team of partners that include banks, grocers, health care providers, and nonprofits lead this initiative. Modeled after a successful program in Pennsylvania, this loan fund provides grants to healthy food retailers willing to locate stores in “food deserts”, areas lacking access to fresh, healthy food.

On Feb. 1, the First Lady spoke at a community event in Los Angeles to celebrate the progress that the California FreshWorks Fund has made in bringing affordable and healthy food to neighborhoods around the city. As one of its initial projects, the California FreshWorks Fund committed more than $20 million in funding to Southern California grocer Northgate Gonzalez Markets for its first three projects: a San Diego location as well as stores in Inglewood and South Los Angeles. The President and CEO of the California Endowment, Robert K. Ross, MD, also spoke at this event and enthusiastically stated, “we all have a shared interest in ensuring our neighborhoods, grocery stores and school cafeterias contribute positively to the health of our communities. Today’s announcement marks the beginning of what we hope will be a robust effort to expand access to nutritious food for all Californians!”

These commitments are a step in the right direction in the effort to combat the country’s obesity and hunger epidemics. Approximately one in four children in the U.S. live in a household that experiences hunger. Additionally, 30 percent of children in the U.S. are overweight or obese and among African Americans and Latinos the number soars to an estimated 40 percent.

Although hunger and obesity are oftentimes viewed as two distinct problems, they are deeply interconnected. Hunger and food insecurity are key contributors to obesity as low-income Americans are forced to rely upon high calorie, low nutrition foods to quell hunger pangs. Notably, studies have consistently demonstrated the lack of supermarkets and other stores selling healthy, affordable food in low-income communities as compared to wealthier ones. Adults in California neighborhoods with low access to healthy food are 20 percent more likely to be obese than those in higher-access neighborhoods, increasing their risk of developing chronic diseases. The California Fresh Works Fund website features a very useful interactive map that displays “Grocery Gap” statistics for various counties throughout the US and can be broken down into detailed indicators. The California FreshWorks Fund was created to tackle these food access concerns, while also addressing additional challenges faced by communities in so-called “food deserts”. In addition to improving community health, drawing grocery stores into “food deserts” also creates opportunities for economic development. Grocery stores create jobs (an estimated 49 to 120 new jobs per store), attract other small businesses to the area, and increase the surrounding residential real estate values.

Additional benefits include increased property values in the surrounding communities and increased income and property tax. This increased economic activity and property value help relieve pressure on state and local budgets and increase community sustainability.

California’s Freshworks Fund serves as a model for an innovative public-private partnership loan fund with the potential to increase access to healthy and affordable food throughout the state. This new program is proving itself as a vital component in California’s fight against hunger and obesity, and as an important force in strengthening the economies of affected communities.

Katie Wilczak, CAP CA Intern, contributed to this piece.

The number of Americans who received health insurance from their employer dropped again in 2011, continuing a three-year decline. According to a Gallup survey, 44.6 percent were insured through their employers in 2011, compared to 45.8 percent in 2010 and 49.2 percent in 2008. And at the same time, the number of Americans without insurance has increased, growing from 14.8 percent in 2008 to 17.1 percent last year.

The Affordable Care Act is expected to stabilize the employer health insurance market while opening up options for people who are uninsured through the state insurance exchanges. In 2009, more than 50 million Americans were uninsured, but estimates show that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the number of uninsured by 32 million once it is fully implemented.

In an interview with NewsMax Friday, GOP hopeful Newt Gingrich said President Obama’s accommodation on the new contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act may actually be “worse” than the original plan. That same day, the administration announced a revised proposal to reduce the burden on religiously-affiliated employers — a move that has satisfied many critics, but not Gingrich:

GINGRICH: First of all, I don’t know that he made a big shift. It’s a clever maneuver that may actually be worse, not better. I want to explore it carefully. A number of leading Catholic intellectuals believe this is actually worse. It’s certainly worse as a matter of conscience.

Watch it:

Gingrich’s position that the accommodation is even “worse” than the original plan seems to put him even farther to the right that his fellow Republican presidential candidates on the issue who have characterized the change as “another deception.” And it’s an especially bold claim considering that Gingrich doesn’t explain why he think the new policy is worse, as it will require insurance companies, instead of religiously-affiliated employers, to provide an option for contraception coverage

The “Catholic intellectuals” Gingrich mentions is likely a reference a group who signed onto an open letter opposing the mandate. One of the letter’s top signers, Robert George, is a prominent anti-gay Catholic activist associated with the National Organization for Marriage. Another top signer, Mary Ann Glendon, is a Mitt Romney supporter who has gone to so far as to contest the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV. “The Holy See in no way endorses contraception or the use of condoms, either as a family planning measure or in HIV/AIDS prevention programs,” she said.

But Gingrich seems to be putting himself even farther to the right than the signers of the letter, as even they don’t seem to think the accommodation is worse than the original decision, though they are opposed to both.

Last week, responding to an outcry from Catholic leaders and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, the Obama administration modified regulations requiring insurers and employers to provide contraception as part of their health care plans without additional co-payments. Under the new rule, religiously affiliated colleges, universities, and hospitals that raise religious objections to birth control can decline the benefit and their employees will still receive contraception coverage directly from the insurer.

Most Republicans are not satisfied with the modification, however, and are co-sponsoring legislation that would significantly broaden the conscience exclusion. On Monday night, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) joined the pack, with a spokesperson telling the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent that the senator “appreciates President Obama’s willingness to revisit this issue, but believes it needs to be clarified through legislation” that would permit any employer or insurance plan to exclude any health service, no matter how essential, from coverage if they morally object to it.

But Massachusetts already requires insurers to carry contraceptive coverage for women and Brown voted for the provision as a member of the Massachusetts House on Jan. 30, 2002, ThinkProgress has learned. At the time, the Catholic Conference of Massachusetts, lobbied against the measure and urged lawmakers to adopt an amendment exempting organizations that are affiliated with the Catholic church or have a moral objection to contraception. Brown supported that provision, but once it failed in a vote of 106 to 49, he voted ‘YES’ on the underlying bill, which only exempted “an employer that is a church or qualified church-controlled organization” from offering birth control:

Since Obama’s new federal standard would allow church-affiliated nonprofits to eschew birth control coverage, it could offer greater conscience protections to Massachusetts’ Catholic colleges, universities, and hospitals. For instance, if Boston College is required to provide birth control under the Brown-approved law, it could drop the coverage — and leave the matter to its insurer — under Obama’s regulation.

Interestingly, Brown also voted for a 2005 bill mandating hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims, even after lawmakers defeated his amendment to allow religious hospitals to opt out of the requirement. Brown split with then-Gov. Mitt Romney on the matter and joined the legislature in overriding his veto.

Brown’s office did not immediately respond to ThinkProgress’ request for comment.

WASHINGTON, DC — Utah State Rep. Stephen Sandstrom (R), currently running in his state’s newly-created 4th congressional district, broke with his party’s presidential frontrunner, Rick Santorum, over the weekend on whether any health insurance plans should cover birth control.

On Friday, Santorum told the Conservative Political Action Conference that he didn’t think health insurance plans ought to cover contraception because birth control “costs just a few dollars.” Santorum dismissed contraception as “not a critical economic need” and therefore wasn’t one of the “things you need insurance for.”

ThinkProgress asked Sandstrom about Santorum’s comments at CPAC the following day. Sandstrom, who describes himself as a “stalwart conservative,” nevertheless said Santorum was wrong to say that no insurance plans should cover birth control. Sandstrom argued that if individuals want contraception coverage or companies want to offer it, “then that’s fine.”

KEYES: Now some people are willing to go even a little bit further on the issue like former Sen. Santorum yesterday said that he didn’t think insurance plans should be covering birth control at all. It just wasn’t something that should fall under the purview. What do you think, do you think he’s right on that?

SANDSTROM: No, I differ a little bit. I think it’s okay if an individual company makes that decision or an individual person wants insurance, they want to provide that option for people then that’s fine. But it should be the company making that decision, not the federal government deciding how they do it, and the individual making that decision.

Santorum isn’t the only GOPer currently poo-pooing the cost of birth control. On Friday, Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), the number five Republican in the House of Representatives, told ThinkProgress that “there’s not one woman” who doesn’t have access to birth control.

In fact, birth control can cost women over $850 in the first year of their prescription. Combined with fees from the doctors visit, the out-of-pocket expense could rise to over $1,200 for uninsured women. Such price tags are prohibitive for millions of women; a recent survey found that one in three women voters have struggled to afford contraception at some point.