Mitt Romney desperately wishes he could erase Romneycare from the history books until at least after election day, but a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research in Massachusetts shows that the health care reform passed by state Democrats and enthusiastically endorsed and signed by then-Gov. Mitt Romney is making the state healthier.

Ezra Klein highlights some of the positive effects detailed in the report — improvements in “physical health, mental health, functional limitations, joint disorders, body mass index, and moderate physical activity.”

The report also examined whether the benefits of the Massachusetts plan could effectively offer insight into the impact that the Affordable Care Act may have when it goes into full effect in the next few years. The report’s authors note that there are some differences between the Massachusetts law and Obamacare, but Klein explains that those differences could end up actually inflating the positive impacts of President Obama’s health care reform:

The national reforms, unlike the Massachusetts reforms, included major investments in comparative-effectiveness research, electronic health records, accountable care organizations and pay-for-quality pilots. If any or all of those initiatives pay off, they could dramatically improve our understanding of which treatments work and force the health-care system to integrate that new knowledge into everyday treatment decisions very quickly.

If that happens, medical care could become substantially more effective than it is now, which should also improve health outcomes.

Romney’s fervent support for the Massachusetts plan has been a lightning rod for the rest of the Republican field and conservatives across the country who are hesitant to back a candidate they view as too moderate, but this report shows that conservatives shouldn’t be so quick to disregard Romney’s or Obama’s health care reforms. To any other politician, a mostly-glowing report that validates a central piece of legislation passed on his watch as a governor would be paraded before voters and the media. But the Romney campaign is in no rush to remind Republican voters that Democratic-style health care reforms really do work.

Across the nation, lawmakers are debating several different anti-abortion bills seeking to make it more difficult for women to have an abortion. One tactic is “informed consent” measures that require women to be given information before an abortion — even if they do not want that information or getting it would violate medical guidelines.

Now, the New Hampshire House has passed a bill that, along with mandating a 24-hour waiting period, requires doctors to give women “informational materials” before an abortion that aren’t even accurate, including that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. Here’s the text of the bill:

It is scientifically undisputed that full-term pregnancy reduces a woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer. It is also undisputed that the earlier a woman has a first full-term pregnancy, the lower her risk of breast cancer becomes, because following a full-term pregnancy the breast tissue exposed to estrogen through the menstrual cycle is more mature and cancer resistant.

In fact, for each year that a woman’s first full-term pregnancy is delayed, her risk of breast cancer rises 3.5 percent. The theory that there is a direct link between abortion and breast cancer builds upon this undisputed foundation.

The problem is that a direct link between abortion and breast cancer is not only disputed, it has also been rejected by multiple health organizations. The National Institutes of Health, American Cancer Society, and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are a few of the groups who say no such link has been scientifically proven. Even the Susan G. Komen Foundation denies there is a link.

That has not stopped Republicans, including presidential candidate Rick Santorum, from peddling this theory. Nor is New Hampshire the first state where such a bill has been proposed — Kansas and Oklahoma have both considered legislation with similar provisions. But it is hard to understand how a bill can protect women’s health when it gives them incorrect information.

-Zachary Bernstein

More than 10 state legislatures are considering or have passed bills forcing women to receive an ultrasound before having an abortion. And Pennsylvania lawmakers are considering one of the most far-reaching ultrasound bills in the nation.

Gov. Tom Corbett (R) reaffirmed this week that he supports the anti-abortion measure so long as it’s not obtrusive because women could simply close their eyes during the procedure:

QUESTION: Making them watch…does that go too far in your mind?

CORBETT: I’m not making anybody watch, OK. Because you just have to close your eyes. As long as it’s on the exterior and not the interior.

Watch his answer:

Critics say Corbett’s comments show he doesn’t understand how the bill would even work. While the Pennsylvania legislation has been amended to remove references to invasive transvaginal ultrasounds, the language suggests a transvaginal ultrasound could still be required if the embryo is too small. Patrick Murphy, a Democrat running for attorney general, called for Corbett to apologize for his statement. “It’s unthinkable that he would so casually dismiss this by advising women to just close their eyes,” Murphy said.

The state House canceled a vote on the bill this week because medical associations have voiced concerns about the measure. And 48 percent of Pennsylvania voters oppose the ultrasound bill, with 42 percent supporting the measure, according to a new Quinnipiac poll. And 64 percent of voters oppose requiring transvaginal ultrasounds.

Meanwhile, Corbett’s approval rating among Pennsylvanians is dropping.