The Texas Women’s Health Program (WHP) provides affordable health care to roughly 130,000 low-income women in the state, but Texas Republicans jeopardized the program when officials decided to block abortion providers — including Planned Parenthood — from participating. In March, the federal government cut off federal funds, which made up 90 percent of the Medicaid program, noting that states cannot ban certain providers from Medicaid.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) has promised to make up the $30 million gap and keep the WHP running with only state funds, so that Texas can still ban Planned Parenthood from the program. Originally, federal officials proposed phasing out funding by September, but Billy Milwee, the state’s Medicaid director, has requested an extension until November to allow the state more time to adjust to the funding change.

But even if the program continues, thousands of women will need to find new care providers when state officials begin blocking organizations that provide abortions from participating in May:

Milwee says they are enforcing the state law banning Planned Parenthood and others starting May first. He expects about 3 percent of all statewide Women’ Health Program providers will be removed from the program. And he says that could mean an adjustment for some patients.

Milwee: They may have to find a new provider. We’ll help them do that. But, the services will continue.

That means up to 50,000 women could be in search of new doctors. Milwee’s plan calls for state officials to contact all women in the health program to help them find a new provider, and state officials are currently recruiting new doctors and clinics. But it is still unclear how specifically Texas will pay for the program to ensure that those benefits continue uninterrupted.

Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has sued the federal government to have the Medicaid funds restored, and Texas Planned Parenthood affiliates are suing the state for banning abortion providers in the Women’s Health Program. Most Texans disagree with the state’s plan anyway — 59 percent of Texans want the state to continue including Planned Parenthood, according to a March poll. And even Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) has defended the organization, saying it provides critical preventive care for women.

According to a new study, Americans’ life expectancy varies widely based on region and race, particularly in the Southeastern United States. White men born in the ten percent of counties considered the healthiest had a 77 percent chance of living to age 70, but only a 61 percent chance if they were born in the ten percent of counties considered the least healthy.

For black men, the disparity was more pronounced: Only 45 percent would be expected to survive to age 70 in the least healthy counties, while 68 percent would live that long in the most healthy counties. Similar disparities were also found among black and white women depending on where they lived. According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention map released last year, the southeast had the highest concentration of counties where at least 30 percent of the population is overweight. As seen in the maps below, the odds of surviving until age 70 are also lowest in the southeast.

The map to the left examines white men, while the map on the right examines black men. The darker the map, the lower the chance of living to age 70:

– Zachary Bernstein

Since passing the House Budget using a legislative tactic they’ve previously described as “unconstitutional,” Republicans have begun their appropriations process by marking up legislation that would cut millions from federal safety net programs and middle class health care benefits in order to finance their $3 trillion giveaway to corporations and the richest Americans.

Under the Republican-approved budget, for instance, the House Ways & Means committee is instructed to reduce the deficit by $53 billion between 2013 and 2022 and members are not wasting any time going after the benefits that lower and middle class Americans rely on and block granting social programs to the states. First on the chopping block: are health care subsidies for middle class families earning up to $90,000 a year who will purchase insurance in the state-based exchanges, child care and related assistance for 4.4 million children, Meals On Wheels and other home-based services for nearly 1.7 million older Americans, and transportation services for almost 1 million disabled individuals.

During this morning’s hearing, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) pressed the Joint Committee on Taxation on the consequences of the GOP’s health subsidy proposal — which would require families to pay back the government if their incomes fluctuate and dissuade people from claiming credits in the first place. Under current law, the premium support is paid out as an advance refundable amount to insurance companies based on an estimate of annual income (the assistance is available, on a sliding scale, to families of four making up to $90,000 a year). Should a family’s income change during the year, it will have to pay the government back a specific dollar amount come tax season. Congress has increased the amount since the law passed and under the current Republican proposal, “an individual would be liable for the full amount of the overpayment.”

The JCT found that the tax increase would lead 350,000 people to lose coverage and, as the National Women’s Law Center explained in a letter to Becerra, it would “especially hurt women”:

BECERRA: The letter from the National Women’s Law Center points out that eliminating this provision, which is called the safe harbor provision, would especially hurt women… A 2008 study by the Congressional Budget Office found that women experience more large changes in earnings from year to year than men. This suggests that women are more likely to have a difference in estimate actual income during the year and therefore more likely to repay a portion of the tax credit during the reconciliation. Eliminating the safe harbor by removing the repayment cap will leave women who enrolled in coverage but had an income change mid-year…vulnerable to an unaffordable tax bill. As a result hundreds of thousands of women will refuse coverage for fear of the repayment penalty.

Watch it:

Republicans have also proposed repealing the health care law in its entirety, which would result in 30 million Americans becoming uninsured.

In 2010, Republicans accused Democrats of “rushing their massive government takeover of health care through Congress” and considering an “unconstitutional legislative trick” called deem and pass for advancing the measure.

“We’ve seen all week, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader [Harry] Reid continuing to scheme and plot trying to find some way to get their big government takeover of health care enacted,” then-Republican Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said in January of 2010, setting the tone for the Republican outrage. Shortly thereafter, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) introduced a resolution stating “that the House disapproves of the malfeasant manner in which the Democratic Leadership has thereby discharged the duties of their offices” and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) took to the floor and accused Democrats of “greasing the skids for an abuse of the budget procedure.” “The arrogance, the paternalism, the condescension to the American people is just breathtaking,” Ryan declared. “This is not just a simple fixer bill either. This is the linchpin for healthcare.”

Well, what a difference two years make. Despite vociferously opposing “deem and pass” in 2010 — a tactic the Democrats ultimately abandoned — Republicans are now relying on the procedure to advance their budget resolution. Yesterday, the GOP claimed that “deem and pass” was necessary to “set in motion a 2013 fiscal plan in the absence of an action or agreement with the other chamber” and approved the measure in a vote of 228-184:

GOP leaders are advancing the House Republican budget and its proposed changes to Medicare despite opposition in the Democratic-led Senate by using used a relatively obscure procedural move — tucking it alongside an unrelated bill that would allow the importation of trophy polar bears.

In considering the sportsmen’s hunting legislation, the House approved a provision Tuesday that essentially “deems” the budget from Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-WI) passed, even though the blueprint with its tax breaks and cuts to domestic programs was dead on arrival in the Senate.

Public opinion surveys show that Americans overwhelmingly oppose the House budget blueprint and its changes to the Medicare program. A United Technologies/National Journal poll from March found that 64 percent believe that “Medicare should continue as it is today, with the government … paying doctors and hospitals directly for the services they provide to seniors,” including “a solid 56 percent to 30 percent majority of Republicans.”