As another state has banned Planned Parenthood funding, Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL) introduced a bill to protect federal funds to Planned Parenthood. Dold, one of the few pro-choice Republicans in Congress, said today that he was pushing for the bill because of the importance of Title X family planning funds for women’s health:

We have seen several attempts to block funds and exclude health care providers from participating in the Title X program simply because they separately offer services beyond the scope of Title X. We should not discriminate against hospitals and organizations that provide access to basic, preventative, and in some cases life-saving services for so many underprivileged women through Title X.

Dold said he wants to “bring both sides together” in support of Planned Parenthood and health care for women, but it’s unclear how much support he will get. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Energy and Commerce Oversight subcommittee chairman who launched an investigation into Planned Parenthood, told Politico that he did not understand why Dold’s bill was necessary because “there’s no discrimination against Planned Parenthood.”

In recent years, eight states have voted to block Planned Parenthood from receiving funds. And last year, the GOP-controlled House voted to prevent the women’s health organization from receiving Title X money. Dold was one of seven Republicans to break from their party, and he spoke out against the measure, saying it would be “shortsighted and would negatively impact the lives of women who depend on these health care services.”

But the need to protect women’s access to health care has not stopped other Republicans from defunding Planned Parenthood. Texas Republicans’ decision to cut Planned Parenthood out of the state’s Women’s Health Program endangered care for 130,000 women.

Yesterday, Congress took up legislation that could significantly impact women’s health — and no, it doesn’t limit contraception or force anything into their vaginas.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act aims to protect pregnant women in the workplace from common discrimination — not being allowed to carry a water bottle, for example — that threatens their health and stops them from being productive employees, or from working altogether.

Introduced by Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Susan Davis (D-CA) and George Miller (D-CA), the bill would “ensure that pregnant women are not forced out of jobs unnecessarily or denied reasonable job modifications that would allow them to continue working,” according to a media advisory:

Currently, pregnant working women around the country are being denied simple adjustments – permission to use a stool while working a cash register or to carry a bottle of water to stay hydrated or temporary reassignment to lighter duty tasks – that would keep them working and supporting their families while maintaining healthy pregnancies. [...]

In recent and startling examples, a retail worker in Salina, Kansas was fired because she needed to carry a water bottle to stay hydrated and prevent bladder infections; an activity director at a nursing home in Valparaiso, Indiana was terminated because she required help with some physically strenuous aspects of her job to prevent having another miscarriage; and a delivery truck driver in Landover, Maryland was forced out on unpaid leave because she had a lifting restriction and was denied light duty.

The simple protections offered in the bill are modeled (PDF) on the Americans with Disabilities Act, under which women are not covered because pregnancy is a temporary condition (and not a disability). Existing bills protect certain rights — Title VII protects a woman from being fired because she is pregnant and the Family and Medical Leave Act establishes minimum paid maternity leave — but this bill addresses specific on-the-job discrimination against a woman who is currently pregnant.

U.S. maternity policy are significantly worse than other comparable developed countries — nearly half of working mothers end up missing paychecks because of a lack of paid maternity leave. This bill would be a good first step toward fixing a system that doesn’t work for America’s mothers, but it is just one step in a long road toward fair policies for expecting mothers.

One of the goals of the Affordable Care Act is to keep health care costs from ballooning. So far, it has done some good; the law has already helped push Medicare costs lower, required insurers to keep administrative spending low or pay customers rebates, and created prevention programs to fight chronic diseases like heart disease or diabetes.

Now, a new report from Fidelity Investments shows that the law is already lowering future costs for retirees. Health care costs have increased for years, but in 2011, the firm projected a decrease as a result of the changes included in the health law. Seniors will now pay $20,000 less for their medical bills through retirement:

Fidelity has calculated an annual estimate of medical expenses for retirees for more than a decade. For many Americans, health care is likely to be among their largest expenses in retirement. The estimate, which is calculated by Fidelity’s Benefits Consulting business, does not include any costs associated with nursing-home care and applies to retirees with traditional Medicare insurance coverage.

The estimate has increased an average of 6 percent annually since Fidelity’s initial calculation of $160,000 in 2002, with the exception of 2011 when the estimate declined $20,000. That one and only decrease in the history of the estimate was due to a one-time adjustment driven by Medicare changes that reduced out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs for many seniors.

Those Medicare changes included alterations to the so-called “donut hole,” the coverage gap for prescription drugs for older Americans. Under the law, generic medications in the “donut hole” will be discounted until 2020, when the gap will be eliminated. So far this year, that provision has saved Medicare recipients $3.4 billion, more than for all of 2010 and 2011 combined. Millions more have cut costs by taking advantage of free preventive health services.

This estimate can still change, however. According to the Associated Press, if the Supreme Court strikes down the health care law this summer, Fidelity analysts say they will “update” the number. In all likelihood, that revision would be considerably higher.

– Zachary Bernstein

Just as Utah implements a new law forcing women to wait three days before having abortions, a new study finds that these mandatory waiting periods and laws requiring counseling before the procedures does not affect women’s decisions. In fact, the report published in Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health found that 87 percent of women were highly confident in their decisions before counseling ahead of an abortion procedure.

Researchers gathered data from pre-counseling needs assessment forms and clinical intake forms of roughly 5,000 women at one abortion clinic in 2008. State laws adding waiting periods and mandating information that doctors must tell their patients assume that women need time and counseling to make their decisions, but the study’s data show that these assumptions are wrong:

In nearly nine out of 10 cases, women expressed high confidence in their abortion decision before they received any counseling; these women would likely not benefit from additional mandated counseling or delay. Furthermore, one-size-fits all policies may not address the complex needs of women who experience ambivalence, have negative beliefs about abortion, feel pressured to have an abortion, have spiritual concerns about abortion or have low levels of social support.

Past research has indicated that forcing a woman to view an ultrasound before she has an abortion did not change her mind, and now this report shows that other state laws adding barriers to abortion services do not help women either.

Obama using health care law to court Latinos: “Bucking conventional wisdom that Obamacare is a political liability in November, President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign on Tuesday unveiled three new ads targeting Latino voters and putting the controversial health care law front and center. The 30-second spots will run in Colorado, Florida and Nevada.” [Yahoo News]

Retired couples may need $240,000 for health care: “Couples retiring this year can expect their medical bills throughout retirement to cost 4 percent more than those who retired a year ago, according to an annual projection released Wednesday by Fidelity Investments.” [AP]

States should limit number of plans in exchanges: “States should use their new insurance exchanges to narrow down the number of plans consumers can choose from, according to an analysis published in the journal Health Affairs.” [The Hill]

House GOP freshman defends Planned Parenthood: Freshman Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL) is coming to the defense of Planned Parenthood amid his party’s sustained assault on the organization. Dold plans to introduce a bill Wednesday that would ensure Planned Parenthood’s access to federal funding. [The Hill]

Fetal homicide bill nears vote in New Hampshire senate: “The Senate is set to vote Wednesday on a bill that would make causing the death of a fetus equivalent to murder. The Senate Judiciary Committee last week endorsed a version of House Bill 217 that is more restrictive than the one passed by the House in January, which applies to the death of a fetus 24 weeks or older.” [Union Leader]

HHS announces 26 innovation awards: “The U.S. Department Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has announced the first batch of organizations for Health Care Innovation awards. The awards, funded by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, will support 26 projects across the U.S. that, according to the agency, will save money, deliver high-quality medical care and enhance the healthcare workforce. ” [CMIO]