Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) unwilling admitted to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Friday afternoon that he believed women who receive abortions should face criminal charges. “I think the punishment should certainly be very serious,” he said. “It should be more than a civil case. It should be something very serious”:

MATTHEWS: So it should be a criminal matter for the woman as well as the doctor?

STEARNS: I think so. You are killing an embryo and in some cases you are killing an embryo that is four or five months into gestation.

Watch it:

Stearns was appearing on the program to talk about the GOP’s recent effort to ban sex-selective abortions. That bill, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act or PRENDA, failed earlier this week and would have fined and imprisoned doctors who knowingly aborted fetuses based on racial or gender discrimination.

The congressman sought to defend the measure by arguing that “if all of Europe and most of Asia has this same rule, that you cannot have sex selection as an abortion, why can’t we in the united states pass the same bill?” But Matthews responded succinctly, saying, “it’s always amazing when you guys on the right want to import the values of other countries. Any time we do it, any time a liberal tries to do it, you say they’re bringing foreign values into this country.”

A local group’s effort to support breastfeeding mothers at Fairchild Air Force Base outside of Spokane, Washington has opened a debate about whether it is appropriate for military women to breastfeed their children while in uniform.

The controversy started with staged pictures a photographer took of two mothers for a breastfeeding awareness campaign. But because Sgt. Terran Echegoyen McCabe and Staff Sgt. Christina Luna serve in the Air Force and were breastfeeding in uniform, critics attacked the photos and called it a “disgrace to the uniform.”

There are many restrictions on a servicemember’s behavior while wearing their uniform: bans on walking and smoking and walking and eating, no chewing gum, and even a Navy rule against pumping gas while in a work uniform. But according to Air Force spokeswoman Captain Rose Richeson, the Air Force has no rule against a woman breastfeeding while wearing her uniform. “Airmen should be mindful of their dress and appearance and present a professional image at all times while in uniform,” she said.

That did not stop the complaints that breastfeeding in public was equivalent to urinating in public and criticism that it broke with military tradition. As Mother Jones’ Adam Weinstein explains, the concerns about disrespecting the uniform have been widespread online:

“So this is the modern military…No apparent sense of military bearing, personal restraint, or consideration for the uniform is required,” Army veteran Rob McCaskell complained on the photographer’s Facebook page. “You wanted attention….congratulations on a mission accomplished and further showing how the military is so easily exploited to further a social or political agenda.” [...]

The traditionalist impulse, though, isn’t unique to conservatives or men. In fact, when it comes to breastfeeding, it’s so pervasive that even some military women side with the cultural fuddy-duddies. “Women before us have worked too hard to earn and retain the respect of their male peers,” wrote one commenter on the exhaustive website breastfeedingincombatboots.com, who identified herself as a retired Marine officer.

But it should not be “unmilitary” for women to breastfeed their children while in uniform. To help working mothers, the Affordable Care Act requires employers to accommodate women who are breastfeeding. And in August, a provision providing breastfeeding support at no cost to women will go into effect

Instead of turning into a fight over what is appropriate for women in the military, these photos should be an opportunity to serve their intended purpose: raise awareness and support for every woman who chooses to breastfeed.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is pushing an unprecedented ban on large sizes for soda and sugary drinks at restaurants, delis, sports arenas, and movie theaters. These drinks would be limited to 16 ounces, although stores would still be able to sell cans and bottles that are larger.

This marks the latest effort to fight the nation’s growing obesity crisis. “The percentage of the population that is obese is skyrocketing,” Bloomberg said Thursday on MSNBC. “We’ve got to do something.” People would still be able to get refills or order more drinks, he explained, but restricting the portion size could help curb consumption.

And research backs up Bloomberg’s thinking behind portion sizes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention explain that restaurant portion sizes are more than four times larger now than they were in the 1950s, and the average adult is 26 pounds heavier. A soda serving size has had the largest increase:

Additionally, people rely more on their eyes than their stomachs to estimate calories, leading them to eat more than they should when they have larger portion sizes. A study found that when participants were given self-refilling bowls, they ate more soup than others who were eating from normal soup bowls. But the people with self-refilling bowls did not think they had eaten more, so researchers found that a larger portion increases the amount someone eats and lessens a person’s self-monitoring of how much they eat.

By 2030, an estimated 42 percent of Americans are expected to be obese. It will take dramatic changes to slow the soaring obesity rate, but even a small decrease in this number could save $550 billion in health care costs. Even if it may face difficulties in practice, Bloomberg’s idea to limit portion sizes for sugary drinks is an important place to start to try to address the nation’s obesity rate.