Most uninsured children will qualify for health coverage under Obamacare, but hundreds of thousands of children — about 6 percent of the total — could be denied coverage because of the government’s definition of “affordable” coverage, according to a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The Treasury Department’s proposed rule would make families ineligible for federal subsidies to help pay for health insurance if an employer offers them affordable coverage at work. Under this regulation, the Treasury considers an employer’s office to be affordable if the worker’s share is less than 9.5 percent of household income; however, the affordability is based on what a single employee would pay instead of the generally higher cost to cover an entire family. The GAO recommends that Treasury and IRS officials consider if an “alternative approach” could work:

“Under the proposed standard, an offer of affordable employer-sponsored health insurance to one family member could impede other family members’ access to affordable insurance—an outcome which would not further the broader goals of [the] PPACA,” the report says.

The GAO says the proposed standard could affect more than 460,000 children if states stop funding the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) beyond 2015. Under the health care law, CHIP is not funded beyond 2015, and even if federal funding is extended, states may opt to reduce or eliminate programs beginning in 2020, the report said.

Since the proposed rule was announced in 2011, groups have complained that it hurts families. “The proposed rule would mean that many spouses and dependents who are uninsured today because they can’t afford family coverage would remain uninsured in 2014,” Center for Budget Policy Priorities’ Judy Solomon wrote last year. And First Focus, a child advocacy group, accused the Obama administration of undermining the Affordable Care Act’s affordability standards because the interpretation “would disproportionately harm children and women.”

The Michigan state senate’s judiciary committee heard about an hour of testimony today before promptly passing onto the full Senate a restrictive and unclear anti-abortion measure — just 19 hours after announcing that the hearing would even be taking place.

One woman who testified, holding up two coupons with scribbled writing on the back, explained that she didn’t have time to prepare an official testimony, so those notes were all she had.

The law, if passed, would require doctors to ensure that they were not coercing women into an abortion. It is unclear how they might ascertain that information, but many medical professionals offered testimonies warning that the law was too broad and too unclear.

“This bill is a very complicated bill,” Dr. Tim Johnson, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan Health System, said. “All of us in this room ultimately care a lot about the safety of women.”

The legislation would also require women whose pregnancy is terminated, even those who miscarry, to cremate fetal remains, fill out a death certificate, and work with a funereal director to dispose of the fetus. It also requires clinics to be licensed as surgical facilities, andallows anyone who says they experience “emotional distress” because of incorrect fetal disposal to sue the person who disposes of the fetus.

Johnson urged the committee to take more time on the decision. He also took offense to the idea that doctors would do something that was not in the best interest of their patients, citing the Hippocratic oath and pointing out that “these aren’t abortion doctors, they’re gynecologists.” He also made an ominous warning: One day, one doctor will get shot because of the extreme anti-abortion actions that stigmatize doctors.

The warnings seemed to fall on deaf ears. State Sen. Rick Jones (R), who chairs the committee, proceeded to a vote after the hour of debate. The bill passed 3-1.

“I will not take another month to slow down this process when we have women being coerced in this state,” Jones said during the hearing. A request for comment from his office about why the process was so fast was not immediately returned.

While Congress struggles to push a Farm Bill through before the critical legislation expires, a new report by the California Public Interest Group (CALPIRG) highlights an underdiscussed problem with the way the law has been structured in the past: it’s making us unhealthy. CALPIRG researchers found that the crop subsidies in the Farm Bill overwhelmingly went to ingredients that fuel the junk food industry rather than fresh fruits and vegetables. As a result, the subsidies artificially driving down prices for the very foodstuffs fueling the nation’s obesity crisis:

Between 1995 and 2011, $18.2 billion in tax dollars subsidized four common junk food additives—corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, and soy oils (which are processed further into hydrogenated vegetable oils).

Healthier agricultural products receive very little in federal subsidies. Since 1995, taxpayers spent only $637 million subsidizing apples, which is one of the few fresh fruits or vegetables that have a significant federal subsidy.

If subsidies for junk food ingredients went directly to taxpayers to allow them to purchase food, each of America’s 141 million taxpayers would receive $7.58 to spend on junk food and 27 cents to spend on apples each year—enough to buy 21 Twinkies but just half of one Red Delicious apple.

These numbers are particularly alarming in light of growing obesity rates. Since 1995, CALPIRG found that “childhood obesity had tripled…one in five kids aged 6 to 11 [is] now obese” and that “projections suggest that by 2030, half of Americans will be obese.” Further, the U.S. already spends $150 billion a year on “obesity and comorbidities,” a price tag that CALPIRG found would increase by an additional $66 billion per year if estimates about obesity rates were accurate. This obesity crisis disproportionately affects impoverished Americans largely because unhealthy food is so much cheaper and accessible than healthy alternatives. Americans are also significantly more obese on average than citizens of other developed nations.

Though some proposals for this year’s Farm Bill involve cutting the subsidies for soy and corn that CALPIRG highlights, they’re generating significant factional conflict between Republicans on the Hill. This fight is one of the key drivers behind the unprecedented inability to get this year’s Farm Bill through.

Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) hinted that Republicans in the House would not introduce legislation thwarting a new rule requiring employers and insurers to offer contraception and other preventive services as part of their health insurance coverage, signaling a softer tone on the issue.

Throughout the month of February, the GOP charged that the requirement, part of the Affordable Care Act, is an attack on religious liberties. Boehner himself insisted that the “the federal government is violating a First Amendment right that has stood for more than two centuries.” “If the president does not reverse the [Health and Human Services] Department’s attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend, must,” he added, and explained that a bill would be moving through “appropriate legislative channels.”

But with the new rule scheduled to go into effect on August 1, the Speaker signaled an unwillingness on Thursday to take-up the fight:

REPORTER: Next week, the plan to require health care plans to include contraception, sterilization will go into effect. You said last year that you guys were going to introduce legislation to address that, it never came up. What are you guys planning on doing?

BOEHNER: We’re continuing to work with those groups around the country who believe that their religious liberties are being infringed to try to come to a resolution of this issue. Sometimes resolving this issue can be done other than legislative avenues. So we’re continuing to work with them on the best way forward.

Watch it:

Though Boehner is not pursuing a showy initiative, Republicans are advancing a provision to defund enforcement efforts for the contraceptive guarantee as part of the Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations bill, FY13.

Days before the birth of their first child, Caleb and Kate Medley went to a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado, that turned into the horrible massacre. Katie made it out without any serious injury, but Caleb wasn’t so lucky. He took a bullet to the eye and is in a medically induced coma, expected to take years to recover. Neither have insurance.

On Tuesday, their son Hugo was born, adding some joy to the tragedy but also more expenses.

While Caleb’s family is still raising money for his care, uninsured victims of the shooting at other hospitals are seeing some relief. Three of the five hospitals where victims are being treated announced Thursday that they will be limiting or eliminating their hospital costs:

Children’s Hospital Colorado announced it would use donations and its charity care fund to cover the medical expenses of the uninsured. For those who do have insurance, the hospital says it will waive all co-pays. [...]

HealthOne, which owns the Medical Center of Aurora and Swedish Medical Center, also says it will limit or eliminate charges based on the individual circumstances of the patients. Those hospitals have treated 22 shooting victims. However, the company cautioned its policy may not apply to all doctors working in its hospitals.

Denver Health Medical Center and University of Colorado Hospital, where Caleb and other victims are being treated, haven’t said what they’ll do, but the hospitals are Colorado’s top safety net hospitals in a state where 14 percent of residents are uninsured.

“We’re going to do everything that we can for these patients on a case by case basis,” said a representative of the Colorado hospital where Caleb is being treated. “The University Colorado Hospital provides $300 million in uncompensated care every year.”

Money donated from concerned citizens and the studio that released the movie The Dark Knight Rises has already totaled $2 million, the AP reported today. But that’s a drop in the bucket for victims who will leave the hospital with lifelong injuries and special needs.

Indeed, Caleb’s medical bills alone could add up to $2 million. So far, the family has raised one-quarter of the amount.