All hospitals in the U.S. are legally obligated to provide for anyone seeking emergency care, and the federal government spends billions annually to reimburse hospitals that treat the uninsured. Unfortunately, as the New York Times points out, the amount of federal aid to these hospitals — many of which are in poor areas of the country — will significantly drop as the Affordable Care Act is implemented, and undocumented immigrants could find it more difficult to access affordable care as a result:

The federal government has been spending $20 billion annually to reimburse these hospitals — most in poor urban and rural areas — for treating more than their share of the uninsured, including illegal immigrants. The health care law will eventually cut that money in half, based on the premise that fewer people will lack insurance after the law takes effect.

But the estimated 11 million people now living illegally in the United States are not covered by the health care law. Its sponsors, seeking to sidestep the contentious debate over immigration, excluded them from the law’s benefits.

As a result, so-called safety-net hospitals said the cuts would deal a severe blow to their finances.

In other words, because the mandate is meant to increase the number of people insured, the federal government estimates that hospitals won’t have to cover as many uninsured seeking emergency care. As a result, hospital budgets are put under strain as they lose money but must continue to provide care for the uninsured.

For some hospitals, nearly 50 percent of the patients they treat are undocumented.

The New York Times notes that the sponsors of the Affordable Care Act largely sidestepped the immigration issue in an effort to avoid the conversation. Alan Aviles, president and chief executive of the Health and Hospitals Corporation, said that “it is a difficult time to really advocate around this issue, because there is so much antipathy against new immigrants.”

– Nina Liss-Schultz

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has campaigned as an anti-choice candidate. He endorsed an amendment that would allow employers to deny contraception coverage and promised to support radical measures to define life as beginning at conception. He would likely carry these views with him into the White House, where the president “wields more power over reproductive rights than anyone else in the country,” said Donna Crane, NARAL Pro-Choice America’s policy director.

And when it comes to selecting his running mate, Romney will pick a vice presidential candidate who is just as anti-choice as he is. “The person that I would select in that position would share my views on those important issues,” Romney said at the 2011 Palmetto Freedom Forum.

So how anti-choice are the most likely picks to be Romney’s vice president? NARAL Pro-Choice America broke down where 13 potential nominees stood on reproductive rights, access to abortion services, and women’s health, and it is clear that each is just as anti-choice as Romney. Several have supported giving legal rights to a fetus at some point during a pregnancy, thus limiting a woman’s ability to access abortion services. For example, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R), who is on the list, co-sponsored “personhood” legislation while serving in the South Carolina legislature.

Here are some of the anti-choice actions highlighted in NARAL’s report by the politicians frequently mentioned as top vice president picks:

TIM PAWLENTY: The former Minnesota governor signed a mandatory 24-hour delay for women seeking abortion care into law, and while serving in the state House, he wrote a bill to require women to be told medically inaccurate information about abortion services. But Pawlenty also approved a bill ensuring that women who have been sexually assaulted have access to emergency contraception — a measure similar to one Romney vetoed.

ROB PORTMAN: While serving in the House of Representatives and Senate, the current Ohio senator has voted on 115 bills related to abortion and reproductive rights — 114 of which were anti-choice. He repeatedly voted for the Federal Abortion Ban, which criminalizes some abortion services, and Portman co-sponsored a bill to effectively ban abortion coverage in state health insurance exchanges.

KELLY AYOTTE: The first-term New Hampshire senator has never cast a pro-choice vote. In 2003, Ayotte argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court defending New Hampshire’s law requiring a girl who is a minor to notify a parent before she has an abortion.

MARCO RUBIO: The Florida senator has sponsored two bills that would gut the expansion of contraception coverage in the Affordable Care Act. He also voted to prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funding, which would have denied health care and preventive services to millions of women.

BOBBY JINDAL: While serving in the House of Representatives, Jindal voted eight times to limit abortion access and other reproductive rights issues. And just last month, the current Louisiana governor signed three anti-choice bills into law.

JOHN THUNE: The senator from South Dakota co-sponsored a bill to allow hospitals to deny emergency abortion care, even when a woman’s life is in danger. And while serving in Congress, Thune has voted repeatedly to deny military women the right to use their own, private money for abortion care in military hospitals.

While there used to be a larger number of pro-choice GOP politicians, now “the pool is very small” as the party has grown more conservative, said NARAL’s Crane. And that leaves Romney with a slate of possible vice presidents who are “all equally threatening to a woman’s right to choose,” explained NARAL deputy policy director Lissy Moskowitz.

Olympic athletes are among the millions of Americans who have trouble finding affordable and comprehensive health care. In fact, the Elite Athletes Health Insurance Plan, administered by Blue Cross Blue Shield, covers only basic preventative care and charges higher premiums for out-of-network care.

But even though Olympians are some of the healthiest people on earth, their specific health needs are not covered by EAHI’s health insurance. The plan does not cover the expensive sports injuries top athletes incur regularly. The plan also does not cover the frequent check-ins athletes require to stay healthy, nor the early and meticulous treating of illnesses and injuries, which can keep athletes on the sidelines.

The insufficient USOC health insurance also isn’t guaranteed to all Olympic-level athletes, who must navigate a byzantine system to determine whether they are eligible for insurance. The Kaiser Health Foundation explains:

The 1,000 or so policies offered by the USOC are divided among the national groups that govern individual sports – for summer, winter and Paralympic Games – and each group sets its own requirements for eligibility. USA Swimming, for example, is allocated 56 policies. Olympic team members are given the first crack at the coverage, followed by the top-ranked swimmers in each event who did not make the team.

Even athletes who qualify for insurance often have to seek additional insurance coverage. Almost all top athletes purchase back-up health insurance to cover the catastrophic injuries they are particularly prone to, or they use insurance through a spouse or parent’s plan. Gymnasts in particular, who are usually the youngest Olympians, are likely to be included under a parent’s health coverage, and thanks to Obamacare, more Olympians who are under 26 could stay under their parents’ insurance to supplement coverage.

– Ben Sherman

The USDA recently gave suggestions to its employees for simple ways to reduce their environmental impact. One of the suggestions was trying out Meatless Monday, an attempt to avoid eating meat once a week. This provoked a full-on freakout from the beef industry and its Republican allies in Congress: “This move by USDA should be condemned by anyone who believes agriculture is fundamental to sustaining life on this planet,” hyperventilated National Cattlemen’s Beef Association President J.D. Alexander. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) took to Twitter to express his outrage at the non-endorsement, promising to “eat more meat on Monday” and claiming that “My local steak house serves nothing but vegetarian bc cows are vegetarian.” Congressman Steve King (R-IA) called the internal guidance “heresy,” looking forward to “double rib-eye Mondays instead.”

The USDA bowed to the pressure, saying it “does not endorse Meatless Monday” and that the newsletter “was posted without proper clearance.” It shouldn’t have. Despite what the beef industry may tell you, Meatless Monday is a simple and nearly cost-free way to get healthier, fight global warming, and cease participating in brutal animal cruelty:

Skipping steak once a week would reduce an average four-person family’s carbon footprint by roughly the same amount as giving up driving for 3 months, according to an analysis by the Environmental Working Group. If each American were to give up meat and cheese once week, EWG estimated it would be the equivalent of “taking 7.6 million cars off the road.”

Amidst a growing childhood obesity problem and tightening budgets, schools around the country have found Meatless Monday to be a cost-effective way to improve student health.

Significant meat consumption is correlated with higher rates of obesity.

An extraordinary percentage of the cheap meat Americans buy come from factory farms, which are notorious for producing contaminated meat and keeping animals in utterly horrific conditions.

Indeed, Americans appear to be getting the message: meat consumption in the United States has decreased by 12.2 percent, a trend seemingly related to high public awareness of the Meatless Monday movement.