Now that the Republican Party has officially endorsed a stringent abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest, it’s worth considering what widespread state-level abortion bans would mean for women across the country. According to new research, giving states the power to determine their own abortion legislation would create further divisions along racial and socioeconomic lines, since it would have an outsized impact on limiting the procedure for low-income women of color.

Researchers at Yale University and the City University of New York imagined a hypothetical situation in which Roe v. Wade was repealed and states were left to determine their own abortion legislation, projecting scenarios where either 31 or 46 states with anti-choice lawmakers banned the procedure. Within those two scenarios, researchers examined the average distance that women in each state would need to travel to get to the nearest abortion clinic. Since distance can be a huge deterrent in abortion access, they suggest that this data can be used to estimate future abortion rates across the country:

Researchers extrapolated the data on distance to find that the abortion rates among minorities would be 1.8 points lower than the rates among white women in the scenario involving a 31-state ban. Under the hypothetical 46-state ban, the difference between white women and nonwhite women would be even more stark, at 12.3 points. This suggests that poorer, nonwhite women would struggle more than their privileged counterparts to access a safe, affordable abortion procedure — potentially leading those women to seek harmful, illegal alternatives.

Despite the Republican politicians who tout rolling back Roe v. Wade as a panacea to abortion rates, leaving abortion laws up to the states would — in addition to severely limiting women’s reproductive freedom — introduce a host of new problems to contend with. By threatening equal access to medical services like abortion, state-level abortion bans would only further reinforce the racial and socioeconomic inequality that is already prevalent across the country.

Mitt Romney’s sister assured “Women for Mitt” that if her brother is elected President, he won’t pursue the anti-abortion policies he espouses on the campaign trail.

In an interview with National Journal, Mitt’s sister Jane Romney said that her brother won’t “be touching” the issue of abortion:

Mitt Romney would never make abortions illegal as president, Jane Romney said when National Journal asked her about the subject after a “Women for Mitt” event. “He’s not going to be touching any of that,” she said. “It’s not his focus.”

Democratic warnings that abortion rights are under threat are an ungrounded fear tactic, Jane Romney said. “That’s what women are afraid of, but that’s conjured,” she said. “Personally, I don’t think abortion should be used as a football in the political arena.” [...]

[The Republican platform] does not specify any exceptions.

But as Jane Romney put it, “Mitt’s much more in the middle” when it comes to abortion.

Though he recently told CBS News that he supports abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the “health and life” of the woman is in danger, Romney has sought to cultivate a anti-abortion image that resonates with the Republican base. He’s said he’d be “delighted” to sign a bill banning all abortions, and has pledged to appoint to the Supreme Court conservative judges who would likely overturn Roe v Wade, and allow sates to outlaw the procedure.

Jane and Mitt Romney might not be ideological equivalents. At least on one occasion, Jane donated $250 to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the pro-choice Democrat from California.

Although Republican governors across the country have pledged to reject the expansion of the Medicaid program under Obamacare — turning down nearly $300 billion in federal funds and leaving millions of low-income Americans without coverage — they are standing in direct opposition to medical professionals. Hospital officials across the country have advocated for expanding the program to extend coverage to Americans with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line.

Hospital officials in Iowa unanimously support expanding the Medicaid program in their state, warning that Gov. Terry Branstad’s (R-IA) decision to turn down the funds will have “crippling” effects on their hospitals:

The Iowa Hospital Association board recently voted unanimously to support expansion of Medicaid, which it termed a “historic opportunity to significantly address the plight of uninsured Iowans.” Association members plan to aggressively lobby legislators on the subject.

The group said turning down the federal money could cripple hospitals. The association said hospital leaders nationally agreed to billions of dollars in Medicare payment cuts because they expected the overall health reform program to relieve them of much of the financial burden of caring for people who now lack health insurance. [...]

Cuts to that program “are real, whether or not a state chooses to expand its Medicaid program,” the hospital association said. If Medicaid is not expanded, the hospitals would lose $2.3 billion in Medicare money over the next decade while still bearing much of the cost of caring for poor, uninsured patients, the association said.

In response to the hospital association’s vote, Branstad’s office reiterated the governor’s position against Medicaid expansion, saying his previous comments on the issue illustrate why he remains opposed to expanding the program. “We’re willing to help people who are willing to help themselves. But we’re certainly not going to buy into this federal effort,” Branstad said last month. “We’re going to fight it in every way we can.”

Other states also understand the benefits of Medicaid expansion. In Missouri, hospital officials report that hospitals would stand to lose up to $400 million if Gov. Jay Nixon (D-MO) decides against implementing the expansion. In Texas, where Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) has already pledged to reject the federal funds for Medicaid, state officials are taking matters into their own hands and considering setting up their own expansions of the program on a local level. If GOP governors hold firm in their opposition to the program’s expansion, despite the increasing popular support for Obamacare’s Medicaid provision among both the general public and healthcare employees, more states may follow Texas’ example.