The Department of Health and Human Services recently announced the recipients of a $5 million federal grant designated for abstinence-only education programs. Although President Obama has opposed funding for abstinence-only programs since the beginning of his time in office, his administration created a new community abstinence funding program as part of the 2012 budget.

The Obama administration’s reluctant support of abstinence education has been a concession to social conservatives in Congress. Despite the fact that abstinence-only curricula are ineffective and, in many cases — when young adults make risky sexual decisions after abstinence education fails to equip them with the resources they need — dangerous, conservatives lawmakers have repeatedly pushed funding through.

During the battle to pass Obama’s landmark health care reform law in 2010, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) used the Senate version of the health care reform bill to restore a lapsed program that provides funding for abstinence programs. Although President Obama eliminated the Title V Abstinence Education program in his 2010 budget, finally doing away with the steadily increasing federal funding for abstinence programs that ballooned under the George W. Bush administration, Hatch’s bill — which narrowly squeaked by the Senate Finance Committee — forced the Obama administration to reverse that decision in order to pass health care reform. Similarly, in budget negotiations for the 2012 fiscal year, Congress included a Competitive Abstinence Education Grant Program to require federal funding for abstinence curricula over the next two years.

Earlier this month, the funds appropriated in the 2012 budget were distributed to nine organizations that provide “mentoring, counseling and adult supervision to promote abstinence from sexual activity.” Of course, abstinence-only curricula advance those goals while neglecting to impart accurate information about methods to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, as well as failing to include comprehensive discussions about sexuality and the LGBT community.

Although the Obama administration has attempted to take some steps toward eliminating federal funds for abstinence education programs, social conservatives’ insistence on clinging to a misguided approach to sex education has brought the country right back. As the spokesperson for the right-wing National Abstinence Education Association put it, “[Obama administration officials] were specifically tasked by Congress to appropriate these funds for an authentic abstinence education program. So they really had no recourse but to do just that.”

Over the last decade, employers have steadily been shifting the cost of health care coverage onto their employees relative to medical inflation and stagnating wages. This asymmetric cost-sharing is meant to stem the rising tide of health costs paid for by employers by encouraging workers to be more efficient and frugal with their health spending. But a new working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that when it comes to medically-needy employees, these health “savings” may actually come at a greater cost.

As Sarah Kliff explains, the study finds that while employers might see immediate savings on their balance sheets by shifting costs onto their workers, the strategy could be a losing one in the aggregate, encouraging sick employees to forego increasingly expensive care and consequently resort to absenteeism:

On average, employees with chronic pain had 76.7 hours absent from work. But with every $5 increase in cost-sharing for pain medications, they saw an increase in absenteeism somewhere in the ballpark of 1.3 to 3.1 percent.

That may seem small, but as the researchers explain, the consequences could be quite large, enough to offset any savings the higher co-payments generate for that employee:

If we assume that a $5 increase in cost-sharing (20%) is associated with a 1 hour increase in absence (~1.3%) this would be valued at $42/hour fully loaded with fringe benefits (workers in private industry, large establishments) (BLS 2012). Alternatively, the average hourly earnings for Americans overall is about $31 loaded.

The $31-$42/hr in absence-related costs would offset any employer savings associated with raising copayments.

This is yet another clear-cut signal for the need for widespread, affordable health coverage. If Obamacare’s cost control measures — such as “medical loss ratios” and federal subsidies to encourage individuals and employers to obtain and offer health insurance — can successfully bend the health care cost curve and make coverage more affordable, companies may see benefits for both their employees’ well-being as well as their own bottom lines.

Paul Ryan and his GOP colleagues have always had the private insurance industry’s back, long advocating for health care policies — such as Ryan’s proposed budget that would turn Medicare into a voucher program — that boost insurance companies’ profits at the expense of American consumers.

According to a new Public Campaign Action Fund (PCAF) and Health Care for American Now (HCAN) analysis, insurers are returning the favor to the tune of $14 million in campaign contributions to Ryan and fellow Republican supporters of his “premium support” plan.

The report also reveals that Ryan’s running mate, GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, has received close to $2.7 million from the private insurance industry.

All told, the study finds that eight out of the top ten recipients of insurance industry cash during the 2012 election cycle — including every member of the House GOP leadership — are supporters of the Ryan plan.

Ryan himself has pulled in more cash from private insurance employees and their families than he has from any other businesses — totaling $815,328 over the course of his political career.

During a rally in Mt. Vernon, Ohio on Wednesday, Mitt Romney touted the benefits of Medicaid and claimed that all Americans will be able to obtain health care insurance without President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

Responding to a question from a woman whose son suffers from Spina Bifida, Romney disparaged Obama’s health care measure — which would expand access to 30 million Americans — and claimed that the law is unnecessary for people suffering from chronic conditions:

ROMNEY: Actually, we had health care in America before Obamacare came along. And we still have health care in America…Each of us today in America has a choice of the type of health care plan we might choose. People who are poor are able to get Medicaid, which is a government support effort for those who can’t afford to have insurance. And these things aren’t going to disappear without Obamacare.

Watch it:

Advocates of expanding services for people with chronic or life-threatening conditions disagree with Romney’s assessment, however, noting that the law’s new consumer protections and Medicaid expansion would benefit the sickest Americans. “We believe that although the Affordable Care Act is not perfect and is certain to evolve over time, it is
already improving and will continue to improve the lives of people with chronic conditions,” the National Health Council said in a statement that was signed by 30 health groups. Cindy Brownstein, President & CEO of the Spina Bifida Association, was among the signatories.

Romney and Ryan would repeal the Affordable Care Act and significantly reduce federal funding to Medicaid, which assists millions of American families with members suffering from mental and physical disabilities. Half of the program’s 63 million enrollees are children, and rural children are particularly at risk. Romney and Ryan would shift Medicaid’s costs to state budgets, leaving them to shoulder any added demands on the program alone. In order to meet his other budget priorities, Romney would have to cut Medicaid by as much as “32 percent in 2016 and 53 percent in 2022.” Some 44 million Americans could lose coverage as a result.

Our guest blogger is Jessica Arons, the Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress.

On Tuesday, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told the Des Moines Register’s editorial board that “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” But his statement stands in direct contradiction to his record.

There are at least three pieces of abortion legislation that are, in fact, part of his agenda:

1. His campaign website says that “Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view.” Although the site goes on to say that the issue should be a matter for the courts while the country remains divided, he also said in a campaign debate that should Congress be able to reach a consensus on the matter, he would welcome federal abortion legislation. Moreover, when asked previously if he supported a state personhood measure, he replied “absolutely.” And his vice presidential nominee, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), has sponsored federal personhood legislation. Such measures would ban all abortions with no exceptions whatsoever and would threaten the legality of common forms of birth control and fertility treatments.

2. His website also says that “As president, he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood.” There are two ways to end federal funding for any entity – through the budget process or with a standalone bill. Either way, both involve the legislative process. Indeed, Congress has already tried both approaches. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) introduced a bill to defund Planned Parenthood in 2011 and that same year House Republicans threatened not to pass a budget and to shut down the government over funding for Planned Parenthood. It should also be noted that Planned Parenthood and other clinics are already prohibited from spending federal funds on abortion care. The funding that Romney, Pence, and others have threatened provides family planning services like contraception and counseling to low-income women.

3. In a letter written by Romney and published on the LifeNews.com website, Romney stated, “I will advocate for and support a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.” This bill, based on junk science, would ban abortion at 20 weeks gestation, halfway through a pregnancy — well before viability when a fetus can survive on its own outside the womb and before some fetal anomalies are diagnosable.

Romney did say he would use an Executive Order to reinstate the “Mexico City policy,” which he described as banning U.S. foreign aid dollars from being used to do abortions. However, as with funding for Planned Parenthood, a provision known as the Helms Amendment already bans foreign aid from being spent on abortion care. The Mexico City policy would deny funds for voluntary family planning services to any organization that uses non-U.S. money to provide, refer for, or advocate for abortion.

Bottom line: Mitt Romney can pretend all he wants that he is not a threat to women’s rights, but his record shows he is extreme on abortion and extreme on contraception.

The false claim that the Affordable Care Act of 2010 cut $716 billion out of Medicare has been oft-repeated in political ads and speeches in recent weeks. The law eliminates current over-payments to insurance companies, limits fraud and waste, and slows the growth of the program. Based on a Congressional Budget Office finding that repeal of the landmark healthcare reform law — and those important provisions — would increase Medicare costs by $716 billion between 2013 and 2022, many have incorrectly asserted that that means the bill will cut that amount from the program. A ThinkProgress analysis of independent advertisements and data from Kantar Media’s CMAG system reveals that between September 1 and October 1, an array of conservative outside groups spent about $8 million in attack ads, repeating the false claim, against House and Senate candidates across the country.

The 60 Plus Association, American Action Network, American Crossroads, the Center for Individual Freedom, the Congressional Leadership Fund, Crossroads GPS, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ran a total of television 27 ads over the period accusing candidates in House and Senate races of supporting “$716 billion in Medicare cuts,” “slashing Medicare spending by over $700 billion,” “cutting $716 billion from Medicare,” and similar variations. Their spots have run in targeted House races in California, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Utah — and in key Senate races in Florida, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

One ad — a U.S. Chamber of Commerce spot running in Wisconsin — consists of fake constituent complaints left on an answering machine of the candidate complaining about the alleged cuts. A woman says “My Ma depends on Medicare. Why would you vote to cut it?” A man demands: “Keep your hands of my Medicare.” Another man asks “716 billion?”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, representing 300,000 businesses, opposed the health care reform law. The NFIB, which claims to represent 350,000 small business owners, unsuccessfully sued to get the law overturned.

With around $15 million spent by all outside groups on TV ads in House races and about $19 million spent on these “independent” ads in Senate races, the $7,996,260 spent on these “$716 billion in Medicare cuts” ads accounts for almost a quarter of outside spending over the 31-day period.

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 Citizens United ruling, outside groups like this are free to run ads for and against political candidates using as much corporate money as they wish. Due to weak disclosure laws, most of those outside groups need never publicly identify the companies and individuals funding their ads.