According to a new study by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and the Urban Institute, states fully implementing Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion would result in an additional 21.3 million Americans on insurance rolls while raising states’ Medicaid spending by less than three percent.

Since the federal government will pick up most of the tab for the Medicaid expansion, the states that choose to participate will be able to extend insurance to millions of poor and vulnerable Americans without using much of their own funds. In fact, the study finds that states will receive more than $9 from the federal government for every $1 they invest in their Medicaid programs. And some states — including several whose GOP governors have dug in their heels against reform — would see a net budgetary gain from the expansion through lower uncompensated care costs and a healthier population, as the Huffington Post details:

“By implementing the Medicaid expansion with other provisions of the ACA, states could significantly reduce the number of uninsured,” the Kaiser Family Foundation and Urban Institute study states. “Overall state costs of implementing the Medicaid expansion would be modest compared to increases in federal funds, and many states are likely to see small net budget gains.”

The total cost of the Medicaid expansion would be $1.03 trillion between 2013 and 2022, according to the study. States would pay $76 billion of that, which amounts to a 2.9 percent increase compared to what states would have spent on Medicaid if the health care reform law hadn’t been enacted. Under the health care reform law, the federal government will pay the full cost of covering newly eligible people on Medicaid from 2014 to 2016, then will scale back funding to 90 percent in 2022 and later years.

In addition to receiving a large federal subsidy to enroll these uninsured residents, states that expand Medicaid would be able to reduce spending on taxpayer-funded programs to help hospitals and other health care providers cover the cost of so-called uncompensated care, or unpaid medical bills. If Medicaid expanded across the country, states would save $18 billion between 2013 to 2022, according to the study.

Multiple other studies have shown that states could economically benefit from Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion — not only because of the increased federal funds to help pay for the expansion, but also because extending coverage to previously uninsured Americans will help improve their quality of life and prevent states from absorbing the sticker shock for their unpaid medical bills.

But it’s a moot point for residents in the eight states whose Republican governors have chosen to reject the Medicaid expansion. Among the states that would see a budgetary gain from expanding its Medicaid program is Maine, where GOP Governor Paul LePage has already explicitly refused to participate in the expansion.

The number of Americans with diabetes skyrocketed over the last 15 years, as diabetes cases rose by 50 percent or more in 42 different states — and by 100 percent or more in 18 states — during that time period, according to a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Now, another CDC report highlights the rapidly increasing number of U.S. children who have diabetes, warning that the country needs to prepare for their future care.

If the current increase in diabetes cases stays constant, the number of children with type 2 diabetes will likely increase by 49 percent by 2050. The number of cases of type 1 diabetes, which is less common and diagnosed earlier in life, could increase by 23 percent:

“These numbers are very important,” said study lead author Dr. Giuseppina Imperatore, of the CDC’s division of diabetes translation. “As a society, we will need to plan and prepare for the high-quality care of these children.” [...]

If the incidence rates of diabetes remain steady, the incidence of type 1 diabetes will rise from about 166,000 American children with the disease today to more than 203,000 in 2050. The number of children with type 2 diabetes will jump from about 20,000 today to 30,000 in 2050, according to the study.

If the rates of diabetes increase just slightly, however, the picture quickly becomes far more grim. The number of children with type 1 diabetes will almost triple to about 587,000, and the rate of type 2 diabetes will quadruple, with about 84,000 U.S. children affected, according to the study.

Imperatore said these estimates should be considered boundaries for where diabetes might go. She said it’s possible that the rates could decline, particularly if researchers make inroads into preventing type 1 diabetes.

Researchers do not know how to stop type 1 diabetes, Imperatore said, but it is clear that obesity is a major risk factor for type 2 diabetes and exercise and losing weight can help prevent it. There’s more to understand about both types of diabetes, according to Dr. Robert Ratner, the American Diabetes Association’s chief scientific and medical officer, especially about the genetic risks. “The obesity epidemic isn’t due to sloth and gluttony. It’s an interaction between biology and the environment,” he said.

During this year’s lame duck session, some anti-choice lawmakers are seizing the opportunity to reintroduce anti-abortion legislation. But in Virginia, on the other hand, Republicans are unlikely to advance a radical “personhood” bill that would have granted fetuses the same rights as U.S. citizens — at least not this session, and perhaps not in the next one either.

Virginia lawmakers sent the personhood bill back to committee in February, ensuring that the legislation is effectively dead unless the state’s Senate Education and Health Committee brings it up for a vote this week. And the Washington Examiner reports that the committee’s chair, Sen. Steve Martin (R), has no plans to schedule that vote because he’s confident the measure doesn’t have enough support to pass. In fact, personhood is now struggling to gain the support of Virginia Republicans:

“We don’t have eight votes [a majority on the committee], and I’m not going to be spending taxpayers’ dollars just to call us back into town,” Martin said. “If they came up with the eighth vote in committee and could identify him, I’d be happy to call it up.”

The bill passed out of Martin’s committee in February. But the swing Republican on the panel, Sen. Harry Blevins of Chesapeake, has since sided against it. [...]

Del. Bob Marshall, the Manassas Republican who authored the personhood bill, plans to keep pushing an anti-abortion agenda, but he does sense fewer Republicans are less willing to embrace them.

“For years, the Republicans used to say Democrats were the ones blocking this, and now it clearly is the Republicans,” Marshall said.

Virginia is not alone. In Colorado, a radical personhood ballot initiative divided the anti-choice community, leading several Republican politicians to withhold support for the measure during this fall’s tight congressional races. Proposed personhood measures — which would outlaw all types of abortions, some forms of contraception, and potentially even invitro fertilization — have failed in states across the country.

And as conservative lawmakers begin to distance themselves from personhood, it may prove to be just the tip of the iceberg for the GOP. Republicans are beginning to concede that their positions on women’s health issues hurt them in the presidential election, and former GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) even recently suggested that Republicans should avoid focusing on abortion whatsoever.

During an appearance on Fox News on Monday, House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) asserted that Obamacare “ought to be on the table” for cuts during ongoing budget and deficit-reduction negotiations between President Obama and Congressional leaders.

Echoing House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) recent op-ed calling for a repeal of Obamacare through “oversight,” Cantor claimed that the law is a bloated entitlement and burden on the federal deficit that must be on the table during budget talks:

BILL HEMMER (HOST): In these negotiations, is Obamacare being negotiated?

CANTOR: If the president is serious about joining us and fixing the problem, he ought to be putting Obamacare on the table. There is no question in my mind, that is the largest expansion of government programs that we’ve seen.

HEMMER: Can you say at the moment that that is being talked about?

CANTOR: All I can say is that the president has got to get serious and the Speaker is correct, that Obamacare is such an expansion of government spending and involvement in folks’ lives it ought to be on the table.

HEMMER: You wonder what he is willing to concede on that.

Watch:

While Republicans have been full-throated in parroting claims that Obamacare is not fiscally viable, the fact is that the health reform law actually reduces the deficit by billions in the next decade and by over $1 trillion in the decade after that, and repealing Obamacare would consequently increase the national debt while taking away Americans’ health benefits.

During the interview, Cantor reiterated that the GOP supports repealing crucial Obamacare revenue-raising and cost-containment measures such as the tax on medical devices and the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). The device tax is part of the way that Obamacare raises funds for expanding Medicaid and issuing Americans insurance subsidies and repealing such measures would increase costs and force Americans to pay more for coverage.

Cantor is also wrong to claim that Obamacare is “wildly unpopular.” The reform law’s individual provisions have always been extremely popular with Americans, and in recent months, support for repealing Obamacare has plummeted.

Even though part of Arizona’s restrictive abortion ban is currently being blocked from taking effect while it is considered in court, state officials are moving forward with implementing other parts of the law — including launching a misleading website designed to encourage women to reconsider their decision to have an abortion.

The GOP lawmaker who sponsored the legislation, Rep. Kimberly Yee (R-Phoenix), is upfront about her intentions for the site required under her new law. According to the Arizona Daily Sun, she has “acknowledged she believes that the site will convince some women considering an abortion not to go through with it.”

The new section of Arizona’s Department of Health Services site is framed as presenting the information that women have “the right to know” before opting to have an abortion. Links offer resources that repeatedly warn about the potential dangers of electing to have an abortion, including separate sections about “making an informed decision,” the “medical risks of abortion,” the “mortality risks of abortion,” and the medical side effects and emotional damage that may occur “after an abortion.” Of the dozen links on the site, only one, “pregnancy and childbirth,” attempts to present the other side — but although that section does include information about the complications that can occur from carrying a pregnancy to term, it still maintains that “pregnancy and birth is usually a safe, natural process”:

Arizona’s HB 2036 already has another provision that requires any woman seeking an abortion to undergo a mandatory ultrasound, but Rep. Yee hopes that the new website will help women see even more detailed images than that ultrasound can provide. The site includes images documenting the stages of a fetus at each two-week interval, and Rep. Yee explained that “the medical drawings, which are in full color and much more detailed than any ultrasound, may give some prospective parents additional reasons to reconsider their initial decision to terminate the pregnancy.”

Pushing unbalanced information about the risks of abortion procedures is a tactic designed to pressure women to change their minds about a safe medical procedure they have already chosen for themselves. Arizona lawmakers are using HB 2036 to restrict women’s access to abortion services after just 20 weeks of pregnancy, but they aren’t stopping at simply legislating women’s health services. As Rep. Yee admits, state lawmakers are pursuing emotional manipulation as well.

Even though the Food and Drug Administration recommends that emergency contraception — commonly known as “Plan B” — should be available to women of any age, the Health and Human Services Department overruled the FDA last year to restrict access to Plan B for women under the age of 17. And now, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is throwing its weight behind the FDA’s position, recommending that pediatricians across the country make emergency contraception more accessible to their adolescent patients by prescribing it in advance.

Although Plan B is available over the counter for most women, the current federal policy requires young women under 17 years old to obtain a prescription for it. The pediatricians’ group points out that requiring young women to contact a physician for a prescription only after they realize they need emergency contraception presents a significant hurdle for those adolescents, potentially preventing them from being able to take emergency contraception in a timely manner. Providing adolescents with advance prescriptions for Plan B, on the other hand, ensures that they will have contraception readily available to them if they need it:

A 2010 analysis of seven randomized studies of emergency contraception found that having a morning-after prescription in hand did not increase teens’ sexual activity or decrease use of standard contraceptives but did increase use of the pill and shorten the time before a teenager used it after sex.

“It’s just common sense that requiring a prescription is a barrier,” said Bill Alpert, chief program officer of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. “If an august and respected medical group like AAP is suggesting providing emergency contraception to minors is OK, that is a big deal.”

Previous research has shown that women can face barriers to obtaining Plan B even when they follow the current protocol for their age group. Some pharmacists incorrectly inform women over 17 that they can’t access emergency contraception over the counter, and some doctors refuse to provide women under 17 with a prescription for the medication. AAP’s research suggests that some doctors’ refusal to prescribe the morning after pill “may be related to the physician’s beliefs about whether it is OK for teenagers to have sex.” But the group noted that pediatricians “have a duty to inform their patients about relevant, legally available treatment options,” even those “to which they object.”

Dr. Cora Breuner, the pediatrician who oversaw the AAP panel that made the new recommendations, told Reuters that she hopes the group’s guidelines will have important implications for the medical community. “We think this is a big deal,” she said. “The mothership of pediatricians has come out in favor of encouraging routine counseling and advance emergency-contraception prescriptions as one part of a public health strategy to reduce teen pregnancy.”