South Dakota already has the longest abortion waiting period in the country, forcing women to wait 72 hours before being able to access the legal medical procedure. But the Republicans in the state want to lengthen it even further — both chambers of the legislature have approved a measure to exclude weekends and holidays from that three-day waiting period, and the legislation now awaits Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s signature.

No other state with this particular abortion restriction defines its waiting period by limiting it to business hours. Proponents of the measure claim that the state needs to extend the 72-hour wait to give women seeking abortions enough time to seek counseling at a “crisis pregnancy center” (CPC). In fact, CPCs are anti-choice organizations that have a long history of attempting to dissuade women from making their own reproductive choices, often by disseminating misleading medical information about abortions.

Although this type of emotional manipulation is a popular tactic among abortion opponents, forced counseling and waiting periods don’t actually change women’s minds about whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Mandatory waiting periods are simply a method of limiting women’s reproductive rights by forcing them to overcome additional hurdles to having a voluntary medical procedure.

That’s why South Dakota’s stringent 72-hour waiting period has been tied up in court for the past year — but, since the local women’s health groups are being forced to focus their resources on combating other pressing attacks on reproductive rights, the legal challenge has been dropped and the law may soon take effect. And if Daugaard adds his signature to the bill to exclude weekends and holidays, the law that takes effect will be even more restrictive than the original one.

With Congress engaged in a contentious fight over how to overhaul the nation’s broken immigration system, lawmakers from both parties — including President Obama — see eye-to-eye on at least one aspect of the debate: previously undocumented immigrants who achieve provisional legal or deferred action status should not be eligible for government health care benefits or insurance subsidies.

But according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s (KFF) February tracking poll, Washington is out of touch with a strong majority of Americans, who believe that such immigrants should be able to access care with the help of government resources:

The survey finds that even Republicans are relatively split on providing Medicaid benefits to low-income immigrants with provisional legal status. KFF’s report goes on to underscore the largely-ignored reality that even lawfully present immigrants — including those who were never undocumented, and particularly those with low incomes — have to jump through hoops in order to gain coverage. KFF conducted a more thorough analysis on this exact issue earlier this month in order to highlight the discrepancies between naturalized citizens’ and low-income immigrants’ access to services:

The long waiting periods that low-income immigrants must endure in order to get Medicaid coverage are particularly troubling given the fact that poorer immigrants likely cannot afford private insurance on the individual market and usually work for employers that do not provide their workers with health coverage. That perfect storm of coverage gaps perpetuates a system in which poor immigrants are forced to pursue care at underground, cash-only local clinics with little public oversight, such as Los Angeles’ ubiquitous neighborhood “bodega clinicas.”

Eliminating these barriers to health coverage by eliminating the Medicaid waiting period for low-income legal immigrants and allowing DREAMers and other immigrants who achieve provisional legal status — assuming comprehensive immigration reform passes, that is — to access Medicaid and Obamacare’s insurance subsidies would actually strengthen America’s health care system, as more people would be able to afford their care and receive cost-saving preventative services. Such reform policies are clearly supported by the factual evidence — and also, as it turns out, by the American people.

The news broke today that the soft-core porn company Girls Gone Wild will file for bankruptcy. The company’s decision was largely related to a debt owed to the casino Wynn Las Vegas thanks to the actions of founder Joseph Francis.

But that’s not the only legal trouble that Francis and the company have found themselves in recently. GGW has faced a whole slew of lawsuits for exploiting women, which have substantially contributed to Francis’s financial troubles.

In their bankruptcy filings, GGW cites another debt owed to Tamara Favazza, a woman who sued the company for putting her on film against her will. She won the suit, along with $5.8 million from Francis:

Favazza sued Francis in 2008, claiming someone exposed her breasts while filming in a bar in St. Louis for the “Girls Gone Wild Sorority Orgy” DVD series, according to court documents.

Favazza, a St. Louis resident, won a $5.8 million judgment and then sued Francis, GGW Brands and Mantra Films last year in federal court in Missouri to collect.

GGW Brands called Favazza’s claim a “trade debt” in its Chapter 11 petition. In bankruptcy, trade debts are owed to suppliers, vendors and other service providers.

Favazza is far from alone in demanding remuneration from GGW.

Take, for example, Lindsey Boyd. Now 26, Boyd originally sued the company in 2004 for running video of her as a 14-year-old flashing a cameraman for beads. The case was ultimately decided in November of 2012 — and Boyd lost not because her claim was inaccurate, but because her home state of Georgia had no law in place that protected her photo from being used for commercial use against her consent. In the year 2008, a total of four women sued Francis collectively with similar claims of emotional damages from being filmed underage. Because the company had waivers for them, their cases were also tossed.

Francis has openly admitted to the exploitation that seemed integral to his company’s business model. In 2006, he plead guilty to exploiting minors and paid a fine of $500,000 after admitting that he didn’t keep track of the identities and ages of the women (or girls) captured in his videos. He similarly plead “no contest,” and served a year in jail, for charges of child abuse and prostitution. He was required to post a $1.5 million bond, which likely added to his financial woes.

Ultimately, GGW may blame Wynn, a man, for bringing its empire to the ground. But it’s Favazza’s role in GGW’s bankruptcy that is the most important symbolic victory. Her case speaks for countless women who will be glad to see the company go down, even if the unhinged man at its helm insists it can continue to operate.

Although teen birth rates are dropping, the United States still has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the developed world. Particularly since American teens are often shamed about their sexual choices, rather than receiving the actual resources they need, the country has a long way to go when it comes to the way it approaches teen sexuality. The results from a new study underline the point that although abstinence education programs don’t work, a different focus on youth services can effectively lower the rate of teen pregnancies.

Researchers from University of Minnesota found that teenage girls at high risk for unintended pregnancy were more likely to take steps to lower their risk of becoming pregnant, like regularly using condoms and birth control pills, after receiving additional support from a youth-focused program. Over the course of their study, over 250 sexually active girls between the ages of 13 and 17 were split into two groups — about half were placed in a “Prime Time program” designed to help mitigate risky sexual behaviors by providing personal case management and youth leadership opportunities, while the rest of the teens didn’t receive any special counseling or support. Significant differences emerged in the teens’ sexual behavior:

All of the participants completed a survey two years after enrolling in the study. This was six months after the girls in the Prime Time intervention completed the program.

The girls in the Prime Time program reported “significantly more consistent” use of condoms, birth control pills or a combination of both types of contraception than those in the control group, the researchers found.

The girls in the Prime Time program also reported increases in family connectedness and self-confidence to refuse unwanted sex, as well as reductions in the perceived importance of having sex, the study authors noted in a journal news release.

Ultimately, as the study’s authors concluded, “health services grounded in a youth development framework can lead to long-term reductions in sexual risk among vulnerable youth.” But those health services may not be widely available across the country — particularly in rural areas that tend to have conservative attitudes about sex, where teens may not feel comfortable seeking out the resources they need.

In particular, the 26 states that require health classes to push ineffective abstinence-only curricula — a misguided approach to sexual education that teaches adolescents to be ashamed of their bodies, rather than equipping young people with the tools they need to safeguard their health — would actually be better served by investing money in support programs for at-risk youth. If the U.S. reoriented its approach to teen sexuality, including acknowledging the fact that young men also have a role to play in preventing unintended pregnancies, the country could continue taking steps toward improving its relatively poor sexual health.

On Wednesday, First Lady Michelle Obama launched her third “Let’s Move!” tour to combat childhood obesity. Before she kicked off the tour in Mississippi, Illinois, and Missouri, Mrs. Obama appeared on “Good Morning America” to praise her campaign’s success in changing children’s eating and exercise habits. She also unveiled Let’s Move latest initiative, the MyPlate Recipe Partnership geared toward parents looking for easy, nutritious recipes:

OBAMA: We’ve really changed the conversation in this country. When we started, there were a lot of people in this country who would have never thought that childhood obesity was a health crisis. But now we’re starting to see some movement on this issue. Our kids are eating better at school. They’re moving more. And we’re starting…to see rates of obesity coming down like never before.

Childhood obesity rates are indeed showing small declines for the first time in decades, especially in cities with aggressive nutrition policies. As Mrs. Obama pointed out, “Let’s Move” has helped call attention to the childhood obesity crisis, and one of her cornerstone achievements was comprehensive school lunch reform that increased funding for public school meals and gave the USDA the ability to regulate foods sold in schools.

Besides school lunch reform, however, “Let’s Move” has deliberately veered away from pushing actual legislation, instead focusing on personal responsibility in nutrition and fitness. That’s a very different approach than the one Mrs. Obama took during the inception of her fight against childhood obesity. In 2010, the First Lady gave a fiery speech at a Grocery Manufacturers Association conference, arguing that changing personal habits won’t work if big companies like Kraft and General Mills continue to target children with misleading ads for sugary, fatty food:

This is a shared responsibility. That’s why I’ve gone to parents and I’ve asked them to do their part. They have a responsibility to watch what their kids eat and teach good habits.[...]And all of you have a responsibility as well.

And we need you not just to tweak around the edges, but to entirely rethink the products that you’re offering, the information that you provide about these products, and how you market those products to our children. That starts with revamping or ramping up your efforts to reformulate your products, particularly those aimed at kids, so that they have less fat, salt, and sugar, and more of the nutrients that our kids need.

As a mom, I know it is my responsibility — and no one else’s — to raise my kids. But what does it mean when so many parents are finding that their best efforts are undermined by an avalanche of advertisements aimed at their kids? And what are these ads teaching kids about food and nutrition? That it’s good to have salty, sugary food and snacks every day — breakfast, lunch, and dinner?

Read more

Now that the Republican governors in Ohio and New Jersey have both announced their support for expanding their states’ Medicaid programs under Obamacare — joining Democratic-led New York and Maryland — Pennsylvania is surrounded. Gov. Tom Corbett (R) has resisted cooperating with this Obamacare provision so far. But now, members of his own party are beginning to pressure him to change his mind and join his neighbors:

Now the heat is coming from some of Corbett’s fellow Republicans in the state legislature.

State Rep. Gene DiGirolamo (R., Bucks) said Wednesday that he supported Medicaid expansion because it would provide health insurance for an estimated 700,000 Pennsylvanians, many in low-wage jobs.

“We should do everything possible to get this done for the state of Pennsylvania,” DiGirolamo, chairman of the Human Services Committee, said Wednesday. “Most of the people we are talking about are in the workforce making $10 to $12 an hour and have no health care.”

At the same time, a top Senate Republican said he had tasked his staff with examining Medicaid expansion costs and benefits in advance of budget negotiations in the spring. Appropriations Committee Chairman Jake Corman (R., Centre) said that the Senate GOP caucus might take a position of its own on Medicaid expansion — he did not elaborate — and that the issue could figure into the budget process.

Partisan resistance to Obamacare is finally beginning to wane, as eight Republican leaders have now conceded that resisting health reform on a state level might not be worth the political statement. The GOP leaders who have agreed to carry out this provision of the health reform law have all acknowledged that it will make financial sense for their state budgets — since the federal government will finance the full cost of expansion for the first several years — as well as help ensure that thousands of low-income Americans receive the care they need.

And the pressure may be getting to Corbett. On Thursday, the day after Christie announced he supports Medicaid expansion in New Jersey, the Pennsylvania governor agreed to meet with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to “discuss questions” about his options for expanding the Keystone State’s Medicaid program under Obamacare.

Arkansas’ GOP-controlled legislature has voted to override their governor’s veto of a “fetal pain” abortion ban, ensuring the legislation will immediately take effect. Gov. Mike Beebe (D) vetoed the measure on Tuesday, explaining he felt the 20-week ban would run afoul of women’s constitutional right to an abortion under Roe v. Wade, but Arkansas lawmakers can override the governor with a simple majority in both chambers.

Arkansas will join the seven other states that currently have “fetal pain” laws on the books, which are based on the junk science that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks of pregnancy. Under Roe v. Wade, abortion rights are protected until the point of viability, which typically occurs around 24 weeks — so fetal pain bans are an effective way to chip away at women’s reproductive rights. Two of those measures are currently being blocked from taking effect, the same constitutional challenge that Beebe suspects may await Arkansas.

“We made the best case we could in our veto letter and explained the legal problems with the law and what that could cost our people,” a spokesman for the governor told Reuters. “The final say, however, remains with the legislature.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas has already pledged to challenge the new law. But the anti-choice GOP lawmakers in the state are unconcerned about potential legal challenges. The House voted 53-28 on Wednesday afternoon to override Beebe’s veto, and the Senate voted 19-14 on Thursday morning.

Unfortunately for the women in Arkansas, their Republican lawmakers may not stop there. The state is also considering an even more stringent “heartbeat” ban to outlaw the abortion procedure after just 12 weeks, at the point when a fetal heartbeat can be detected with an abdominal ultrasound. That would represent one of the harshest abortion bans in the entire nation, and the legislature could once again push it past Beebe even if he vetoes it.

Gov. Nikki Haley’s (R-SC) state has a serious weight problem — and she knows it. That’s why last week, flanked by public health officials, Haley announced that she will push for a controversial overhaul of South Carolina’s nutritional assistance program that would limit food stamp purchases to “healthy” items. It’s a well-meaning idea meant to tackle the state’s rampant obesity epidemic and its resulting health care costs — unfortunately, the proposal isn’t the most effective way to tackle obesity, and implementing it could end up preventing low-income Americans from receiving adequate nutrition.

Any changes to a state’s food stamp program require a waiver from the federal government, and no state has successfully received one to date. The Charlotte Observer reports that Haley will hold group meetings with food stamp recipients, public health advocates, food makers, and various other officials to determine which foods should be purchasable with food stamps — and which shouldn’t — before requesting the waiver, in an effort to sway the federal government by putting up a unified front. That means that the specifics of Haley’s plan have yet to be fleshed out, and her office did not respond to ThinkProgress’ request for more details.

Still, Haley’s statements on the matter suggest that she wants to discourage South Carolina residents from using food stamps to purchase high-fat, high-calorie, and high-sodium products. “That $1 billion [in federal nutritional assistance] no longer will go to candy and chocolate and sodas and chips — it’ll be going to apples and oranges and things that are healthy,” she said.

That’s certainly an admirable goal considering South Carolina’s abysmal public health statistics: a full third of the state’s 4.7 million resident are obese, making it the eighth most obese state in America; another third are overweight; and the state ranks second in the country for obesity-related diabetes risk. Furthermore, the cost of treating obesity-related illnesses for low-income Americans accounts for almost 12 percent of national Medicaid spending — and likely an even higher percentage in South Carolina, where 18 percent of residents are on the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

But the efficacy — and the practical logistics — of Haley’s approach remains an open question. Proposals to limit food stamp purchases are a source of fierce debate among both public health and poverty advocates — not to mention supermarkets and food makers who argue that the transaction costs of separating SNAP from non-SNAP products would be too high or hurt product sales.

Read more