Wealthy investor and Republican candidate for Virginia Lt. Governor Pete Snyder released a new campaign ad Wednesday criticizing bipartisan efforts to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. In the ad he suggests that poor Virginians might actually be better off uninsured than covered by the Medicaid program.

Snyder cites a study by “Jim DeMint and the conservative Heritage Foundation” to claim the expansion would cost Virginia “more than $900 million over the next eight eight years alone” — a figure that even Gov. Bob McDonnell’s (R) administration disputes. He then warns:

It gets worse. Along with the unprecedented spending, President Obama’s “free money” will force more and more Virginians into Medicaid, a costly program that we all know desperately needs reform. Cause get this: In some cases it hurts the very people it’s meant to help. In fact, a University of Virginia study showed in some cases it’s actually better to be uninsured than to be on Medicaid.

The ad offers no citation for this claim, but attributes the text “increased risk of adjusted mortality” to the University in general.

Watch the video:

In a guest post on the conservative Virginia blog Bearing Drift, Snyder identifies the study in question: a 2010 report by UVA doctors and others. (Snyder also elevates the suspect $902 million price tag claim to “$902 billion,” in an apparent typo in that post.)

That study merely found that — by a difference within the margin of error — Medicaid patients had a fractionally higher in-hospital mortality rate after major surgery than uninsured Americans did between 2003 and 2007. Even with Snyder’s heavy caveats, this does not match his claim. Given that those without insurance during that period were often young and healthy people — and were, by definition, wealthier than those who qualified for Medicaid coverage — it is to be expected that the poorest Americans might have slightly worse medical outcomes.

Moreover, those on Medicaid get good medical care. It provides cost-efficient coverage for lower-income patients who “face elevated health risks” and offers a broad range of services, “including preventive care and special services needed by those with disabilities or other chronic conditions” — at levels “comparable to access provided under private health insurance and far better than access available to the uninsured.” In fact, a study by the Government Accountability Office showed Medicaid beneficiaries were just as happy with their health care as those with private insurance.

Snyder, who claims in the ad to be an “entrepreneur” and “not a career politician,” has been a longtime political operative, working as a Fox News contributor and as senior political director for Republican pollster Frank Luntz, a key leader in the Republican opposition strategy during the Obamacare debate.

Arkansas lawmakers have voted to override Gov. Mike Beebe’s (D) veto of a 12-week abortion ban, ensuring that the legislation will go into effect this spring. SB 134 represents the worst abortion restriction in the nation — cutting off women’s access to legal abortion services well before the point of viability, which is typically around 24 weeks of pregnancy — and it is the first “fetal heartbeat” abortion measure to go into law. Here’s everything you need to know about this egregious attack on Arkansas’ women’s reproductive rights:

1. The governor vetoed it because it is unconstitutional. Earlier this week, Beebe vetoed the bill because, as he explained, banning abortion at 12 weeks “blatantly contradicts the United States Constitution.” Under Roe v. Wade, women have a constitutionally protected right to legal abortion services until the medically accepted point of viability. But under Arkansas law, legislatures can override their governor’s vetoes with a simple majority vote in each chamber, and that’s what happened this week.

2. This isn’t the first stringent abortion ban that Arkansas Republicans have forced past the governor. Just last week, lawmakers voted to override Beebe’s veto of a 20-week “fetal pain” abortion ban, ensuring the measure would immediately become law. Beebe also rejected that legislation over concerns about undermining Roe v. Wade, and the American Civil Liberties Union threatened to sue if it went into effect. But that wasn’t enough to stop Arkansas Republicans — and that wasn’t enough to stop them from pushing for an even stricter 12-week abortion ban to supersede the 20-week ban, either.

3. “Fetal heartbeat” bans aren’t rooted in any scientific logic. “When there is a heartbeat there, you have a living human being,” the bill’s sponsor, State Sen. Jason Rapert (R), told the Associated Press to justify his support for the policy. But there’s no reason to ban abortion procedures after a fetal heartbeat can be detected. Heartbeat measures are simply a dangerous attempt to redefine the medical terms of pregnancy and roll back women’s right to abortion on a state level.

4. Arkansas is now home to the worst abortion ban in the country. Radical heartbeat bills popped up in states around the country at the beginning of this legislative session, but Arkansas and North Dakota are the only states to successfully advance heartbeat measures — and Arkansas is the very first state to actually enact one into law. The original version of the bill sought to ban abortions after just six weeks, and Rapert ended up amending it after a massive outcry. But pushing back the deadline by six weeks is hardly an improvement. Banning abortion services at just 12 weeks still goes much further than the 20-week bans abortion bans on the books in seven other states, making Arkansas’ law the strictest in the nation.

5. Republicans are fully aware they’re inviting a host of legal challenges. Several advocacy groups, including the ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights, have already threatened legal action against Arkansas if the state moves forward with the heartbeat measure. When the governor vetoed both the 20-week and 12-week abortion bans, he indicated he would rather avoid the court battles those measures would bring — particularly since two other states are currently engaged in legal fights over their own 20-week bans. But Arkansas Republicans, who won back both chambers of the legislature in the 2012 election, have been so eager to advance their anti-abortion agenda that they simply don’t care.

Forcing women to wait a 24-hour period between consulting with an abortion doctor and legally terminating their pregnancy can cause “excessive hardships,” a new study finds. The Texas Policy Evaluation Project, a three-year research project studying the impact of the restrictive reproductive health laws that Texas passed in 2011, surveyed over 300 women who sought an abortion in Texas last year — the majority of whom reported that the state’s mandatory waiting period put an emotional and financial burden on them.

Many women struggled to get to a clinic for the required counseling session the day before their abortion. The study’s participants traveled an average of 42 miles to visit the nearest clinic, but some were forced to travel as far as 400 miles away from their homes to comply with the law. And nearly half of the women incurred additional costs from the 24-hour waiting period — $146 on average — because making multiple trips to a clinic required them to pay for extra transportation and child care on top of the cost of the abortion procedure. Ultimately, nearly one third of the respondents said the waiting period negatively effected their emotional well-being.

Dr. Daniel Grossman, the vice president for research at Ibis Reproductive Health and a researcher with the Texas Policy Evaluation Project, said in a statement that the waiting period is an ineffective policy for multiple reasons: it clearly puts a strain on women, and it doesn’t actually change their minds about whether to have an abortion. “We found that the requirement to visit the clinic at least twice was burdensome for some women and created logistical barriers to scheduling the abortion. Women also reported being equally confident about their decision after seeing the ultrasound and hearing its description,” Grossman explained.

That falls in line with previous research that demonstrates the barriers to abortion care favored by the anti-choice community — such as waiting periods, counseling sessions, and mandatory ultrasounds — don’t do anything to sway women’s decision about terminating a pregnancy. In fact, they’re simply emotionally manipulative tactics to shame women and make them feel guilty about making their own decision about their body.

A Texas lawmaker is using the study’s preliminary findings to push for a repeal of the state’s waiting period. But there’s still a long way to go before U.S. women are completely free from that burden, since 26 states currently require women to undergo a mandatory counseling session and at least a 24-hour-waiting period before accessing legal abortion services. South Dakota actually forces women to wait a full 72 hours — the longest waiting period in the country — and may be posed to extend that even further by excluding weekends and holidays from counting toward the requirement.

During an appearance on Greta Van Sustern’s Fox News program Tuesday evening, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) reiterated his well-known opposition to all things Obamacare, particularly the reform law’s optional expansion of the public Medicaid program for low-income Americans.

But while defending Texas’ rejection of the expansion, Perry turned to a rather odd argument to justify his decision — claiming that the Obama Homeland Security Department’s release of thousands of nonviolent immigrants from detention centers somehow proves that the federal government cannot be trusted to fund states’ Medicaid expansions:

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, now, let me turn the question to you. You mentioned Medicaid expansion, and you had said, I think as long ago as July, that you were not going to accept the offer to expand Medicaid, which is the federal government pays for. Governor Rick Scott of Florida has changed his mind. Governor Chris Christie — I don’t know if he changed his mind, but accepting that Medicaid. What do you say to — why do you think those two governors are doing it? What’s — and why aren’t you?

PERRY: Well, we looked at this rather intently. The legislature just over the course of the last 24 hours in Texas and the Republican caucus overwhelmingly support the position of not expanding Medicaid. It is a broken system. We have asked the federal government for years to allow us the flexibility to be able to put these programs into place, but the fact is, it’s a broken system. It’s going to cost trillions of dollars to implement this program. But Texans are not going to be blackmailed into expanding a program that then the federal government is telling us they’re going to give us all this free money. Greta, they can’t keep criminals in jail today, much less be able to have extra money to pass out to these states. So the idea that money is going to be available for expanded Medicaid is a pipe dream.

Even aside from the fact that Perry’s argument constitutes a total non sequitur, his portrayal of DHS’s actions is also highly misleading. Earlier this week, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano — flanked by two former Republican DHS secretaries — explained that the vast majority of the releases were a result of routine movement in detention facilities and unrelated to any government-induced fiscal policy, and that the best method of ensuring border security would be for Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Perry also repeats a common right-wing talking point that the federal government’s promise to provide the funding for states’ Medicaid expansions is too good to be true, and that the Obama Administration will eventually be forced to go back on its word. But the historical data shows that Perry is dead wrong. The federal government has honored its obligations to funding state Medicaid programs with remarkable consistency, even as the public insurance system has enrolled millions of additional Americans since its inception. The only exception to this occurred between 2009 and 2012, since the stimulus package passed in response to the 2008 global financial crisis “included a deliberate and temporary boost to Medicaid funding to help states buffer against the recession” and “was never meant to be a permanent increase to Medicaid federal match rates” — unlike Obamacare, which is intended to be exactly that.

The anti-choice community’s crusade against abortion affects much more than women’s ability to legally terminate a pregnancy — it can also threaten women’s financial security, inspire increased levels of violent harassment against health clinics, and even restrict access to critical preventative services like family planning programs or sexual health instruction. On top of that, anti-abortion lawmakers may be contributing to yet another unintended consequence in their states: dissuading medical providers from being willing to practice there.

Harsh restrictions on abortion providers — a double standard leveled against abortion care, which is overregulated in a way that isn’t required of other medicals areas — already limits the number of doctors able to perform abortions in states with laws hostile to reproductive rights. But increasingly stringent state-level abortion laws may discourage other types of medical professionals from settling in those areas, too.

North Dakota, which is quickly earning a reputation as the worst state for women as lawmakers currently advance six different abortion restrictions, could find itself in exactly that situation. The nonpartisan North Dakota Medical Association has come out against a proposed “personhood” bill in the state — a measure that would define zygoytes as U.S. citizens, outlawing all abortions and some forms of contraception — because that type of abortion restriction would interfere too much with their work:

The North Dakota Medical Association, which represents many physicians across the state, rarely takes a public position on divisive issues. The group’s opposition to the “personhood” bills has nothing to do with the abortion issue, NDMA Executive Director Courtney Koebele said, noting that physicians themselves are divided over the issue.

“These bills are interfering with the physician practice to such an extent that we didn’t really have an alternative,” she said. “These are just bad bills.”

Mike Booth, president of the North Dakota Medical Association, said if they become law, the personhood bills could make North Dakota less attractive to professional women.

“I see this as a real swipe at women’s rights,” he said. “I find that very depressing in a state that’s trying very hard to push itself forward. That really upsets me.”

Abortion opponents have a long history of proposing measures to come in between a woman and her doctor. Forced ultrasound bills, mandatory counseling sessions, days-long waiting periods, and restrictions on administering the RU-486 abortion pill all prevent medical professionals from making their own decisions about how best to treat their patients. Doctors who want to practice abortion care, as well as women’s health groups or small business owners who operate their own clinics, are likely to take their skills to places where they don’t have quite as many barriers to overcome.

The routine violence and harassment directed at abortion providers make other medical professionals wary to be associated with that type of reproductive service, which has successfully segregated abortion care from the rest of health care. But ultimately, since abortion is just another aspect of women’s reproductive health, it doesn’t exist in an entirely separate world from the rest of medical community. And if states like North Dakota continue to push for harsher and harsher restrictions for a legal medical procedure, abortion care may not be the only health service that’s placed in jeopardy.

Jan Brewer (R), Arizona’s combative GOP governor, stunned political observers and health care reform advocates when she became the third Republican governor to endorse Obamacare’s expansion of the public Medicaid program. That decision is great news for Arizona’s poor and uninsured, as well as for the state’s budget. But it’s been met with fierce resistance from state lawmakers in Brewer’s own party, setting up an unusual showdown between Brewer, hospitals, doctors, and reform advocates on one side, and Republican state lawmakers — who Brewer must still persuade to pass legislation accepting the Medicaid expansion — on the other.

That’s why on Wednesday morning, flanked by Arizona public health officials on the steps of the state Capitol, Brewer begged reticent GOP lawmakers — many of whom showed up in black to protest Brewer’s decision — to look past politics and understand the human and financial toll that failing to pass the expansion would instill on Arizonanas. “The human cost of this tragedy can’t be calculated,” Brewer said. “Remember, there is no Plan B.” Brewer estimated that 50,000 low-income Arizonans would lose health coverage without the expansion.

Study after study has shown that expanding Medicaid is the right move for states’ budget, the poor, and the uninsured, especially considering that the federal government will fully finance states’ Medicaid expansions for the first three years. Republican governors, faced with the reality that Obamacare is here to stay, have finally been inching away from their knee-jerk opposition to the Medicaid expansion after intense lobbying from hospitals and advocacy groups.

But skeptics — particularly GOP lawmakers in Republican-led states open to the expansion — are wary of increasing their Medicaid pools, warning that the federal government may renege on its promise to provide the lion’s share of funding for the expansion. GOP governors will need these lawmakers’ support to actually expand Medicaid, and as Brewer’s example demonstrates, that could make for some intra-party conflict in the eight GOP-led states whose leaders have embraced the expansion.

Texas has already spent the past year targeting Planned Parenthood, effectively defunding the organization’s affiliates and forcing thousands of women to search for new doctors. But their crusade isn’t over yet. Now, a Texas Republican also wants to prevent sex ed classes in public schools from using any of Planned Parenthood’s instructional materials, claiming that the national women’s health organization places an “inappropriate emphasis on sexual freedom.”

Sex education classes are not required in Texas. School districts that decide to provide that type of instruction must make their materials available for public review, as well as allow parents to remove their children from the course for any reason. But State Sen. Ken Paxton (R) wants to put even more restrictions on health classes by preventing “abortion affiliates” from providing any sexual health instruction or contraceptive resources.

Texans who back Paxton’s measure argue that Planned Parenthood can’t be trusted to provide sex ed because, since the organization doesn’t want to “lose abortion business,” it has a vested interest in convincing teenagers to have sex and get pregnant:

During Tuesday’s hearing on Paxton’s bill, Renate Sims of Round Rock told the Senate Education Committee she strives to teach her five children that “married sex and only married sex is appropriate.”

“Abortion providers like Planned Parenthood and their affiliates can’t possibly communicate this message effectively because of their inherent conflict of interest. If teenagers consistently viewed sex as something to be saved for marriage, Planned Parenthood would lose abortion business,” Sims said.

Although several speakers criticized the way sex education is handled in specific districts, no supporter of Paxton’s bill provided examples of Planned Parenthood materials or information that has actually been used in schools.

Planned Parenthood is an extremely qualified women’s health provider with a long history of providing sexual health instruction, although abortion opponents often undermine sex ed resources for youth with the sole goal of targeting Planned Parenthood. Even though the organization may not emphasis abstinence in its instructional materials, that’s because abstinence-only programs don’t work, and teens are better equipped to make healthy decisions when they have accurate, scientifically-based resources about their bodies.

If Texas lawmakers are actually concerned about preventing an uptick in unintended pregnancies, they might want to reexamine their own policies rather than focusing on Planned Parenthood’s instruction materials. Since GOP legislators stripped funding from family planning providers in the last budget cycle, about 280,000 low-income women will lose access to affordable birth control — which the state’s health department projects will lead to an estimated 23,760 additional births, costing taxpayers up to $273 million. And, of course, Texas’ lack of comprehensive sex ed requirements are likely directly contributing to the state’s high rates of teen pregnancy.