Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) will soon introduce legislation that would allow states to use federal funds they’re receiving through Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care programs to build a universal single-payer system. Advocates are describing the bill as a “lifeline” for advocates:

It would create a mechanism for states to request federal funds after establishing their own health insurance programs…. It would, for the first time, create a system under which a Medicare-for-all program could be rolled out on a state-by-state basis. In California’s case, it would make coverage available to the roughly 7 million people now lacking health insurance.

“This is a huge deal,” said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica advocacy group. “This is a lifeline for people who want to create a Medicare system at the state level.”

The bill could warm the hearts of liberals who expressed frustration with the Affordable Care Act’s more moderate approach of building on the existing health care system and should also satisfy GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor has sought to differentiate his 2006 health reform from Obamacare by rejecting a federal prescription for reform and promising to “pursue policies that give each state the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own citizens.”

The ACA creates state flexibility by granting waivers to states that meet certain coverage standards and a bipartisan group of lawmakers has offered legislation expanding the provision by allowing states with innovative health care solutions to opt out of certain provisions beginning in 2014. Romney, meanwhile, has pledged to build on the ACA’s flexibility and grant states to the ability to opt out of the law entirely.

McDermott’s measure would go even further and encourage states to repurpose federal funds to build a universal single-payer health system of their own. If Republicans are truly interested in states rights, they will back it in mass.

The vast majority of women in the U.S. are not using the most effective method of birth control available, according to a new study from the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

The study finds that the pill is significantly less effective at preventing pregnancy than long-lasting contraceptive methods such as the intrauterine device (IUD), building on earlier research that has drawn the same conclusion. In fact, women using IUDs or implants were a staggering 20 times less likely to get pregnant than women who used shorter contraceptive methods like the pill.

Yet few women in the U.S. currently use this type of contraception because IUDs are often very expensive — with co-pays costing hundreds of dollars — and rarely covered by insurance plans. As the study’s lead author, Dr. Brooke Winner, told Reuters:

Nationally, only about 5 percent are using long-lasting methods like IUDs and implants. We know one of the barriers to why they’re not using them more frequently is up-front costs. If [more] women were using these products nationally, there would be a very significant drop in unintended pregnancies, which would have far-reaching effects.

Although the birth control pill is the most commonly used contraceptive in the U.S., its effectiveness diminishes when women miss any of their daily pills or struggle to fill their monthly prescriptions on time. So if IUDs are significantly more effective at preventing pregnancy than the pill, doctors ought to be encouraging more women to use them. As another one of the study’s authors points out, “If there were a drug for cancer, heart disease or diabetes that was 20 times more effective we would recommend it first.”

Fortunately, President Obama’s new birth control regulation that expands access to birth control may help both doctors and women address this issue. Because the new policy would eliminate co-pays for contraceptives, IUDs would become a viable option for the women who currently can’t afford them — and, as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, removing cost barriers to contraceptive services greatly increases the number of women who choose to use the most effective methods.

The Senate Armed Services committee approved an amendment on Thursday to eliminate restrictions on abortion funding in military medical facilities. The provision would allow the military to fund abortion care in cases of rape and incest. Currently, the Defense Department only offers abortion services to military women when their lives are in danger with no exemptions for cases of rape or incest.

Supporters of the amendment, sponsored by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), said removing the restriction is a matter of fairness for military women:

Supporters argue that it would simply provide parity between civilians insured by the government and uniformed service members. [...]

“This is about equity,” Shaheen said. “Civilian women who depend on the federal government for health insurance — whether they are postal workers or Medicaid recipients — have the right to access affordable abortion care if they are sexually assaulted. It is only fair that the thousands of brave women in uniform fighting to protect our freedoms are treated the same.”

Shaheen’s provision would mirror the Hyde Amendment, which allows Medicaid funding for abortions in cases of rape and incest, so women with military-provided insurance plans would have the same health care options as civilian women with government health care plans.

And because nearly one in three women will be sexually assaulted while serving in the military, Shaheen’s amendment expands access to necessary services so that women do not have to pay out of pocket if they seek abortion care after being rape.

Now that the committee has approved the measure — with three Republicans voting for it — it heads to the Senate floor. When Shaheen introduced this amendment last year, anti-choice senators blocked it from being considered.

No matter one’s stance on contraception and abortion, most people feel sympathetic for a 9-year-old rape victim who is impregnated with twins by her step father, and is forced to undergo an abortion to save her life.

The Catholic Church, however, excommunicated those who helped rescue her.

In 2009, a 9 year old in Brazil had to have an emergency abortion after her mother brought her to the hospital for complaining about severe stomach pains and discovered the girl was four months pregnant. But after the procedure, instead of embracing the victim and offering to help the family, the Catholic Church excommunicated the doctor who performed the abortion and the girl’s mother.

The Church did not excommunicate the rapist:

The controversy represents a PR nightmare for the Vatican. The unnamed girl’s mother and doctors were excommunicated for agreeing to Wednesday’s emergency abortion yet the Church has not taken formal steps against the stepfather, who is in custody. Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, the conservative regional archbishop for Pernambuco where the girl was rushed to hospital, has said that the man would not be thrown out of the Church, because although he had allegedly committed “a heinous crime”, the Church took the view that “the abortion, the elimination of an innocent life, was more serious”.

The case has set off fierce debate in Brazil, where abortion is permitted only in cases of rape or medical emergency. Brazil is one of the most populous Catholic countries, but conservative attitudes in rural areas are strongly at odds with the relatively progressive public view of abortion in major cities.

While the circumstances are much more grave in this example, the same conflict of beliefs is now happening the United States: While 82 percent of Catholics support birth control use, the Catholic Church is suing to have it removed from required health care plans.

This case shows the extent to which some far-right leaders in the Catholic Church will go to fight against what they charge as morally reprehensible — even if the vast majority of their adherents don’t agree, or consider the charges flipped.

Out of 178 nations, the U.S. is one of three that does not offer paid maternity leave benefits, let alone paid leave for fathers, which more than 50 of these nations offer. Here’s how the U.S. stacks up to 14 other countries:

In comparison, Canada and Norway offer generous benefits that can be shared between the father and mother, France offers about four months, and even Mexico and Pakistan are among the nations offer 12 weeks paid leave for mothers.

American women are offered 12 weeks of unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, which exempts companies with fewer than 50 paid employees, but in 2011, only 11 percent of private sector workers and 17 percent of public workers reported that they had access to paid maternity leave through their employer. And for first-time mothers, only about half can take paid leave when they give birth.

At the same time that working women in the U.S. lack a benefit widely available across the globe, almost 50 percent of families had two working parents in 2010, and 26 percent of households were headed by single parents. Without guaranteed paid maternity leave, many of these working women face significant financial hardship by having to choose between their paycheck and their families.

Women are forced to put their careers and financial future at risk simply because they want to have children. During their pregnancy, they face being fired unfairly or not being able to properly care for themselves. They should not have to worry about making ends meet without paid maternity leave on top of that.

Adam Peck contributed to this report.

Our guest bloggers are Jessica Arons, director of the women’s health and rights program, and Lucy Panza, CAP policy analyst.

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as “Obamacare.” This landmark piece of legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama drastically reforms the way health insurance works in our country. Below, we outline 10 reasons why women in America have so much riding on the Supreme Court’s decision:

1. Obamacare guarantees coverage of preventive services with no cost sharing. Preventive care promotes health and saves money. Yet many preventive care services are out of women’s reach due to high co-pays, deductibles, and co-insurance. More than 50 percent of women have delayed seeking medical care due to cost, and one-third of women report forgoing basic necessities to pay for health care. But under the health reform law, insurers are now required to cover recommended preventive services such as mammograms, Pap smears, and well-baby care without cost sharing. More than 45 million women have already taken advantage of these services. And starting this August more services, including contraception, gestational diabetes screening, and breastfeeding supports, will be added to the list of preventive care that must be covered at no additional cost.

2. Maternity care will be required in new insurance plans. Coverage for maternity care—health care that only women need—is routinely excluded in the individual insurance market. Only 12 percent of plans sold in the individual market even offer maternity coverage, which is frequently inadequate because of waiting periods or deductibles that can be as high as the cost of the birth itself. But once Obamacare is fully implemented in 2014, about 8.7 million women will have guaranteed access to maternity care in all new individual and small group plans.

3. Women will no longer be denied insurance coverage for gender-related reasons. In today’s insurance market, it is common for insurers to refuse to cover women because of gender-based “pre-existing conditions,” such as having had a Cesarean section or being the victim of domestic violence or sexual assault. Thankfully, this practice will be outlawed under Obamacare in 2014. In the meantime, adults with pre-existing conditions who have been uninsured for at least six months can purchase affordable coverage through temporary Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plans.

4. Women will no longer be charged more for their insurance coverage just for being women. Under a practice known as “gender rating,” insurers currently charge women higher premiums than men for identical health benefits. As a result, women now pay $1 billion more than men each year for the same health plans in the individual market. As of 2014, however, under the Affordable Care Act, gender rating will become illegal in all new individual and small group plans.

5. Women have more control over their health care. Already, women no longer need a referral to see their obstetrician-gynecologist thanks to Obamacare. And they get to choose their primary care physician and their child’s pediatrician from their plan’s list of participating providers.
Read more

Investigators are still trying to determine what caused a fire at an obstetrics and gynecology clinic — the second suspicious fire at a Georgia reproductive clinic this week. No one was injured in the Wednesday morning fire that started on the third floor of the Cobb County clinic, which anti-abortion advocates regularly protest, according to local news reports. Employees told a local TV station they saw “suspicious activity” before the fire:

Clinic workers believe the fire started on the third floor. They said two unknown men went upstairs and left shortly afterward, minutes before the fire was discovered.

“We have patients here. They’re under anesthesia. This could have been life-threatening,” employee Angela Buckner told Channel 2’s Ross Cavitt.

On Sunday, a fire was reported at another clinic in Gwinnett County. In addition to the recent fires, women’s health clinics reported break-ins and stolen computer equipment in March after the Georgia legislature approved a restrictive bill preventing abortions after 20 weeks. Clinic workers said the thefts were attempts to intimidate doctors who perform abortions and fought against the bill. “They’re treating us like terrorists,” Richard Zane, whose Atlanta Women’s Health Center was burglarized, told a local Patch site.

Gov. Nathan Deal signed the 20-week ban, which has no exemption for cases of rape or incest, into law earlier this month.

A week after Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) held Congressional hearings on a bill that would prevent doctors in D.C. from performing abortions after 20 weeks, protesters descended on the Arizona Congressman’s office — who represents a district 2,300 miles and two time zones away from the nation’s capital — to ask “Mayor Franks” to fix pressing local concerns like pot holes, broken street lights and traffic lights:

One by one, about 50 protesters knocked on the door of Franks’ office, and then spoke a few words about a problem in the city that they think “Mayor Franks” should address if he’s going to be writing laws that affect D.C. residents.

“My issue today is Metro — full funding for Metro,” said Jon Ozment, a 56-year-old D.C. resident. “As a constituent here, I use Metro all the time, my children use it, and it’s really disgraceful the condition they’ve allowed Metro to get to.”

“I have to say I’m very disappointed today,” he added. “I really wanted to meet my representative, Mr. Franks. He’s supposed to be representing us and I did take some time to come in here today, so I hope he takes these concerns into account.”

During the subcommittee hearing last week, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) criticized Franks for blocking Del. Eleanor Norton (D) — D.C.’s only congressional representative — from testifying against the measure. The ban itself is based on the contested theory that a fetus can feel pain 20 weeks after gestation and mirrors prohibitions in seven states.

Wednesday’s protest was organized by Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington D.C. and DC Vote.

More than 40 Catholic institutions filed 12 separate lawsuits this week against the Obama administration’s regulation requiring employers and insurers to cover contraceptive services at no additional cost to employees — arguing that it violates Catholic institutions’ religious liberty. But most U.S. Catholics don’t consider birth control to be a threat to their religious belief. In fact, 82 percent of Catholics say contraception is “morally acceptable,” according to a Gallup poll from earlier this month.

Although Catholic Church leaders have transformed contraception into a culture war issue over the past few months, their position does not have the backing of the majority of Catholic adherents, especially when compared to the American public as a whole. The poll demonstrates that Catholic support for birth control is a mere 8 points below the 90 percent of non-Catholic Americans who have no moral objections to birth control:

The Obama administration has already amended its contraception regulation to provide accommodations for employers and insurers who object to covering birth control for religious reasons. A third-party insurer may pay for the birth control, ensuring no additional cost to either the employee seeking coverage nor the religious institution. Nonetheless, prominent Catholic figures such as Cardinal Timothy Dolan have referred to the contraception rule as a method of “strangling” religious freedom.

A boy who nearly drowned five years ago passed away this week, after state budget cuts increased the cost of his care.

Joey Cosmillo almost died as a one year old after he fell in a pool, but was rescued and survived another five years with extensive medical assistance. Then two years ago, Florida lawmakers slashed health care funding for low-income people in favor of corporate tax cuts, and Cosmillo fell victim to the cuts.

According to his grandmother, the family struggled to pay Joey’s mounting medical bills, and the state assistance that used to help them wasn’t an option anymore:

Joey received 24-hour nursing care at home until state cutbacks two years ago gradually began taking that away. Long-term care of near-drowning victims can cost $180,000 a year and more than $4.5 million over their lifetimes, according to thepoolsafetyresource.com

“Our family went broke trying to take care of him,” his grandmother said. [...] Joey’s mother Angela and his grandfather Richard “Rich” Cosmillo shared night care duties at their side-by-side apartments in Maitland. [...]

On Sunday night, Joey died at home. The next day, his grandfather was hospitalized.

“It was one of those horrible times when we didn’t have nursing all weekend,” his grandmother said. “We don’t know what happened.”

While Joey’s family suffered, Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) gave corporations hundred of millions of dollars in tax breaks. Scott called his budget “fun” and “exciting,” and said that “jobs are going to grow like crazy” in Florida. But Florida unemployment remains among the highest in the country.

A woman was not allowed to board her connecting flight Tuesday because she was wearing a pro-choice shirt that was too offensive, according to American Airlines.

The woman emailed Jodi Jacobson, editor-in-chief of RH Reality Check, recounting the experience:

Right before we were set to land the flight attendant from first class approaches me and asks if I had a connecting flight? We were running a bit behind schedule, so I figured I was being asked this to be sure I would make my connecting flight. She then proceeded to tell me that I needed to speak with the captain before disembarking the plane and that the shirt I was wearing was offensive.

The shirt was gray with the wording, “If I wanted the government in my womb, I’d fuck a senator.” I must also mention that when I boarded the plane, I was one of the first groups to board (did not pass by many folks). I was wearing my shawl just loosely around my neck and upon sitting down in my seat the lady next to me, who was already seated, praised me for wearing the shirt.

The shirt’s words are actually lifted from a sign used by Oklahoma state Sen. Judy McIntyre (D) at a pro-choice rally. McIntyre told critics who found her sign offensive that “I would hope they would have that same passion about how offensive it is for the Republican Party of Oklahoma to ramrod, because they have the votes to do so, bills that are offensive to women and take away the rights of women.”

American Airlines has an exceptionally strict dress policy, according to CNN. It says that “it can refuse to transport you, or may remove you from your flight for reasons including ‘being clothed in a manner that would cause discomfort or offense to other passengers.’”

Republicans are criticizing the Department of Health and Human Services for signing a $20 million contract with a public relations firm to educate Americans about the preventive health benefits included in the Affordable Care Act. The campaign — mandated by the law — “must describe the importance of prevention while also explaining preventive benefits provided by the healthcare law,” essentially informing the public about the availability of preventive services without additional co-pays.

The GOP touted the benefits of preventive medicine before Obama signed health reform into law and claimed that it could help lower the nation’s skyrocketing health care costs. But they’re now denouncing this campaign as an “unconstitutional” “propaganda” effort:

– SARAH PALIN: “This is one of the stupidest things I’ve heard coming out of the Obama administration. Not only is this, of course, pending in court, and I think it will be deemed unconstitutional, but this is a propaganda piece, which I think violates many of the procurement laws and other laws applicable to government contracts. This is propaganda. It’s just promoting ‘ObamaCare.’” [Fox News, 5/22/2012]

– JOHN MCCAIN: “Outrageous waste of taxpayer $ to promote #Obamacare – ‘HHS signs $20M PR contract to promote healthcare law’ [Twitter, 5/22/2012]

– ROY BLUNT: “It’s unacceptable that Pres Obama intends to waste $20M on the taxpayer’s dime to sell U.S. on unpopular #ObamaCare” [Twitter, 5/22/2012]

– RON JOHNSON: “$20M for marketing #ObamaCare? This is a wasteful & inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars.” [Twitter, 5/22/2012]

President George W. Bush also used federal funds to promote the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), which established the existing prescription drug benefit. In that case, however, an investigation by the Government Accountability Office and HHS’s own inspector General concluded that the federally funded campaign was “misleading” and “may also have illegally used public money to make what in effect were fake news reports about the law that did amount to propaganda.”

In February of 2004, the administration distributed brochures and launched a $12 million radio, television, and Internet ad campaign to promote the Medicare reforms. “We’re going to provide seniors with straight answers,” said then-Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson. “We’re going to let them know what benefits are coming and when.” Critics charged that the ads were misleading and some stations even stopped showing the spots.

In 2009, the GOP also defended Humana’s alleged use of federal dollars and data to send deceptive brochures warning Medicare customers that health reform will cut “important benefits and services.” Republicans rallied behind the insurer and accused Democrats of “trying to keep seniors in the dark about the consequences of congressional Democrats’ costly government-run health care bills.” But now they’re trying to undermine a campaign that will shine a light on prevention. Perhaps they’re worried that the more Americans learn about the law, the more they’ll like it.

A bill to defund Planned Parenthood will be introduced in the Pennsylvania state legislature this week.

The bill, like similar efforts in Texas and Arizona, will put the women’s health provider at the end of the list for any federal funding, according to the Huffington Post. But it isn’t even written by the Pennsylvania state legislature. Rather, the bill is an effort by the anti-abortion group the Susan B. Anthony List:

[State Rep. Daryl] Metcalfe’s bill, the Whole Woman’s Health Funding Priority Act, would put health care providers that offer abortion services at the bottom of the priority list for state funding. The anti-abortion activist group Susan B. Anthony List wrote the bill, which closely resembles the one Arizona lawmakers used to defund Planned Parenthood earlier this year.

Planned Parenthood clinics receive a substantial percentage of their money through state and federal government funding streams, including Medicaid and Titles V, X and XX. The clinics use the funds to offer breast cancer screenings, STD testing and treatment, pap smears, maternity care and other medical services for low-income and uninsured patients.

Federal funding cannot be used for abortion services at Planned Parenthood. However, that funding is used for vital well woman care, particularly for low-income women, and women who live in rural areas and have few health care options.

A Wisconsin clinic, Affiliated Medical Services, has stopped distributing abortion-inducing medication because a new state law makes it extremely difficult for abortion providers to offer non-invasive medication abortions. According to RH Reality Check, it is now impossible for women to receive a medical abortion from a provider in the state.

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin suspended medication abortions in April because of the ambiguous anti-abortion measure that Gov. Scott Walker (R) signed into law, which requires women to make at least three separate visits to their doctor for the procedure.

NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin Executive Director Lisa Subeck said in a statement that women will “suffer” because Walker and state Republicans have limited women’s health care options in the state:

“Wisconsin women will suffer because of Governor Walker’s actions. It is unacceptable that women are losing health care options because Walker has put his extreme social agenda ahead of what is best for women’s health. [...] Women lose out when out of control politicians like Scott Walker practice medicine without a license and interfere in the relationship between doctors and their patients.”

Dr. Fredrik Broekhuizen, a Wisconsin medical director, told RH Reality Check in April that “[i]f we follow the FDA rules and follow protocol, we would violate this law. And we have no ability to defend ourselves,” he said of the restrictions on medication abortions.

The fight over women’s access to abortion has been particularly fierce in Wisconsin. A Planned Parenthood clinic was firebombed in early April before Walker quietly signed anti-abortion legislation into law later in the month.