Exit polling from last night’s election suggests that clear majorities of voters in key states support legal access to abortion, and oppose efforts to criminalize abortion in all cases. Considering the fact that voters also rejected the five anti-choice candidates who emphasized their opposition to abortion rights across the board, even for survivors of sexual assault, it’s clear that reproductive rights have become a decisive election issue:

– New Hampshire: Voters in New Hampshire overwhelmingly support abortion access, with 71 percent of voters reporting they believe abortion should be legal all or most of the time. Just 27 percent of voters there say it should be illegal. The state also has the distinction of electing the first all-female Congressional delegation, with two female Senators and two newly elected female Democrats who ousted the male Republican incumbents for seats in Congress.

– Virginia: In Virginia, which ended up casting its 13 electoral votes for Obama, only 33 percent of voters told exit pollsters that they think abortion should be illegal. Sixty-three percent, on the other hand, think it should be legal all or most of the time.

– Ohio: Ohio also went blue for Obama, and it also has a strong majority of support for reproductive rights. Fifty six percent of Ohio voters believe abortion should be legal all or most of the time, and just 39 percent say it should be illegal.

– Missouri: Voters in Missouri narrowly reelected Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) over her Republican opponent Todd Akin, who once defended his opposition for abortion rights for rape victims by asserting that “legitimate rape” doesn’t often lead to pregnancies. Exit polling reported that Missourians who support abortion access enjoy a slight majority, with 51 percent of voters saying they support access to abortion in all or most cases. Two thirds of those voters chose to support McCaskill.

After several far-right GOP candidates for the House and Senate lost their races last night, one of the clear trends emerging from this election is the widespread rejection of extremely restrictive views on reproductive rights. Even though the official Republican party platform endorses a sweeping ban of abortion without even the narrowest of exceptions, national polls confirm that the majority of the country currently supports legal access for all abortion services, and Americans overwhelmingly favor legal abortion rights for survivors of sexual assault.

ATKINSON, New Hampshire — Two years ago, Ovide Lamontagne was running for the U.S. Senate and said he “will use every means possible to repeal the trillion dollar Obamacare takeover.” This year, running for governor of New Hampshire, Lamontagne is embracing Obamacare money.

Stumping at a Rotary Club meeting Friday morning, Lamontagne discussed health care and how New Hampshire can “partner with Washington” to improve the state’s system. “Take those dollars under Obamacare but apply them to a free-market private health insurance exchange” in New Hampshire, he told the audience, failing to mention his past opposition to the landmark health law.

LAMONTAGNE: The delivery system really is local and we ought to continue to work on a New Hampshire solution for health care reform, not turning over our health care system to Washington again. I think we have an opportunity to partner with Washington to come up with a New Hampshire solution. Take those dollars under Obamacare but apply them to a free-market private health insurance exchange with more insurance companies competing and with high-risk pooling or high-risk premium support for those individuals who can’t access the private insurance market because coverages are pricing them out of coverage. That’s where resources should be allocated to.

Watch it:

What Lamontagne proposed to do with Obamacare funds is precisely what they’re intended for: to help states set up “a free-market private health insurance exchange with more insurance companies competing.” It is the same law that he vehemently opposed as a Senate candidate in 2010 because it was a “takeover of our country’s health care system.”

Thus far, Republican legislators in the state have been working to impede creating an exchange. Earlier this year, New Hampshire passed a law barring state officials from setting up an exchange without legislative approval. If New Hampshire doesn’t submit a plan for their own exchange prior to January 1, 2013, federal officials will set up one for the state.

Still, even though Lamontagne is now promising to take advantage of Obamacare funds for the Granite State’s benefit, he also promised earlier this year that he would fight the new law as governor. “The very first thing I would do is direct the attorney general to repeal Obamacare or to fight it and stop it every step of the way,” he said. “We need to make sure we don’t have Obamacare.”

CONWAY, New Hampshire — A New England congressman from nearby the source of the ongoing meningitis outbreak dismissed calls for more regulation on the industry at a debate Thursday.

Freshman Rep. Frank Guinta (R-NH) was asked during a forum in northern New Hampshire whether the meningitis outbreaks demonstrates that the pharmaceutical industry actually needs more regulation to prevent similar problems in the future. “If your question is do you need more regulation, I don’t think you need more,” Guinta said.

MODERATOR: Number two, when you look at the kind of disastrous results that come from the pharmaceutical industry’s compounding organization that created this meningitis problem across America, and those are very unregulated operations, doesn’t America actually need more regulation to protect us from bad actors, as you pointed out?

GUINTA: If your question is do you need more regulation, I don’t think you need more. What you need is the existing regulatory agencies to actually do their jobs properly. We know what the basic rules are, what the basic laws are. They need to be utilized in such a way where the bad actors are identified.

Watch it:

As of publication time, 23 people have died from the outbreak and 14,000 Americans were exposed to tainted steroid injections from a pharmaceutical company in Framingham, Massachusetts, less than 50 miles from Guinta’s district.

Despite the freshman congressman’s opposition, this meningitis episode highlights the need for stronger FDA regulations to prevent a repeat in the future. Because of the particular nature by which the steroid injections were created — a practice called compounding — the FDA lacks authority to oversee the process and ensure safety. Democratic lawmakers are pushing to strengthen the FDA’s oversight capacity, but congressmen like Guinta are signalling that such efforts could be blocked.

Still, Guinta is not entirely alone in his refusal to call for new regulations on the pharmaceutical industry. Earlier this month, Fox News said the outbreak actually demonstrates the need for less government regulation.

CONWAY, New Hampshire — Finding bipartisan agreement on any policy is a rarity these days, but lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have supported treating people who show up in the hospital, regardless of their ability to pay. Now, one Tea Party congressman is taking issue with that requirement.

Giving literal meaning to his state’s “Live Free Or Die” motto, Rep. Frank Guinta (R-NH) was asked at a debate Thursday about a hypothetical 25-year-old who needs treatment in the emergency room but doesn’t have health insurance. Guinta’s said he opposed the requirement that hospitals should have to treat people who come in without insurance. “If you are 25 years old and you are choosing not to purchase insurance with the expectation of trying to get it free from the ER at Memorial,” Guinta said, “that shouldn’t be the case”:

MODERATOR: I’m 25 years old. There’s no mandate for me to purchase insurance. The emergency room at Memorial Hospital by law must treat me when I walk in the door, whether I have any money, whether I have any intent to pay or not, I have to be treated. Isn’t it a good Republican principle to say everybody ought to pay for their own medical insurance if we’re going to require hospitals to treat them? [...]

GUINTA: If you guy purchase a good or service, you’re supposed to pay for it. Yes, if you are 25 years old and you are choosing not to purchase insurance with the expectation of trying to get it free from the ER at Memorial, that shouldn’t be the case. But for those people who are in a situation who truly can’t afford health insurance, those are the people that we really want to focus on and figure out how to provide them care.

Watch it (jump at 0:35 due to a brief malfunction with Guinta’s microphone):

The law mandating hospitals that receive Medicare funding to treat emergency room patients dates back to the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

The Affordable Care Act will help reduce the free rider problem Guinta describes by requiring everyone to purchase health insurance and providing subsidies to those who can’t afford it.