HILLARY CLINTON, TRUMP & CHURCHES DON'T CARE ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (WOMEN VOTERS)

@DomesticViolence

HILLARY CLINTON,  TRUMP &  AMERICAN CHURCHES DON'T CARE ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (WOMEN VOTERS):

2016 WOMEN VOTERS STILL CARE ABOUT CURBING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

Sources:  Daily Beast, Alliance For Hope, Christianity Today, Youtube

~ Highlights:

During the course of this 2016 Presidential election season, presumptive Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton has mentioned the issue of Domestic Violence only once or twice.  Why?

During the course of this 2016 Presidential election season, I haven't heard my candidate and presumptive GOP nominee Donald J. Trump mention the issue of Domestic Violence at all.  Why?

To make matters worse, American Churches and many Pastors are still telling Women in their congregations who report events of Domestic Violence at the hands of Male congregants (their Husbands),  that they (the Women) must be at fault or must have have "Provoked" their Husbands to physically abuse them.  Why?

Many Churches are also often siding with Male Congregants, assisting Male Congregants in Divorcing their Wives and Blacklisting and Praying against Wives who report Domestic Violence.

I thought Churches were about demonstrating God's LOVE and spreading the Gospel of JESUS CHRIST.

Perhaps I was wrong about this analysis regarding the Church community.

Since when are Churches in the business of being Mental Health Advisors and telling Women who report Domestic Violence that they must have "Provoked" their Husbands to physically abuse them??

Come Nov 2016, Millions of Women Voters will rush to the Polls to help elect a new US President.

Many of those Women would have been victims of Domestic Violence at some time in their lives.

Pres OBAMA is currently spending Billions of US Taxpayer dollars on Culture Wars and Transgender Bathroom battles.

What about curbing Domestic Violence?

What about the Mental Health of US Military Vets?

Can either Hillary Clinton or Donald J. Trump explain why the subject of Domestic Violence is not a crucial issue on the 2016 campaign trail?

***** Why Don’t the Presidential Candidates Talk About Domestic Violence? Who Will Ask Them the Important Questions?

In the last seven days, there have been 12 murder-suicides in the US (Alliance for HOPE International, 2016).

 More than one per day. All but one were related to domestic violence. There have been three mass shootings — all related to domestic violence. 

There have been 29 domestic violence related homicides in the last week. 

There has been no national news coverage. 

More significantly, Alliance for HOPE International has analyzed the Democratic and Republican Presidential debates and found no questions or related post-debate stories about the candidates discussing murder-suicides, domestic violence homicides, or domestic violence in America in general. 

No Republican or Democratic presidential candidate has voluntarily raised any topic related to domestic violence in any debate or major forum. 

No question has even been asked in a single debate. 

No post-debate tweet, Facebook post, or press release has been issued on any of these domestic violence-related topics. 

Why?

Every year in the US more than 1,200 Americans die in murder-suicides (Violence Policy Center, 2015). 

Nine out of 10 of these incidents involve a gun, and 72 percent involve an intimate partner. There will be more than 300 domestic violence-related murder-suicides before the November election.

 More than 900 women, men, and children will die in domestic violence-related murders between now and election day based on current daily averages. 

But not a single speech on the topic by a Presidential candidate. 

Why?

The most recent national study on murder-suicides was published last fall by the Violence Policy Center.

 The study found:

— Of the 282 murder-suicide events in the first half of 2014, 261 (93 percent) were known to involve a firearm.

— Of the 72 percent of murder-suicides that involved an intimate partner, 93 percent were females killed by their intimate partners.

— Most of the killers in murder-suicides were men. Of the 285 suicides, 254 (89 percent) were male, 30 (11 percent) were female.

— Most of the murder-suicide victims were women. Of the 332 homicide victims, 252 (76 percent) were female, 79 (24 percent) were male.

— Forty-five of the homicide victims were children and teens less than 18 years of age.

Yet nothing has been heard on the campaign trail and no national news outlet has even framed a question to a Presidential candidate about this pandemic. Why?

If not murder-suicides, what about talking about the broader topic of domestic violence homicides? Domestic violence causes far more deaths in the US each year than the underfunding of social security, national tax policy, or terrorism. 

Since 2003, 18,000 women and 4,000 men have been killed in domestic violence-related homicides. And even while major media outlets like the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Huffington Post, USA Today, and others have consistently done national stories on these topics, none of it is being talked about by the candidates for President of the United States. Why?

Primaries or caucuses have now been held in a host of states that have the highest rates of women murder by intimate partners in the country including Nevada (#1), Alaska (#2), and South Carolina (#3). But not a single question has been asked. Not a single ad has touched on the topic. The voters in other states too have weighed in on who should be President without a question being asked including Vermont, Tennessee, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Texas. Why?

If we don’t ask about murder-suicides or domestic violence homicides, why can’t we talk with the candidates about the broader topic of all types of domestic violence. Domestic violence impacts millions of Americans. It has far more impact on the daily lives and pocketbooks of Americans than most of the topics and questions in the Presidential race. 1 out of 4 women (38 million) and 1 out of 7 men (17 million) will be a victim of intimate partner violence in their lifetime.

Beyond Obamacare, the war on terror, social security, economic strategies, and foreign relationships there has been nothing asked or offered in any of the debates or major forums on the general topic of domestic violence — not by a media editorial board, not by audience members at major presidential election town halls, not by anybody. Why?

Does the media not care? Is the public not paying attention even after so much public awareness and outreach in the past two years on domestic violence issues through the NFL scandal, the national NO MORE campaign, and high profile mass shootings and mass murders related to domestic violence? Who will hold the media accountable? Who will start asking the candidates the important questions on a topic that impacts more than 50 million Americans?

Anyone who aspires to be President of the United States should be asked these questions in televised debates. What will you do as President to take guns away from violent abusive men? What laws have you supported to hold abusive intimate partners accountable for their violence? Have you ever participated in a task force, coordinating council, or local, state, or national effort to help stop gender-based violence in America? Do you believe those who use violence and abuse against their partners and family members should be held criminally accountable? What prevention initiatives do you support to break the generational cycle of family violence? What is your plan to reduce domestic violence by helping children exposed to trauma and abuse? Do you personally support local, state, or national organizations working to reduce gender-based violence in America? Who have you financially supported? As President, will you commit to regularly speak on issues connected to domestic violence and killing of intimate partners in this country? Will you support a national data base to track murder-sucides in America? Will you support efforts such as coordinated community responses, community-based domestic violence agencies, Family Justice Centers, high risk teams, and other programs designed to prevent murder-sucides and domestic violence homicides in America? Do you support the fully funded reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act?

I do believe most Americans care about the issue of domestic violence I believe most members of the media care about the issues as well. Let’s start acting on those beliefs. Let’s start asking every candidate Republican and Democrat some of these key questions. Perhaps asking the questions will lead to greater focus on the devastating impacts and the promising solutions to reduce intimate partner violence across the United States.

Casey Gwinn is a former prosecutor and serves as President of Alliance for HOPE International.

Karen Santorum & Contraception: "Rick Is Not Anti-Women & Not Opposed To Contraception" (Video)

View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Google Maps

Mitt Romney vs Planned Parenthood: Stands Firm On Promise To Cut Funding For ABORTIONS. I Agree!

Mitt Romney stands firm on his promise to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood ABORTIONS. This I DO Agree with! I would NOT vote for Romney but I do Agree Planned Parenthood Should NOT be receiving Federal Dollars for ABORTIONS as Pres. Obama promised Bart Stupak back in 2010.


Romney can't escape birth control questions in Illinois


Mitt Romney tried to make his final day before Tuesday’s Illinois primary all about the economy, but in the end he couldn’t escape the distracting questions about birth control that have seeped into the Republican presidential discussion for weeks on end.

Romney faced two questions about contraception as he wrapped up his last event Monday, a sun-splashed outdoor town hall on the campus of Bradley University in Peoria.

After Romney riffed for about 20 minutes on President Barack Obama’s management of the economy, he solicited questions from the large student-heavy audience.

As the first questioner made apparent, these voters were not pre-screened.

“So you’re all for like, yay, freedom, and all this stuff,” said the first woman to approach a microphone. “And yay, like pursuit of happiness. You know what would make me happy? Free birth control.”

Her remark drew a mix of applause and boos from the crowd, and a rebuke from the Republican frontrunner.

“You know, let me tell you, no no, look, look let me tell you something,” he said, waiting for the crowd noise died down. “If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for? Vote for the other guy, that’s what he’s all about, okay? That’s not, that’s not what I’m about.”

That exchange was followed by another question about Romney’s plan to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

A female audience member asked Romney where he might suggest “millions of women go” without Planned Parenthood offering reproductive and sexual health care.

“Well they can go wherever they’d like to go,” Romney told her. “This is a free society. But here’s what I’d say, which is the federal government should not tax these people to pay for Planned Parenthood … The idea of the federal government funding Planned Parenthood I’m going to say no, we’re going to stop that.”


View Larger Map


Sources: ABC News, CNN, KSDK, Youtube, Google Maps

Belmont Abbey College vs Pres. Obama's Contraceptive Rule (Church & State; Religious Freedom)

Obama administration asks for delay in legal fight over contraception coverage


An ongoing political dispute over the Obama administration's new mandate on contraceptive coverage has reached the federal courts, with the Justice Department on Friday urging judges to stay out of the controversy until a compromise can be worked out.

At issue is whether religious institutions should be exempt from mandated employee coverage for birth control and other reproductive care. A North Carolina college has sued, saying it should not be obligated to provide such services in violation of its religious beliefs.

But the Justice Department told a federal judge in Washington on Friday that any coverage requirements won't be enforced until next January, essentially buying time to settle any differences between the parties out of court.

"Students may receive health coverage either by contracting directly with an insurance issuer (in which case plaintiff [college] does not itself provide the insurance), or from plaintiff through a self insured plan," said the filing.

"In either event, plaintiff is under no federal obligation to provide its own plan that covers contraception or other recommended preventive services, and thus lacks standing" to sue.

The president announced a compromise last week in the dispute.

Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals would not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to women who work at such institutions.

Female employees at churches themselves will have no guarantee of any contraception coverage-- a continuation of current law.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops denounced Obama's compromise last week soon after the president's announcement, saying the proposal raises "serious moral concerns," according to a statement posted on its website.

Half of all Americans polled say they oppose the Obama administration's new policy, according to a new CNN/ORC national survey.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has filed a series of lawsuits, arguing that even the revised polices on contraception access would constitute a violation of their clients' faith.

Belmont Abbey College is a Catholic-affiliated liberal arts institution near Charlotte, North Carolina. The school claims that under current law, they are not free from the "religious exemption" and would be forced to provide contraception to its employees and students.

They say the law, even with the compromise offered by the White House, does not address their First Amendment concerns.

The final version of the contraception requirement goes into effect next January. The administration argues Belmont and other institutions may be "grandfathered" out of current compliance, and that the school lacks "standing" or authority to press its claims now in federal court.

The administration said that under a safe harbor provision, no group can be forced to provide birth control at least until year's end. Federal officials said they are confident they could work out legal and philosophical differences to ensure broad compliance.

The case is Belmont Abbey College v. Sebelius (1:11-cv-1989).


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Google Maps

Komen Reversal On Planned Parenthood Decision FALSE! Board Member: "No Reversal"! WashPo Reports

From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million Legal ABORTIONS occurred!
Sources: Guttmacher Institute
Jones RK and Kooistra, K., Abortion incidence and access to services in the United States, 2008, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2011, 43(1):41-50.




Komen Board Member Official Statement Per Washington Post

As you may have heard, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation just announced that it was reversing its decision to ban Planned Parenthood from applying for grants to cover breast cancer screenings — after a massive outcry that spread from women’s groups to social media to Capitol Hill.

The question now is what its announcement actually means.

I just got off the phone with a Komen board member, and he confirmed that the announcement does not mean that Planned Parenthood is guaranteed future grants — a demand he said would be “unfair” to impose on Komen.

He also said the job of the group’s controversial director, Nancy Brinker, is safe, as far as the board is concerned.

As some were quick to point out, the statement put out by Komen doesn’t really clarify whether Planned Parenthood will actually continue to get money from the group. The original rationale for barring Planned Parenthood was that it was under investigation (a witch-hunt probe undertaken by GOP Rep Cliff Stearns).

Komen said today that the group would “amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”

Does that mean Planned Parenthood will get Komen grants in the future?

I asked Komen board member John Raffaelli to respond to those who are now saying that the announcement doesn’t necessarily constitute a reversal until Planned Parenthood actually sees more funding.

He insisted it would be unfair to expect the group to commit to future grants.

“It would be highly unfair to ask us to commit to any organization that doesn’t go through a grant process that shows that the money we raise is used to carry out our mission,” Raffaelli told me. “We’re a humaniatrian organization.

We have a mission. Tell me you can help carry out our mission and we will sit down at the table.”

Pushed on whether this means the new announcement wasn’t really a reversal, Raffaelli pushed back, arguing that Komen, in response to all the criticism, had removed politics from the grant-making process. “Is it really unclear that we’re changing the policy to address criticism?” he said.

Others have pointed out that Komen’s handling of this issue should lead to skepticism of its announcement. Brinker had repeatedly said Komen’s funding decision was rooted in a larger policy change and wasn’t directed at Planned Parenthood in particular, suggesting the decision wasn’t related to the fact that Planned Parenthood was under assault by the GOP.

This was contradicted by at least one account. More broadly, the group’s rationale for the decision shifted over the last week.

Pressed on whether Brinker had been forthcoming, Raffaelli insisted: “Nancy was not trying to mislead anyone.”

Asked if there would be an internal look at how Brinker handled the episode, Raffaelli only said there would be some kind of general look at how to prevent the politicization of grant-making in the future.

Raffaelli blamed himself for the failure to handle the politics of this mess adequately, and stressed that Brinker’s career had been devoted to breast cancer prevention, and not politics.

Asked if Brinker’s job was safe, Raffaelli said: “Yes.” He added that the board “unequivocally” stood behind her.

Though Komen had hoped today’s announcement would defuse the politics of this fight, it seems plausible that pressure from both sides will only continue.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Is the Susan G. Komen Foundation backing down?

The Susan G. Komen Foundation has just released a new statement from CEO Nancy Brinker. The first line is a mea culpa: “We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.”

But what does this mea culpa mean?

Brinker goes on to make clear that they will amend their guidelines so only “criminal and conclusive” investigations affect their funding decisions.

They will ensure that “politics has no place in our grant process,” and they will “continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.”

So they are, perhaps, backing down. Or perhaps not. Yesterday, the Komen Foundation said the investigation was not the cause of their reduced support for Planned Parenthood, and that the real issue was that Planned Parenthood did not directly provide mammograms. This statement doesn’t address that concern at all.

So it would appear to leave open the possibility that the foundation intends to reject Planned Parenthood’s future grant applications — albeit on less overtly political grounds.

I posed these questions to Leslie Aun, vice president for communications at the Komen Foundation. “I think our statement speaks for itself,” she replied. You can be the judge of that. The statement follows in full:

Statement from Susan G. Komen Board of Directors and Founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker:

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen.

We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation.

We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.

That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer.

Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process.

We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women.

We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work.

We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Susan G. Komen Foundation, L.A. Times, MSNBC, Washington Post, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Komen Foundation: I Stand With Komen! Fighting Breast Cancer NOT Fund Abortions!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Is the Susan G. Komen Foundation backing down?

The Susan G. Komen Foundation has just released a new statement from CEO Nancy Brinker. The first line is a mea culpa: “We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.”

But what does this mea culpa mean?

Brinker goes on to make clear that they will amend their guidelines so only “criminal and conclusive” investigations affect their funding decisions.

They will ensure that “politics has no place in our grant process,” and they will “continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.”

So they are, perhaps, backing down. Or perhaps not. Yesterday, the Komen Foundation said the investigation was not the cause of their reduced support for Planned Parenthood, and that the real issue was that Planned Parenthood did not directly provide mammograms. This statement doesn’t address that concern at all.

So it would appear to leave open the possibility that the foundation intends to reject Planned Parenthood’s future grant applications — albeit on less overtly political grounds.

I posed these questions to Leslie Aun, vice president for communications at the Komen Foundation. “I think our statement speaks for itself,” she replied. You can be the judge of that. The statement follows in full:

Statement from Susan G. Komen Board of Directors and Founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker:

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen.

We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation.

We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.

That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer.

Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process.

We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women.

We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work.

We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.




Susan G. Komen drops funding for Planned Parenthood


The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation revealed Tuesday it was cutting funds to Planned Parenthood, sparking an outcry from abortion rights advocates blaming “political pressure” and praise from an anti-abortion group.

The major breast cancer research group cut funds to the prominent family planning organization after Planned Parenthood has come under increasing scrutiny from Congress over how it provides abortion services.

The Komen Foundation gave few details on the reasons behind the decision, attributing the announcement to "changes in priorities and policies" and the need to "most fully advance [its] mission."

"It is critical to underscore that the women we serve in communities remain our priority. We are working directly with Komen Affiliates to ensure there is no interruption or gaps in services for women who need breast health screening and services,” the group said in a statement.

The Komen Foundation did not respond to repeated requests for more information about the decision.

Nancy Brinker, the founder and CEO of the Komen Foundation, was a political appointee of the George W. Bush Administration, in which she served as U.S. Ambassador to Hungary and as Chief of Protocol. Susan G. Komen was Brinker's sister.

Planned Parenthood, meanwhile, was clearly disappointed with the foundation's decision.

"We are alarmed and saddened that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation appears to have succumbed to political pressure. Our greatest desire is for Komen to reconsider this policy and recommit to the partnership on which so many women count," Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, said in a statement.

Planned Parenthood said funding from the Komen Foundation has largely paid for breast exams at local centers. In the last five years, grants from the group have directly supported 170,000 screenings, comprising about 4% of the total exams performed at Planned Parenthood health centers nationwide, according to the group.

The family planning organization announced a recent "emergency fund" from a different group, the Amy and Lee Fikes' Foundation, that will go towards making up for lost funds from Komen. The gift totaled $250,000.

Planned Parenthood said Komen began notifying local affiliates recently that their breast cancer initiatives would not be eligible for new grants. In a statement, the group said the foundation's leadership did not respond to requests to meet with Planned Parenthood officials about the decision.

In September, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce began an investigation of Planned Parenthood over the organization's "compliance with federal restrictions on funding abortions."

In a letter sent to Planed Parenthood, the committee asked the group to provide information on how it segregates family planning from abortion services, as well as its policies on reporting cases of sexual abuse, rape and sex trafficking.

The committee, chaired by Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns, also asked for all internal audit reports from 1998 to 2010.

Funding for Planned Parenthood came under the spotlight in April, when a GOP push to strip $317 million in federal funding for the group failed in an eleventh hour budget deal to avoid a government shutdown.

Reacting to the news Tuesday, Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington pointed to the House investigation as the cause behind Komen's decision, saying in a statement she was "extremely disappointed that politics is once again coming between women and their health care needs."

Democratic Rep. Mike Honda of California also sharply criticized the moved and called on the Komen foundation to reconsider its decision.

"This is just the latest casualty in a misguided and harmful campaign started by House Republicans to demonize the life-saving health services delivered by Planned Parenthood health centers," Honda said in a statement.

But the decision was applauded by some in the anti-abortion community, which has long called for the dismantling of Planned Parenthood.

Tony Perkins, a major social conservative leader who heads the Family Research Council, quickly praised the Komen Foundation's decision Tuesday as “good news” for women seeking help with breast cancer, as well as for the “lives of many unborn babies.”

"Susan G. Komen can chose to stop subsidizing the abortion giant, surely Congress can redirect its resources to those helping women, not making a profit off the lives of unborn children," Perkins said in a statement.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Susan G. Komen Foundation, L.A. Times, MSNBC, Washington Post, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Birth Control Now Provided FREE In The United States! No Co-pays! Thank God!

HHS announces free birth control for women in the U.S.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced new guidelines in Washington Monday requiring health insurance plans beginning on or after August 1, 2012 to cover several women's preventive services, including birth control and voluntary sterilization.

According to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the decision is a part of the Affordable Care Act's move to stop problems before they start.

"These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need," she said in a news release.

In July, the Institute of Medicine issued the results of a scientific review of women's health needs and provided recommendations on specific preventive measures to help them. Today HHS approved those recommendations.

Besides contraceptive use, the list includes free screenings for conditions such as gestational diabetes and the human papillomavirus (HPV), as well as breastfeeding support and counseling on sexually transmitted diseases. The full list is available on the Department of Health and Human Services website.

Overheard on CNN.com -- Birth control should be free

The decision to offer free contraception was not supported by all. For example, groups like the Family Research Council claims the decision "undermines the conscience rights of many Americans" and Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, chairman of Committee on Pro-Life Activities with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops says "pregnancy is not a disease, and fertility is not a pathological condition to be suppressed by any means technically possible."

They feel the decision forces people to participate who may have moral or religious convictions that oppose contraception use.

The Obama administration released an amendment to the prevention regulation that allows religious institutions offering health insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraception services.

However, supporters say the service will help millions of women who struggle to afford prescription birth control.

Birth control should be fully covered under health plans, report says

"Covering birth control without co-pays is one of the most important steps we can take to prevent unintended pregnancy and keep women and children healthy," said Dr. Vanessa Cullins, vice president for medical affairs at Planned Parenthood Federation of America when the IOM recommendations were released.

Supporters also say covering contraception helps the government save money up front.

According to an analysis from the Guttmacher Institute, in 2006, of the 2 million publicly funded births, 51% resulted from unintended pregnancies, accounting for more than $11 billion in costs.

The report found that this is a disproportionate burden on programs such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, given that only 38% of all U.S. births result from unintended pregnancies.


View Larger Map

Sources: AP, CBS News, CNN, Wikipedia, Google Maps

Nancy Pelosi: Health Care Heroine Or Partisan Gate Keeper?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Nancy Pelosi Steeled White House For Health Care "Reform" Push


In the jittery days following Scott Brown’s Senate victory, Nancy Pelosi was eager to resurrect comprehensive health reform. But first, she had to get past longtime ally Rahm Emanuel, who was counseling President Barack Obama to consider a smaller, piecemeal approach.

During a mid-February conference call with top House Democrats, Pelosi made it clear she would accept nothing short of a big-bang health care push — dismissing the White House chief of staff as an “incrementalist.”

Pelosi even coined a term to describe Emanuel’s scaled-down approach: “Kiddie Care,” according to a person privy to the call.

Pelosi’s remark was more than just a diss. It sent a clear signal to House leadership that Pelosi wouldn’t compromise — and it coincided with Obama’s own decision to renew his push for an all-encompassing bill after weeks of confusion and discussion.

In the end, Pelosi, Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) braved a political backlash to pursue comprehensive reform, green-lighting a two-step reconciliation process that requires the House to approve a Senate health bill reviled by many House Democrats.

If the House approves the bill Sunday — and House leaders sound confident they can — it will be followed by a potentially contentious Senate rewrite of the legislation that removes special deals like the “Cornhusker Kickback” and delays an excise tax on “Cadillac” insurance plans until 2018.

Republicans may have the last laugh, of course, if they are able to capitalize on the plan’s unpopularity in the midterms.

But pass or fail, the fact that a sweeping reform effort is alive at all — much less on the precipice of becoming the law of the land after its brush with death eight weeks ago — is a remarkable turnabout for a party that was on the brink of a political and nervous breakdown in late January.

The rebirth of the reform effort is the result of a little luck, insurance company avarice, a subsiding of post-Brown panic among party incumbents and the calculation by many Hill Democrats that going small or giving up was just as politically perilous as going big.

But the main reason the bill has made it to the floor has as much to do with the complex, occasionally tense, ever-evolving partnership between the first African-American president and the first female speaker.

“I think [Pelosi] is the one who has kept the steel in the president’s back — and I think she represents that to Harry Reid, too,” Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), Pelosi’s closest friend in Congress, told POLITICO.

“White Houses end up with — how do I say this? — they take an incrementalism pill,” added Eshoo. “But Nancy Pelosi is not an incrementalist.”

Neither is Obama, says Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), it’s just that he moves more deliberately. “I don’t think [the White House] were there from Day One, but they were from Day Two,” he said. “I think they knew this would be the way.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Life before Scott Brown

The groundwork for Sunday’s vote was laid out during a three-day marathon White House negotiating session, which took place in the week before the Massachusetts special election Jan. 19.

The fact Brown might take Ted Kennedy’s old seat — and what that would mean for health reform — didn’t dawn on the principals involved on the bill at first, but it eventually began to sink in, lending the effort a sense of increased urgency, according to a senior Senate aide.

In sessions that stretched into the early-morning hours, Obama helped House and Senate Democrats resolve their biggest policy battles. And they left the White House the Friday afternoon before the vote with a tentative agreement. Looking back, congressional Democrats, demoralized and frustrated after the Massachusetts loss, may well have decided that they were too far apart and too exhausted to push ahead, if they didn’t have that deal.

But there was a stark reminder during those three days of the differing styles of the House and the Senate, and how that divide would define the next two months.

On the second day, Obama asked the House and Senate leaders to return after dinner with $70 billion in suggested cuts from the bill. The senators hunkered down in Sen. Max Baucus’s office, ordered pizzas and drew up a list of trims. Each senator gave up something, aides said.

Later that night, back at the White House, the House presented its approach: They would cut nothing. Obama, not persuaded, sent them to different rooms, and told them to keep working at it.

Eventually, they whittled the gap down to $20 billion, and Obama made his own suggestions.

Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, seemed pleased. “I don’t speak for the House, but you have put forward a serious set of numbers,” he said to Obama, according to a person present.

Pelosi was not so impressed. “Mr. President, I agree with Henry on two points,” she said before turning to Waxman. “The president put out a set of numbers, and you don’t speak for the House of Representatives.”

Obama was done. He left the room in frustration, telling his aides to deal with it.

Living with the loss

The confusion only deepened after Brown’s victory.

Harry Reid, facing a stiff reelection challenge back in Nevada, made it clear that he was in no rush to push through another bill, committing only to doing health care “this year.”

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, an influential Reid adviser who presided over the Democrats’ Senate take-back in 2006, prodded Senate Democrats to put the issue on the back-burner in favor of a high-profile push for jobs bills.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a key liberal, pronounced reform was dead. And Emanuel, a former congressman who quarterbacked the hugely successful ’06 midterm as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, talked about scaling the measure down in conversations with Blue Dog Democrats — all the better to push the jobs bill and an overhaul of financial regulatory reform.

Publicly, Obama seemed to side with Pelosi over his own chief of staff, professing his commitment to comprehensive reforms at the State of the Union.

But he was also sending deeply mixed signals. In a closely watched interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos a day after Brown’s win, Obama expressed support for a quickly passed bill containing only “the core elements” of reform.

The White House press office wouldn’t participate in this story, saying it wasn’t appropriate to comment on the legislation while the outcome remained uncertain.

Pelosi had her own chorus of Incrementalists to deal with. A few days after Brown won, dispirited Democrats rose one by one at a private meeting to plead with the speaker to abandon her plans for a bigger bill and move something a little more piecemeal. “A lot of people wanted us to take baby steps,” said Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democrats’ campaign arm in the House.

She explained that incremental legislation posed even more problems because the pieces of health care reform are so interrelated — but did offer one sop to reassure them: Legislation to repeal a decades-old antitrust exemption for health insurers. It passed with more than 400 votes, but it was the last incremental bill she offered.

Around the time of Brown’s victory, Pelosi and her staff became alarmed by reports, in the New York Times and elsewhere, that consensus was growing for the House passing the Senate bill as-is – with no Reconciliation.

Pelosi, according to several associates, went through the roof, telling Obama and Emanuel that there was no chance her members would pass the Senate bill with its excise tax and sweetheart deals. Obama quickly soured on that idea, too, particularly as the backlash built over deals involving Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).

For his part, Obama was frustrated with the speaker’s insistence that the Senate move first on the reconciliation bill, successfully urging her to drop the demand, according to staffers.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The "Two-Step"

Even before the Massachusetts shocker, Ron Pollack, the executive director of the pro-reform Families USA, began canvassing health care and legislative experts for ways to keep the bill alive without 60 votes.

The most promising option was something he termed the “two-step:” The House would pass the Senate bill, followed immediately by a package of fixes that could move through the Senate through reconciliation.

A day before the election, Pollack sent an e-mail to 19 senior congressional aides, as well as senior staff at the White House. It was already being discussed privately, but Pollack wanted to the idea in the public domain, telling POLITICO about the potential approach.

“I felt it was predictable that if he did win, it would have a major impact in terms of what the perceptions would be about the future of the health reform effort,” Pollack said.

Pelosi’s staff liked it.

Obama settles in

Meanwhile, in the White House, the debate over health care was still raging: Big or small?

The idea of a scaled-back bill drew serious consideration from senior aides, with staff drawing up an outline of what a smaller bill would look like.

Publicly, the White House seemed to send a different signal each day.

In the space of two weeks, Obama or his top advisers suggested breaking the bill into smaller parts, keeping it together in one comprehensive package, putting it at the back of legislative line and needing to “punch it through” Congress, as Obama himself said at one point.

At a fundraiser in early February, Obama described the “next step” as sitting down with Republicans, Democrats and health care experts, describing a process that could take weeks, if not longer. He also seemed to acknowledge for the first time that Congress may well decide to scrap health care altogether — an admission that blunted his repeated and emphatic vows to finish the job.

Behind the scenes, Obama had, in fact, already settled on a strategy.

He would invite Republicans and Democrats to a summit, to give them one last chance at compromise, knowing they wouldn’t budge. And privately, he had decided that his favored approach was a comprehensive bill.

At the same time, recognizing political and economic realities, Obama, Pelosi and Reid pushed ahead quickly with jobs bills, to appease nervous Democrats in both houses who feared the White House had lost focus on the economy.

Still, Democrats were fed up with what they perceived as a lack of direction from the White House.

On Feb. 5, Obama met with Democratic senators at the Newseum. In the closed-door session that followed, freshman Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), lit into an Obama adviser for failing to show more leadership on the issue. It was the culmination of weeks of frustration.

The news breaks the Democrats’ way

That very morning, however, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer was leafing through his daily clip package when he saw that Anthem Blue Cross in California was hiking rates dramatically, as much as 25 percent for many of its patients.

It gave Obama, who thrived in the competitive environment of the 2008 campaign, an opponent worthy of his scorn and wonky policy discourses.

“It was an a-ha moment,” Pollack said. “This was the clearest indication of what would happen if legislation didn’t pass. Even if it was condemned roundly by people in California, it was an early Christmas gift for health reform.”

The Anthem development — coupled with polls showing the unpopularity of Washington — provided Obama with a reason to hit the road, to barnstorm for the plan. He hit stops in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Ohio and Virginia — and focused on health care during a campaign swing for Reid in Nevada. And in the process, he finally appeased Hill Democrats who had been longing to see the president fully engaged.

Along the way, the GOP has given rank-and-file Democrats, who have been playing defense for a year, a way to go on the attack. In late February, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) held up an extension of unemployment and health insurance extension benefits. The move caused a huge uproar, and Democrats were quick to tie Bunning to a Senate GOP leadership unified in opposition to almost all things Obama.

Also near the end of February, Obama convened his White House health summit, roughly three weeks after announcing it during an interview on Super Bowl Sunday. Initially, it was dismissed by some congressional Democratic aides as a waste of time, and worried activists thought the president was frittering away precious weeks.

But in the end, it turned out to be a plus. Democrats finally were able to shift the narrative away from Massachusetts and back to the policy and political differences with Republicans, aides said — boosted by the fact that Obama himself finally put forth a health care bill that he would call his own.

All of this has some Democrats talking about Scott Brown’s victory in slightly less apocalyptic tones.

"In a curious way, the Massachusetts vote helped bring a conclusion to health care,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “It helped people get comfortable with the idea of a path forward that would have been the only path forward anyway."


View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, MSNBC, The Daily Beast, Google Maps