Politics Daily

Democrats, Republicans, Independents Differ on Issues That Worry Them Most

Bruce Drake — 2011-03-21T11:51:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Environment, Crime, Health Care, Race Issues, Immigration, Polls, Poll Watch, Independents, Deficit, Jobs, Economy

The top five issues that Americans worry about the most would not surprise anyone -- the economy, federal spending and the deficit, availability and affordability of health care, unemployment and the Social Security system. But one polling snapshot zeroes in on the difference in emphasis that Republicans, Democrats and independents regard as the top issues.

For the overall population, 71 percent say they worry a great deal about the economy, 64 percent name federal spending and the deficit, 58 percent are concerned about health care, 57 percent fret about unemployment and 51 percent mention Social Security, according to a Gallup poll conducted March 3-6.

But looked at along party lines, federal spending tops the list for Republicans at 79 percent, with the economy a close second at 76 percent. The size and power of government is a major worry for 62 percent of Republicans, compared to 48 percent for the overall public. Illegal immigration is another issue higher on the list for Republicans (at 55 percent) than it is for the general public (42 percent).

Democrats put health care at the top of their list with 69 percent saying that's their top worry, followed by the economy at 64 percent, unemployment at 60 percent and Social Security at 53 percent.

Among independents, the order of concerns is: the economy (72 percent), federal spending (65 percent), health care (58 percent) and unemployment (55 percent).

The issue Americans worry about least is race relations, which only 16 percent call a top worry, with the environment second to last at 34 percent. In between, for the public at large, is availability and affordability of energy (46 percent), crime and violence (44 percent), illegal immigration (42 percent), hunger and homelessness (41 percent), possibility of a terrorist attack in the U.S. (40 percent) and drug use (40 percent).

Health care did not break into the ranks of top concerns for Republicans, and a Kaiser Family Foundation poll, conducted March 8-13, shows that it continues to be a polarizing issues, with Republicans strongly opposed to the year-old reform measure and Democrats strongly in support.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

McDonald's Grows Up: Coffee, Wi-Fi Supplanting Junk Food Image

Delia Lloyd — 2011-03-07T23:55:00+00:00

Filed under: Health Care, Woman Up, Michelle Obama, Economy

Well, it would appear that the New York Times magazine isn't the only iconic American institution undergoing a makeover. McDonald's is changing its menu and ambiance to project a more grown-up image.

Over the past few years, the fast-food chain has embraced a whole new look and feel. On the menu end of things, it has begun offering healthier fare like salads, Asian chicken sandwiches and fruit smoothies. And on the appearance end of things, McDonald's has also upgraded its look, offering free Wi-Fi, comfortable seats, funky lighting fixtures and cool wall hangings.

Front and center in this up-market move is coffee. According to Business Week, the company's McCafe drinks, which were rolled out nationally in 2009, have driven revenue growth at the company in six of the past seven quarters. The idea has been to offer a lower-cost alternative to Starbucks (although Starbucks -- which has had its own image makeover -- disputes that McDonald's is making serious inroads into its business).

The goal behind Mickey D's transformation is to reach new, more sophisticated customers. And while that doesn't mean renouncing its signature "Happy Meals" for children, the net effect is that the fast-food chain now feels more, well . . . adult. Indeed, among other casualties of the image overhaul is Ronald McDonald himself, who will now play a much more muted role in the company's marketing.

The changes to McDonald's are no doubt brought on in part by a series of recent legal actions. Last April, lawmakers in Santa Clara County, Calif., passed a bill prohibiting restaurants from giving away toys with meals that didn't meet national nutritional standards for children.

In June, a public health watchdog also called upon the fast-food giant to stop giving away toys with its meals, on the grounds that toys lure children into the restaurant to eat food that is high in sugar and fat. The Center for Science in the Public Interest expressed its intent to sue McDonald's over this issue, and in December it found a plaintiff for the case.

There's also been a sea-change in public attitudes toward obesity, which has no doubt raised the stakes for fast-food chains in today's political landscape. The obesity crisis is now well-documented, not just in the U.S. but in the U.K., where I live .

There's much more public attention showered upon the adverse health effects of eating junk food. Michelle Obama has made reducing childhood obesity a cornerstone of her work as first lady. And Walmart has announced a five-year plan to cut back on unhealthy foods and make healthy foods cheaper. Heck, you can't go into a restaurant in New York state these days without seeing a calorie count on your menu.

I'm not a big fan of junk food. My son has extensive food allergies, which means that on the odd occasion when we do grace the doorstep of a McDonald's, we have to "hold" so many items on his Quarter Pounder (the cheese, the mayo, the bun) that all we're left with is a naked piece of flattened ground beef lying on a paper wrapper (which is rather depressing). Plus, all I have to do is call up the image of that guy in the film "Super Size Me" -- or look at that ad with the fat guy lying on a stretcher clutching a half-eaten McDonald's hamburger -- to remind myself why I rarely go there.

Still, I'd like to take a moment to mourn Ronald McDonald's diminishment in our collective consciousness. With his stripey undergarment, blaring yellow overalls, fire-engine-red hair and enthusiastic (bordering on creepy) grin, he embodied all that is oversized, outlandish and inappropriate about childhood.

And as much as I love my lattes, I will be sad to see him go.

Follow Delia on Twitter.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

N.C. Gov. Bev Perdue Vetoes Challenge to Health Care Reform Bill

Mary C. Curtis — 2011-03-07T12:45:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Health Care, Woman Up, Governors, 2010 Elections, Conservatives, 2012 Elections

North Carolina won't be joining the list of states challenging federal health care reform legislation -- not yet, anyway. Over the weekend, Gov. Bev Perdue, a Democrat, vetoed legislation passed by the GOP-controlled state legislature that challenges a provision that would require the purchase of health insurance.

In a statement, Perdue called the house bill "an ill-conceived piece of legislation that's not good for the people of North Carolina." She said the state law contradicts federal law, and that since 27 states are already challenging it, "this issue will reach the Supreme Court in a timely manner without North Carolina spending money and energy on it."

Jobless Rate Dips Below 9 Percent but White House Holds the Applause

Tom Diemer — 2011-03-04T12:04:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, Democrats, Republicans, Health Care, Obama Administration, Harry Reid, Unemployment, Jobs, White House, Economy, Barack Obama

The Obama administration greeted news that unemployment finally fell below 9 percent with caution and restraint, calling the February downtick "encouraging" but warning against reading "too much into any one monthly report."

"Though unemployment remains elevated, we are seeing signs that the initiatives put in place by this administration -- such as the payroll tax cut and the investment tax credit -- are creating the conditions for sustained growth and job creation," said Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Austan Goolsbee. Declines in the jobless rate over the last three months -- to the lowest mark in nearly two years -- and overall economic trends are encouraging, he said. "But there is still considerable work to do to replace jobs lost in the downturn."

The Labor Department said Friday that 192,000 jobs were added to the economy in February -- compared to just 63,000 the month before -- as the 8.9 percent unemployment rate was down a hair from 9.0 percent in January. The biggest gains came in manufacturing, construction, business services and health care. But jobs were wiped off payrolls in strapped state and local governments. Across the country 13.7 million Americans remained unemployed -- one stark reason for Goolsbee's pointed caution.

The news wasn't good enough for the Republican National Committee. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said even with the better jobs numbers, "we have yet to see the leadership we need coming out of the White House to restore sustainable economic growth. . . . Frankly, if the answer doesn't involve more spending, this administration is simply out of solutions."

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) saw a better day ahead and warned that cutting the federal budget too deeply this year could cost jobs in a fragile economy. "Republicans should work with us to quickly pass a long-term budget that reduces the deficit while protecting jobs, and [giving] business certainty," he said. Similarly, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said the improving economy "remains threatened by irresponsible budget cutting in Congress and in states and cities."

Folo Tom Diemer on Twitter http://twitter.com/tomdiemer

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Judge Says States Must Enforce Health Reform Law He Threw Out

Tom Diemer — 2011-03-03T17:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Health Care, Obama Administration, Law, Supreme Court, Medicine, Health Care Reform

A federal judge in Florida says the states should carry out the new health care law even as the dispute over its constitutionality chugs along through the legal system.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, who ruled in January that the reform law is unconstitutional, said Thursday he was staying his own order so states could continue to implement the reform law, the Associated Press reported. "It would be extremely disruptive and cause significant uncertainty" to put brakes on the new law at this point, he said.

Vinson, in a 20-page opinion, scolded the federal government for being slow to file a formal motion asking for a stay. If the Justice Department does not appeal within seven days, he warned, states can consider the law invalid.

The Obama administration wants to ensure that Florida and 25 other states that have challenged the health overhaul in court stay on track with its procedures and timetables until the legal battle is resolved. Three federal judges have upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, while Vinson and one other judge ruled against it. The legal tangle is expected to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Vinson, a Reagan appointee, said in January the reform law sought to regulate inactivity -- that is, a person's decision not to purchase medical insurance. As such, he said the government, in requiring individuals to buy coverage, overstepped its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. His opinion had the effect of overturning the entire law, although Vinson expected the government to seek a stay that would delay his ruling from taking immediate effect.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told the New York Times an appeal would be promptly filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta. "We appreciate the court's recognition of the enormous disruption that would have resulted if implementation of the Affordable Care Act was abruptly halted," she said.

Folo Tom Diemer on Twitter http://twitter.com/tomdiemer

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Poll: Voters Like Obama Better Than His Policies

Bruce Drake — 2011-03-03T06:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Budget, Health Care, Polls, Foreign Policy, Obama Administration, Poll Watch, Deficit, Economy, Barack Obama, 2012 Elections

About three-quarters of voters like President Obama personally, but a small majority don't like his policies, according to a Quinnipiac University poll conducted Feb. 21-28.

The numbers break down like this:

-- Forty-one percent of those surveyed like Obama and his policies. That includes about three-quarters of Democrats, a little over a third of independents and 7 percent of Republicans.

-- Thirty-three percent like Obama but not his policies. Forty-four percent of Republicans are in the category, as are 20 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of independents.

-- Nineteen percent like neither his person nor his policies. Forty-one percent of Republicans feel that way, as do 19 percent of independents. Only 1 percent of Democrats subscribe to that view.

-- The category with almost no one in it is those who like his policies but don't like him. Only 1 percent fit that description.

That adds up to 74 percent who like him personally and 52 percent who don't like his policies. Five percent of those surveyed were undecided.

The percentage of those who like both Obama and his policies declined three points since Quinnipiac last asked this in January, while those who say they like the person but not the policies increased by four points.

Looking ahead to 2012, 47 percent say Obama does not deserve re-election compared to 45 percent who say he does, with 7 percent undecided. The margin of error is 2.3 points. Eighty-six percent of Republicans say he does not deserve another term, while 82 percent of Democrats say he does. Independents say he shouldn't be re-elected by a 50 percent-to-42 percent margin, with 8 percent undecided. Women are more favorable to another Obama term than men, with 51 percent of women saying he should get four more years and 53 percent of men saying he shouldn't.

Obama's showing on the 2012 question was a little better than last November, when 49 percent said he didn't deserve another term and 43 percent said he did, with 9 percent undecided.

Fifty-eight percent don't approve of the way Obama is handling the federal deficit, while 36 percent approve, with 6 percent undecided. Independents disapprove by a 66-percent-to-29-percent margin, with 5 percent undecided.

On the economy, 59 percent disapprove of Obama's performance compared to 38 percent who approve, with 4 percent undecided. Independents disapprove by 64 percent to 34 percent, with 2 percent undecided.

However, the disapproval of Obama on the economy does not mean a clear edge for the Republicans. Voters split at 45 percent each on the question of whether they trust Obama or the Republicans more to do a better job. Ten percent are undecided. Independents side with the Republicans by 47 percent to 39 percent, with 13 percent undecided. Voters do give Republicans a slight edge when it comes the deficit, preferring them over Obama by 46 percent to 43 percent, with 11 percent undecided.

Obama gets better marks on his handling of foreign policy than on the deficit or the economy, but is still not in positive territory. Forty-five percent disapprove of his performance, while 43 percent approve, with 12 percent undecided. That shows slippage for Obama from January, when 47 percent approved and 38 percent disapproved, with 15 percent undecided.

Voters still don't like Obama when it comes to his health care policies. Fifty-six percent disapprove of them while 40 percent approve, with 4 percent undecided. The level of disapproval is just under the 58 percent high recorded in two Quinnipiac polls last year.

Going back to a contentious issue during the debate over the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, the poll found that, by a 2-to-1 margin, voters believed that raising taxes on households with income over $250,000 should be a main part of any government approach to the deficit. Democrats and independents overwhelmingly are in favor of that, and it even gets support from 42 percent of Republicans.

When it comes to cutting the deficit, Quinnipiac also explored public attitudes about targeting defense spending and sacrosanct entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. More than 7 out of 10 voters opposed cutting Social Security or Medicare benefits and 59 percent were against cuts in Medicaid. However, voters were roughly split on whether defense spending should be touched or not.

Asked if they had to choose which of those four programs should be cut the most, 49 percent said it should be defense spending, 22 percent singled out Medicaid, 8 percent said Social Security and 7 percent said Medicare.

Looking at the flip side of that question -- choosing which programs should be cut the least -- 36 percent wanted to minimize any cuts to Social Security, 23 percent felt the same way about defense spending, followed by 20 percent who cited Medicare and 14 percent who wanted to protect Medicaid the most.

One of the hot-button issues in the budget debate this year is funding for National Public Radio, an issue that escalated with Republicans after the highly publicized firing of Fox commentator Juan Williams from the job he held at NPR. The House voted last month to end the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, through which NPR gets a small amount of money, but the Senate is unlikely to go along with full elimination.

Forty-nine percent opposed cutting the funding, while 40 percent were in favor, with 11 percent undecided. Republicans favored eliminating the funding by 54 percent to 33 percent, with 13 percent undecided; Democrats opposed doing so by 62 percent to 27 percent, with 11 percent undecided; and independents opposed cutting the funding by 50 percent to 40 percent, with 9 percent undecided.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Abortion Safer Than Childbirth, British Doctors' Group Wants Women to Know

Delia Lloyd — 2011-03-01T13:12:00+00:00

Filed under: Abortion, Health Care, Woman Up, International, Medicine

LONDON -- It looks like the U.S. isn't the only place where the abortion wars are heating up. According to new medical guidelines being proposed in the U.K., all pregnant women should be told that having a baby is more dangerous than having an abortion.

The guidance was written by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and is intended for all doctors, nurses and women's health professionals advising women who contemplate terminating a pregnancy. The recommendations come in two parts, each of which represents a fairly radical departure from previous guidelines -- and each of which is proving controversial.

The first recommendation, under the heading "what women need to know," instructs health professionals that women "should be advised that abortion is generally safer than continuing a pregnancy to term."

Current guidance simply tells doctors and nurses that they should "be equipped" to provide accurate information about the relative dangers of the two outcomes. Now, for the first time, the RCOM is explicitly invoking comparisons between the relative "costs" of termination vs. childbirth.

The second recommendation is even more of a departure. Until now, the RCOG has advised medical practitioners to tell women that while rates of psychiatric illness and self-harm in women are higher among those who had an abortion, there is no evidence that termination itself was likely to trigger psychological problems.

The new proposal simply says that anyone deciding whether to have an abortion must be told that most women do not suffer any psychological harm.

These recommendations are only in draft form, but they have already sparked the ire of anti-abortion groups. Some critics have taken aim at the science behind the recommendations, noting that many complications caused by abortions are recorded in emergency room statistics and elsewhere, and are thus missing from the official count.

They further point out that the study vastly underplays, if not ignores, the long-term psychological effects of abortion. Patricia Casey, a consultant psychiatrist and fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, told the Sunday Telegraph: "The message this sends out is very worrying. There are more than 30 studies showing an association between psychological trauma and abortion."

Others are more incensed by what they see as the over-politicization of the abortion issue by this august medical body. Josephine Quintavalle of the Pro-Life Alliance accused the RCOM of "attempting to force an absurdly liberal agenda on women when they are at their most vulnerable." She and others note that the report's 18 authors include representatives from two of the country's largest abortion clinics, but not one psychiatrist.

"Asking this group to comment objectively and honestly about the physical and psychological consequences of abortion for women is like asking Philip Morris or British American Tobacco to review the health consequences of smoking or McDonald's to outline the adverse effects of fast food consumption," said Dr. Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship.

In some ways, this debate is similar to one raging in the United States following the publication last month of a study in a prestigious American medical journal showing that having an abortion may be less damaging to a woman's mental health than having a baby.

But there are important differences. Sure, predictable conflicts arose when the first ad ever to offer advice on abortion services was screened on British television last autumn. Or when Ultrasound Jesus miraculously found his way onto billboards here just before Christmas. But as with so many issues, the abortion debate is way more measured in Britain than it is in the United States. Take, for example, an op-ed in the conservative Daily Mail by columnist Melanie Philips. Philips is dismayed by the RCOM's new guidance, arguing that "to suggest that having a baby is a dangerous procedure is a disreputable piece of scaremongering." She questions how it is that "doctors can have lost their ethical compass so badly that they dehumanize life in this way, and dress up as 'treatment' the manipulation of fragile patients."

But Philips also contends that abortion "is -- or should be seen as -- at best, a necessary evil." In her view, "what started as a humane response -- in this case to the dangerous back-street butchery of desperate women -- has turned into something quite different."

In short, Phillips worries about the causes of the U.K. having the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe. But she doesn't want to criminalize abortion. She wants, like many of us, to see it as safe, legal and rare.

Contrast this to the States, where we've had the following developments in the last month alone:

- A bill in Arizona that bans abortion based on the sex or race of the fetus, and would impose penalties on abortion providers who knowingly perform such abortions.

- A bill in the Texas senate that would require women to see a sonogram of the fetus before having an abortion.

- A bill in Georgia that would require proof that a miscarriage occurred naturally.

- A pro-choice extremist was arrested by the FBI for threats to pro-life activists.

Sorting out the costs -- physical and psychological, long-term and short-term -- of ending a pregnancy is incredibly difficult and challenging. I really do hope scientists and medical experts come to their conclusions in a fair and balanced way that enables women to make informed decisions about all aspects of their health.

But I have to say that in light of the political climate around abortion in America right now, I'd much rather have that debate over here than over there.

Follow Delia on Twitter.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama Says States Can Opt Out of Health Care Plan Three Years Early

Alex Wagner — 2011-02-28T12:54:00+00:00

Filed under: Health Care, Obama Administration, Governors, White House, Health Care Reform

In a nod to pressure from state governors, President Obama announced a plan on Monday to allow states to opt out of some aspects of the nation's health care reform law three years earlier than previously mandated. As currently written, the law says states must wait until 2017; the new bill would allow them to begin pursuing alternate plans as early as 2014.

As governors across the country have waged battles to trim large deficits -- most publicly of late in Wisconsin -- the move was seen as a concession to those leaders who have criticized the new health care law and questioned its economic implications. Twenty-six governors have filed lawsuits against the federal government, claiming the law is unconstitutional.

Are We Returning to the 'June Cleaver' Era? (And Would June Stand for What's Going On?)

Joanne Bamberger — 2011-02-25T21:26:00+00:00

Filed under: Health Care, Sarah Palin, Woman Up, Culture, Congress, Conservatives, Tea Party

Ever since the 112th Congress was sworn in last month, there's been a seemingly endless barrage of news about lawmakers trying to take away many of women's hard-fought rights, so much so that I feel like Mr. Peabody's WABAC machine has deposited me on June Cleaver's 1950s doorstep.

Morning after morning, I hear reports about those who want to cut funds for access to contraception and screenings for breast and cervical cancer that American women of all political persuasions get from Planned Parenthood. Conservatives protest the use of pre-tax dollars for breast pumps, claiming it's an unnecessary tax break for working mothers who need to stay in the workplace to support their families and pump healthy breast milk for their infants.

States like Minnesota are trying to repeal fair-pay laws and local governments are cutting Head Start funds, saying young children should be educated at home (which, by the way, would also help trim budget deficits).

And then there is HR 3, better known as the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," backed by over 200 members of Congress who wanted to limit the federal dollars available for rape victims to only those who have been "forcibly raped," in essence taking us back to the days when teen boys talked about how girls really mean "yes" when they say "no." The furor over such a proposal made some of the bill's proponents back down, saying they would remove that "forcible rape" language. But according to a variety of sources, including the office of Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who heads the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, three weeks after that announcement, the language still hasn't yet been removed from HR 3. While some expect that to eventually happen, it doesn't change a subsequently introduced bill by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) that would allow hospitals to refuse to perform medically necessary abortions, even if the woman's life is at risk.

Put all those things together, and I can't help but sense an effort to re-create the June Cleaver era, when motherhood was a woman's prime directive and reproductive health issues were only whispered about in suburban neighborhoods over coffee cake and Maxwell House.

It's all making me see my life, and my daughter's, in the black-and-white retro world of the Cleavers' Mayfield, USA, and not in an "Isn't nostalgia great?" way. Whether the effort is a coordinated one or not, it still feels like Republicans are seeking as many ways as possible to get women out of the workforce and back into a pre-"Feminine Mystique" mode.

There are budgetary arguments to be made in opposition to many of the proposed cuts and changes in policy -- the resistance isn't just to a seeming conspiracy to turn back the clock. But certain comments can only be evaluated by the Duck Principle -- something that walks and talks like a duck is clearly a duck.

And so it's hard to ignore what happened recently in Frederick County, Md., where commissioners voted to cut over $2 million dollars in Head Start funds. Head Start is a federally funded program that promotes school readiness for 3- and 4-year-old low-income children -- a program that would seem to be in our country's best interest, especially in light of other countries around the world that spare no expense on children's education. But two commissioners suggested that cutting those dollars was also an important statement about mothers' social priorities. Republican Commissioner C. Paul Smith, who has 12 children, justified his vote this way:

"As many of you know, I had a lot of kids and my wife stayed home at a significant sacrifice in those early years, because she knew she had to be with those kids. I know everybody isn't able to survive doing that, but clearly if we can strengthen marriage, we can decrease the number of children we have to reach."

If all of these efforts pass in a perfect legislative storm, we could find ourselves in a 21st century version of that June Cleaver universe, one where women, like my own mother, had fewer reproductive rights, fewer opportunities to work outside the home, were expected to be there when the kids got home from school, oversaw homework and made dinner, all with a smile and no complaints about their own ambitions or wishes to help support their families financially.

Conservatives sometimes invoke "Leave It to Beaver" as a pro-family image. But when I think about June -- chopping vegetables in the kitchen while Wally and the Beaver get into mild trouble and Ward handles the manly duties of going to the office and grilling -- I don't think she would necessarily embrace today's Republican agenda.

Yes, she was focused on raising her children and getting dinner on the table, but within that construct, she wielded influence in her home, took a largely hands-off approach to raising two sons, and seemed to have a "live and let live" attitude rather than a doctrinaire approach to living. She was a common-sense, straightforward kind of gal who, if she lived in today's world, wouldn't buy into policies that give women less say about their bodies, their children, or their reproductive rights.

And if June disagreed with any of today's lawmakers on issues that impact women's lives, she -- or at least Barbara Billingsley, in her "Airplane" incarnation -- just might take them on with some late-in-life bad-ass jive.

You can follow Joanne Bamberger on Twitter and Facebook.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Georgia Lawmaker Is Asked: When Will Someone Shoot Obama?

Tom Diemer — 2011-02-25T10:00:00+00:00

Filed under: House, Republicans, Gaffes, Health Care, Obama Administration, Congress, Conservatives, Health Care Reform

Talk about lack of civility. Georgia Rep. Paul Broun couldn't have expected this question as he opened the floor for discussion at a recent town hall meeting in the college town of Athens. One unidentified man in the crowd reportedly asked him: "Who's going to shoot Obama?"

The Republican lawmaker said Friday he was "stunned" by the remark and chose "not to dignify it with a response." He said the culprit was an elderly man in the audience.

An Athens Banner-Herald reporter covering the event Tuesday couldn't make out the precise wording in the crowded Oglethorpe Couty Commission chamber, but heard the laughter that followed it. There is some dispute about what exactly happened next.

Broun, a physician in his third term in the U.S. House, didn't answer directly or call out the questioner, according to the Athens newspaper account. "The thing is," Broun said, "I know there's a lot of frustration with this president. We're going to have an election next year. Hopefully, we'll elect somebody that's going to be a conservative, limited-government president . . . who will sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare."

Broun spokesman Austin Carson told Salon the congressman's comment about the president was not in response to the offensive question, but rather to a follow-up inquiry about Obama from a different audience member.

Another Broun aide, Press Secretary Jessica Morris, earlier confirmed that the original town hall questioner had asked about shooting the president. "Obviously, the question was inappropriate," she said, "so Congressman Broun moved on" by addressing the GOP budget proposal. The question came after Broun asked who had driven the farthest to attend the event.

However, one witness, Mark Farmer of Winterville, Ga., told Talking Points Memo that Broun himself laughed at the original question. And, according to the website, Banner-Herald reporter Blake Aued said Broun chuckled a little -- although Aued could not fully hear the man's question.

That account is at odds with what Broun said Friday. He called the threatening statement "abhorrent" and said after hearing it he "moved on to the next person" in the room. "I deeply regret that this incident happened at all," he said on his website. "I condemn all statements -- made in sincerity or jest -- that threaten or suggest the use of violence against the President of the United States or any other public official." He said his office notified "appropriate authorities."

A Secret Service spokesman said the agency has investigated the incident and concluded there was no real threat. "We consider the matter closed," said Ed Donovan.

Politico noted that, during Obama's State of the Union speech last month, Broun had posted on Twitter: "Mr. President, you don't believe in the Constitution. You believe in socialism."

Folo Tom Diemer on Twitter http://twitter.com/tomdiemer

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Herman Cain: A Long Shot in 2012, but That's Not Stopping Him

Suzi Parker — 2011-02-24T22:10:00+00:00

Filed under: Health Care, Taxes, 2012 President, Woman Up, Tea Party, White House, Health Care Reform, 2012 Elections

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- When Herman Cain walks into a tea party event, he is greeted like a rock star.

"It's him, it's him," spreads across the meeting room.

And so it was here on Thursday. When people approached him, they acted like they knew him. They mentioned his Atlanta radio show. They asked about his book, "They Think You're Stupid." They told him they are curious about his possible 2012 presidential run.

Rush Limbaugh Defends His One-Sided Food Fight With Michelle Obama

Tom Diemer — 2011-02-23T08:31:00+00:00

Filed under: Gaffes, Humor, Health Care, Conservatives, Michelle Obama

Rush Limbaugh thinks his criticism of Michelle Obama's eating habits -- and calling her a hypocrite -- was "highly civil" discourse and he's surprised by the "grief" he got over his comments.

That's what he said on his radio program Tuesday. He started the week by asserting that Mrs. Obama doesn't follow her own healthy eating advice. As evidence, the conservative talk show host cited a high-fat dinner she enjoyed over the weekend in Vail, Colo. -- "feasting on ribs" is the way he put it -- when she could have been munching on roots and berries.

Cascading Medicaid Cuts Hurt the Poor and Burden the States

Lou Cannon — 2011-02-21T22:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Health Care, Obama Administration, Health Care Reform

Health care for the poor is in trouble and so are the states that are charged with providing an increasing share of it. As federal aid to states from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is phased out, most states have been forced to curb Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health care for the poor and disabled. Despite his strong rhetorical support for Medicaid, President Barack Obama's 2012 budget proposes to reduce the federal share of the program by more than $6 billion.

As a national topic of discussion, Medicaid has been shuffled to the back burner by uprisings abroad and the debt crisis at home. Even when the media spotlight shifts to health care, most of the focus is on the continuing debate over the health care reform measure that Obama managed to push through Congress last year. Republicans describe this law as Obamacare, and their campaign against it helped the GOP take over the House last November. Since then, state attorneys general, most of them Republicans, have tied the Affordable Care Act into legal knots. But in the process of doing this they may also have cemented a formula that expands the state share of Medicaid costs.

Can Texting Save Women's Health -- and That of Their Infants?

Delia Lloyd — 2011-02-21T22:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Budget, Health Care, Woman Up

Digital technology is transforming the world, helping to overthrow dictators in the Middle East and embrace gay rights at home. But if last week's proposed budget cuts are a sign of what's to come, we may also need social media to save women's health.

I got to thinking about this idea a couple of weeks ago, when I read an article in the New York Times by David Bornstein about text4baby, a service that sends free text messages to women who are pregnant or whose babies are less than a year old, providing them with information and week-by-week reminders to improve their health and the health of their infants. The program has been extraordinarily popular, boasting about 135,000 users to date with a goal of reaching 1 million women by the end of 2012.

What makes text4baby particularly appealing is that it targets precisely those women who are most in need of advice on healthy behaviors during pregnancy and post-childbirth, but least likely to obtain it. Low-income, minority women are far more likely than other women to delay prenatal care until the third trimester of their pregnancies, or go without it altogether. And that's because while this information is widely available, these women typically lack Internet access, a formal education and/or health insurance.

But they do have cellphones. According to the Times article, 80 percent of Medicaid patients send and receive text messages regularly and 61 percent of text4baby users live in Zip codes where the median income is less than $50,000. For these women, getting a quick, friendly 160-character text message providing them with 1-800 numbers for information on topics like how to quit smoking, the benefits of breastfeeding and how and when to obtain immunizations for newborns has the potential to be extraordinarily effective in reducing infant mortality (which is surprisingly high in the U.S.).

In a follow-up article, Bornstein extolled the administrative efficiency behind text4baby. What stood out to him was the broad partnership of community health organizations, wireless carriers, businesses, health care providers and government health agencies that came together to make this program happen without any of the usual bureaucratic inertia that can weigh down a cross-cutting initiative of this type.

But what stands out to me is less the collaborative ethos behind this innovative use of technology, than its economic necessity. As my colleague Sandra Fish wrote over the weekend, the GOP-run House of Representatives has just voted to cut not only all of Planned Parenthood's $75 million in federal funding for family planning, but also the entire $317 million Title X budget.

As Sandra notes, Planned Parenthood and other health care providers currently receive Medicaid money for health services to low-income people. But under an amendment from Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), approved last week in a 240-185 vote, Planned Parenthood wouldn't be allowed to receive any federal dollars, including money from Medicaid. Title X, for its part, provides things like family planning services, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and other preventive health care to low-income women.

Other casualties of the cuts in 2011 spending including federal funding for teen pregnancy centers, which are to be eliminated entirely. In addition, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) -- which provides food, counseling and other support to millions of low-income pregnant women, new mothers and infants -- stands to lose $747 million. Similarly, the Title V Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, which funds health services for women and children in state and local programs, also faces cuts of $50 million.

Which is a long way of saying that we all better pray that things like text4baby have a long shelf life, because in today's political climate, they may be all pregnant women and new mothers have to rely on.

And of course, it's not just women's health that stands to benefit from technological creativity. My colleague David Gibson wrote recently about a new program sponsored by the New York City Department of Health that uses GPS technology to help you locate the nearest free condom -- and provides tips for using it correctly.

In other circumstances, one might be tempted to chuckle at the "NYC Condom Finder" app. But in a city where two of every five pregnancies are terminated -- and sexually transmitted diseases are rampant -- it's no laughing matter.

One can also imagine something like text4baby being instrumental in helping teenagers confront sexual health issues. In an era where young people are turning increasingly to social media to communicate over and above e-mail, one can imagine using texting and Facebook to promote awareness of, say, the benefits and risks that attend the Gardisil vaccine, which prevents cervical cancer and can be taken by girls as young as 9.

So, by all means, Department of Health and Human Services and whichever women's health clinics survive the current moment (all two of you), strike while the iron's hot. Invest in some cellphone technology and get cracking.

You -- and the women you serve -- are going to need all the help you can get.

Follow Delia on Twitter.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Planned Parenthood Defunding: Family Planning's Not a GOP Family Value?

Sandra Fish — 2011-02-19T19:25:00+00:00

Filed under: House, Republicans, Health Care, Obama Administration, Woman Up, Culture

When it comes to family planning, apparently the ability to decide whether or when to have a child isn't part of Republican family values.

That's the message the GOP-controlled House sent by voting to cut not only all of Planned Parenthood's $75 million in federal funding for family planning but also the entire $317 million Title X budget. Title X money helps pay for birth control, screening and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, breast and cervical cancer testing, prenatal care, sex education and vasectomies for men. About 4.7 million Americans get health care from clinics funded by Title X money, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Indiana Rep. Mike Pence represented his successful gutting of the funding as a victory in preventing abortion, even though the Hyde Amendment, enacted in 1977, prohibits federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. And President Barack Obama signed an executive order last year preserving the funding ban under the new health care reform law.

In addition to the money from from Title X, which was signed into law by Republican President Richard Nixon in 1970, Planned Parenthood and other health care providers receive Medicaid money for health services to low-income people. Under Pence's amendment, approved in a 240-185 vote, Planned Parenthood wouldn't be allowed to receive any federal dollars, including money from Medicaid.

This assault on Planned Parenthood isn't new. Twelve years ago in Colorado, the state Legislature and health department took away Planned Parenthood's Title X funding by prohibiting family planning money for clinics that also offered abortions. Instead, the federal money has gone to health departments and independent clinics in the state. If the Title X money is cut, that means almost 50,000 people in Colorado might not get access to birth control and other health services.

Planned Parenthood estimates that one in five women have received health care from one of its 800 clinics at some point in their lives. I'm among them.

Almost 40 years ago, growing up in a rural community, a guidance counselor gathered together the girls in sixth and seventh grade. We all received copies of "Our Bodies, Ourselves," the now classic tome on women, health and sexuality. We were told about the dangers of having sex at a young age. We were also told that if we planned to have sex, we should consider using birth control -- and the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic was the place to get it.

I certainly didn't need such services then. But I did once I went to college. And for many young college women, Planned Parenthood is the first place they go to seek birth control.
There's a sliding fee scale, so if you don't have health insurance it's cheaper than going to a doctor's office. With more than 800 clinics around the nation, there's typically a Planned Parenthood nearby.

And, let's face it, going to Planned Parenthood to get birth control is easier for many young women than going to their family physician.

But let's face this, too. Almost 80 percent of Planned Parenthood's clientele are age 20 and over. Seventy-five percent of the people who use its services are at or below 150 percent of the poverty level -- $33,525 for a family of four in 2011.

Opponents of the House action hope to reverse the family planning cuts in the Senate, where Democrats have a narrow majority.

Guttmacher, which tracks statistics on reproductive health and abortion, predicts the cut in Title X family planning money would mean a one-third increase in unplanned pregnancies -- and abortions.

Is that what the GOP hopes to achieve?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama Administration Returns to Earlier Conscience Protections For Health Workers

David Gibson — 2011-02-18T21:18:00+00:00

Filed under: George W. Bush, Bush Administration, House, Democrats, Republicans, Religion, Abortion, Health Care, Obama Administration, Disputations, Conservatives, Liberals, Ethics, Medicine, Barack Obama

The Obama administration on Friday reversed most of the provisions of controversial federal conscience-protection regulations that were instituted by George W. Bush at the end of his presidency, thereby leaving Bush's successor with a politically difficult decision that would alienate either abortion rights supporters or opponents, or both.

The Bush administration had pushed the 11th-hour regulations through in December 2008, despite President-elect Obama's vow to rescind them; when Obama came into office, he instead said he would have the Department of Health and Human Services review the rules after considering input from all sides, and Friday's decision was the result.

The new rules -- meant to protect workers from having to perform certain medical procedures if they object on moral or religious grounds -- do away with Bush administration language that was seen as so far-reaching that it could allow health care workers to opt out of a broad range of medical services, such as providing the emergency contraceptive Plan B to rape victims, assisting on infertility treatments, treating gay men and lesbians, prescribing birth control to single women, and following end-of-life directives by patients if they conflicted with a health worker's beliefs.

The HHS statement said the previous wording "caused confusion and could be taken as overly broad." In fact, the Bush language faced court challenges in at least eight states.

Friday's move generally seemed to please pro-choice groups, and while the decision was anticipated to be handed down soon, it was an especially welcome boost for abortion-rights supporters on a day when the House voted to stop funding Planned Parenthood clinics.

The HHS decision was, as expected, a compromise that leaves in place some of the newer Bush language on exemptions regarding abortion and sterilization.

But because it drops much of the Bush language, the Obama rule was seen as a step back by social conservatives.

The Obama rule largely restores the previous policy that for decades protected health care workers and faith-based institutions like Catholic hospitals whose religious or moral convictions would prevent them from taking part in certain procedures.

It also retains a threat to withhold federal dollars from institutions that do not comply with conscience protections and it keeps the Bush-era mechanism by which those who feel their rights are being infringed can appeal to the HHS Office for Civil Rights. That makes the current regulation, at least in the abstract, stronger than anything in place at any time except the last month of the Bush administration.

"The administration strongly supports provider conscience laws that protect and support the rights of health care providers, and also recognizes and supports the rights of patients," said an HHS statement. "Strong conscience laws make it clear that health care providers cannot be compelled to perform or assist in an abortion. Many of these strong conscience laws have been in existence for more than 30 years. The rule being issued today builds on these laws by providing a clear enforcement process."

The department also announced a new "awareness initiative" for facilities receiving federal money to ensure they understand the conscience protections and the appeal process for those who believe their rights have been violated.

Conservatives had originally lobbied the Bush administration for stronger regulations because of what they said was increasing pressures on nurses, doctors, pharmacists and medical facilities -- mainly Christian -- to perform procedures and provide services they found morally objectionable. They also argued that stronger regulations were needed in light of Obama's victory and the anticipation that he would not be as vigilant in protecting the conscience rights of health care workers. And they wanted conscience protections to cover emerging issues, such as "morning after" pills and fertility treatments and the like.

The Bush regulations that were promulgated in December 2008 could have cut off federal funding for up to half a million entities, including state and local governments, hospitals, health plans and clinics, if they did not take the initiative to certify to the federal government that they would accommodate the beliefs of health care personnel.

The new regulation still ensures that no federal money can be used to "support coercive or discriminatory policies or practices in violation of federal law."

While pro-choice groups were pleased with the change -- Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, cast it as a much-needed victory on a day that the House voted to cut funds to Planned Parenthood -- social conservatives registered varying degrees of disappointment and outrage.

"Conscience Trampled by the Regime" was the title of a column by R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a prominent voice among Christian conservatives, reacting to the administration's decision.

"Gone are all protections for those who object by conscience to abortifacient drugs and 'emergency' contraceptives, the treatment of gay men and lesbians, and prescriptions for birth control sought by single women," Mohler wrote. "In these cases, medical personnel have objected that their conscience and understanding of medical ethics do not allow them to facilitate acts and behaviors that are both immoral and unhealthy."

Mohler portrayed the move -- which actually leaves conscience protections stronger than they were during Bush's eight years in office -- as a signal that "the Obama administration is now ready to use the coercive power of the state to force medical personnel to perform acts they consider to be morally wrong and unhealthy for their patients." He cast it as "a tyrannical trampling of individual conscience by the power of the state" and suggested Christians should be prepared to face government sanctions for their beliefs.

Dr. J. Scott Ries, an official with the Christian Medical Association, an evangelical-oriented organization, also lamented the administration's rule changes. Ries said they would drive people of faith out of the medical profession and deprive the neediest of medical care that is often provided by religiously motivated health care workers.

The Catholic hierarchy, which had also supported the Bush rule, took a more measured view of the changes.

"The Administration's action today is cause for disappointment, but also offers reasons for hope regarding an emerging consensus in Washington on the need for clear conscience protections for health care providers," said Deirdre McQuade of the Pro-Life Secretariat of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The Catholic Health Association, which represents more than 1,200 Catholic health care systems and facilities, welcomed the regulations as vital protections for religiously-affiliated institutions like Catholic hospitals, as well as for individuals, who oppose abortion.

"In conjunction with the Catholic bishops of the United States, we were pleased to see the clarity of these federal conscience protections and were especially pleased to to see the provisions for education on conscience protection and the pathways for enforcement," Sr. Carol Keehan, head of the CHA, told PoliticsDaily.

Robert Vischer, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas Law School in Minneapolis who has written widely on conscience issues, saw the new rule as a mixed bag that would -- like the Bush regulations -- largely depend on how it was interpreted and enforced. And he said those who doubt the president's commitment on this issue are likely to be suspicious of his administration's preference to sort out problems on a case-by-case basis rather than through a single universal rule.

"There has been two years' worth of smoke surrounding federal conscience protection for health care providers, but it is difficult to discern exactly where the fire is when the debate plays out on the pages of the Code of Federal Regulations," Vischer wrote in an analysis at the website of the National Catholic Reporter.

"Apparently, the less said on the subject, the better," is how Vischer interpreted the administration's "punt" on conscience protections. "The problem, of course, is that Congress has never been especially astute at crafting user-friendly legislation. The implementing regulations, at their best, can provide a roadmap of the relevant legal rights, privileges, and obligations. Forsaking the opportunity to provide any sort of roadmap fosters doubt as to how seriously one takes the corresponding obligations."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Polls Show Public May Not Know What It Wants on Health Care Law

Andrea Stone — 2011-02-16T23:13:00+00:00

Filed under: Health Care, Health Care Reform

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

IRS Says Breastfeeding Expenses Are Tax Write-Offs. Finally.

Sarah Wildman — 2011-02-14T18:50:00+00:00

Filed under: Health Care, Taxes, Woman Up

Everyone markets it as cheap and easy. As in, "You can whip it out at any time." And, "It doesn't cost anything." And, "There's nothing to warm up."

To a degree, that's true. Traveling and doing it is liberating. And the middle of the night? You can do it in bed; you can do it while you watch TV. But "cheap" isn't really a good descriptor for something so time-consuming and ultimately, especially, but not only, for women who work or want to step away from their child, so many accoutrements. And cheap isn't a good way to applaud something that provides so many benefits down the road. Cheap connotes easy. Cheap connotes worthless. And maybe that's the problem.

I'm talking about breastfeeding, of course. Breastfeeding itself - which, if you count the countless hours breastfeeding women put in, is - while indubitably nutritious as well as wonderful -- far from free. And forget "free" when it comes to pumping. The state-of-the-art Medela backpack pump rings up at $264.99 (the "pump-in-style" hand bag can set you back $360). And that's before you extra valves ($7), bags for freezing ($10 for 50), extra tubing ($6), the "hands free" bodice that lets you pump and use a computer ($32). Some estimates put the yearly cost between $500 to $1,000.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has spent years trying to roll back the push of formula, trumpeting the benefits of breastfeeding exclusively for the first six months of life (the World Health Organization promotes breastfeeding for two years). Breastfeeding gives kids good antibodies, immunities, is said to potentially guard against asthma, allergies, diabetes and obesity -- keeping kids well, long after they give up the nipple. A Harvard Medical School study published last spring in the journal Pediatrics estimated that if 90 percent of American women breastfed, 900 premature infant deaths would be prevented and patients and hospitals would see savings of $13 billion in lost wages and saved health care costs - so you might assume that doing so would be a tax write-off.

Until recently, you would have been wrong. As of this fall, the IRS position was that breastfeeding didn't have enough medical benefits to qualify as tax exempt.

Last week, the Internal Revenue Service finally agreed to allow 2010 taxes to reflect the costs of pumps and milk bags, as all the myriad ways in which to maintain breastfeeding while working or on the road can make "free" suddenly cost quite a bit of cash. That means women with flexible spending accounts can use their pre-tax dollars to pay for nursing supplies. Those who itemize can add them in to their health care costs.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., hailed the change in a statement. "This is good news for nursing moms, and a welcome recognition of scientific fact by the IRS: breastfeeding has significant health benefits -- it helps prevent disease, and is good for moms and for babies," Maloney said. "Anything we can do to encourage healthy choices is a good thing -- and this ruling definitely qualifies!"

But the IRS is not alone in trying not to think about breastfeeding for as long as possible. Last week Noriko Aita, a Rockville, Md. mom visiting the Hirshhorn Museum, was asked to feed her baby in a bathroom stall. She left, went home and Googled that federal law allows breastfeeding on federal property - anywhere and at anytime.

In response, a nurse-in was organized, and dozens of moms descended on the Smithsonian to breastfeed in public. "We're not protesting against [the museum]," one organizer told the Washington Post. "The nurse-in wasn't organized to elicit an apology. What happened to Nori happened because there was a lack of education and awareness. We want to ensure it doesn't happen to anybody else again."

As Dr. Melissa Bartick, one of the lead doctors of the Harvard breastfeeding benefits study pointed out to a USA Today reporter, the problem is seeing breastfeeding as a "lifestyle" choice rather than a "public health" benefit. Winning over the IRS is a triumph, to be sure, but one that's come years later than it should have.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Need a Condom in New York? There's an App for That!

David Gibson — 2011-02-14T17:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Religion, Abortion, Health Care, Michael Bloomberg, Disputations, Technology

A smartphone app to locate the nearest condom?

Yep, those hopeless romantics at the New York City Health Department marked Valentine's Day by launching a mobile application that uses GPS technology to help you locate the nearest free condom -- and provides tips for using it correctly.

In fact, the NYC Condom Finder app provides directions by car, foot or public transportation to more than 1,000 condom-distribution locations throughout the five boroughs. (Alas, there's no guarantee you'll find true love, but you can't have everything.)

"We are trying to reach everyone having sex," Monica Sweeney, the agency's point person for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control, told The New York Daily News. "The younger generation uses their iPhone and we want to make it convenient for them to access condoms."

Actually, the NYC Condom Finder isn't exclusive to Apple's iPhone, and it can be downloaded to your Android as well. Both apps are free.

With a shockingly high abortion rate in New York -- two of every five pregnancies are terminated -- and sexually transmitted diseases spreading faster than elsewhere in the country, health officials have been doing anything they can to slow or reverse both numbers, but with little success.

New York City officials have been distributing free condoms since 1971, and since 2007, the Big Apple has had its own distinctive subway-themed wrapper. So the app launch shouldn't come as too much of a shock.

Still, if Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York had decided to run for president in 2012 -- he says he won't -- this condom app story would have provided fodder for some interesting campaign ads.

Not surprisingly, the new condom app is already generating a few laugh lines.

At the Gothamist, John Del Signore complained that on his Droid the app was taking a long time to load.

"Maybe we need to light some candles and put on some Al Green," Del Signore mused.

Apparently that didn't work either. "Guess we'll give our [D]roid a nice backrub and go back to sleep."

Of course, most New Yorkers would be happy to buy their own condoms if the city would provide as many free bathrooms as they do contraceptive dispensaries.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

12 States to Vote on Health Care Nullification

Michael Ames — 2011-02-13T22:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Health Care, Supreme Court, Health Care Reform

It's not every day that politicians and professors fight over the legacy of John C. Calhoun. But as Republican lawmakers in 12 states introduce protest bills to nullify the federal health care law, the 200-year-old theories fueling their efforts are being called into question, and the ideas of the man who some view as the spiritual godfather of state secession are having an unlikely re-emergence in American politics.

The concept behind nullification -- that states can claim legal supremacy over the federal government -- dates to the nation's founding. But successive attempts to invoke state sovereignty have been consistently shot down, denied or overturned by generations of presidents and Supreme Court decisions.

Politics Daily

Democrats, Republicans, Independents Differ on Issues That Worry Them Most

McDonald's Grows Up: Coffee, Wi-Fi Supplanting Junk Food Image

N.C. Gov. Bev Perdue Vetoes Challenge to Health Care Reform Bill

Related Stories

Jobless Rate Dips Below 9 Percent but White House Holds the Applause

Judge Says States Must Enforce Health Reform Law He Threw Out

Poll: Voters Like Obama Better Than His Policies

Abortion Safer Than Childbirth, British Doctors' Group Wants Women to Know

Obama Says States Can Opt Out of Health Care Plan Three Years Early

Related Stories

Are We Returning to the 'June Cleaver' Era? (And Would June Stand for What's Going On?)

Georgia Lawmaker Is Asked: When Will Someone Shoot Obama?

Herman Cain: A Long Shot in 2012, but That's Not Stopping Him

Related Stories

Rush Limbaugh Defends His One-Sided Food Fight With Michelle Obama

Related Stories

Cascading Medicaid Cuts Hurt the Poor and Burden the States

Related Stories

Can Texting Save Women's Health -- and That of Their Infants?

Planned Parenthood Defunding: Family Planning's Not a GOP Family Value?

Obama Administration Returns to Earlier Conscience Protections For Health Workers

Polls Show Public May Not Know What It Wants on Health Care Law

IRS Says Breastfeeding Expenses Are Tax Write-Offs. Finally.

Need a Condom in New York? There's an App for That!

12 States to Vote on Health Care Nullification

Related Stories