Researchers are still exploring what factors caused the early childhood obesity rate to plummet 43 percent over the last decade. But a group of health experts at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill think that they have found at least part of the answer: changes to the federally funded Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children that gave poor mothers the means to purchase more fresh produce for their children.
This program, which is better known as WIC, provides billions of dollars per year in nutritious food vouchers for low-income pregnant women, breast-feeding women, and children younger than five. WIC was created in the 1970s, but it wasn't until 2009 that it provided mothers with vouchers for fruits and vegetables. That's the change that the North Carolina researchers think may have contributed to the stunning decline in obesity rates.
Barry M. Popkin, a UNC nutrition professor, and two colleagues recently finished a massive study, to be published in the March 2014 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, of the calorie consumption of US households from 2003 to 2011. During this time period, Popkin says, households with children purchased fewer calories every year. That pattern persisted even after researchers controlled for the effects of the recession. For the later years covered by the study, Popkin links the decline to WIC.
Republicans looking to slash federal spending have targeted WIC in recent years. In March 2012, for example, the GOP-controlled House of Representatives tried to cut $243 million from WIC. The cut, which did not become law, "would have resulted in WIC having to turn away hundreds of thousands of eligible applicants," write Zoë Neuberger and Robert Greenstein, analysts for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank.
About 9 million low-income mothers and children are enrolled in WIC, which also provides parents with health care referrals and nutrition advice. In 2011, the program served about half of all eligible infants born in the United States.
Fox News host Megyn Kelly and senior political analyst Brit Hume were shocked by the suggestion that Arizona's anti-gay law might allow "a Christian doctor who is deeply conservative in his religious views to deny treatment" to patients on the basis of sexual orientation, an interesting change of pace for a network that has no problems regularly defending the religiously-based denial of women's health services.
In a February 25 segment on Fox's The Kelly File, Kelly and Hume agreed that the Arizona law -- which could provide legal protections to religious business owners who deny services and accommodations to gay couples on the basis of their sexual orientation -- went too far because the possibility of denying medical services to gay people was "an order of magnitude greater than the legal right to deny services to a gay wedding":
Fox News dedicated its first segment on Gov. Brewer's veto of Arizona's anti-gay bill to an interview with one of America's most notorious anti-gay hate group leaders.
On February 26, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced that she had vetoed Senate Bill 1062, which would have allowed businesses and individuals to engage in legal discrimination by denying services to gay people on religious grounds. Brewer said that the bill "does not address a specific or pressing concern," and that it "is broadly worded, and could result in unintended and negative consequences."
Fox's Megyn Kelly opened the February 26 edition of her show with a segment on Brewer's veto that featured Tony Perkins, president of the anti-gay Family Research Council. Kelly gave Perkins a platform to lambast the veto as an example of "how fundamental freedoms are trampled," while citing a New Mexico couple who were prosecuted for refusing service to a same-sex couple as proof that the law differs from discrimination against mixed-race couples in that it "address[es] some very significant problems":
Hypocrisy is nothing new in politics. Nor is playing politics with Social Security. But the National Republican Congressional Committee, the outfit assigned the task of protecting the GOP majority in the House, pegged the needle in Social Security-fueled political hypocrisy with its recent attack on Alex Sink,the Florida Democrat running in a hotly contested and much-watched special election to fill the congressional seat once held by Republican C.W. "Bill" Young, who died in October.A few days ago, after Sink blasted her Republican opponent, David Jolly, for being a lobbyist who has worked for clients advocating the privatization of Social Security and Medicare, the NRCC struck back.Katie Prill, a spokeswoman for the group, assailed Sink, Florida's former chief financial officer, for supporting the Simpson-Bowles long-term budget plan that was released in late 2010.This centrist blueprint called for raising $1 trillion in revenues via taxes and proposed measures that would squeeze money out of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, including a slow and gradual increase in the retirement age. Prill noted, "Alex Sink supports a plan that raises the retirement age for Social Security recipients, raises Social Security taxes and cuts Medicare, all while making it harder for Pinellas seniors to keep their doctors that they know and love.Sending Alex Sink to Washington guarantees that seniors right here in Pinellas County are in jeopardy of losing the Social Security and Medicare benefits that they have earned and deserve." (The congressional district Sink is vying to represent covers Pinellas County.)
The Simpson-Bowles plan called for raising the retirement age to 69 by 2075. So few of Pinellas County's current seniors would lose benefits. But putting aside the policy pros and cons of Simpson-Bowles, the NRCC was ignoring an inconvenient truth: for years, Republicans have slammed Democrats for not accepting the Simpson-Bowles plan on entitlement reforms.(The Rs, of course, were not keen on the Simpson-Bowles provisions for greater tax revenues.) Repeatedly, top GOPers have lambasted President Barack Obama and the Democrats for supposedly disavowing Simpson-Bowles. In an April 2011, interview, House Speaker John Boehner chided Obama for not moving forward with Simpson-Bowles:"He took exactly none of his own deficit reduction commission's ideas. Not one. Come on? It's time to grow up and get serious about the problems that face our country." A year later Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the House GOP's leading budget wonk, echoed this sentiment: "The president has chosen to disavow the fiscal commission." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has urged Obama to "say yes to Simpson-Bowles.And then there's the Republican National Committee. A year after Simpson-Bowles was released, it excoriated Obama for "pretending it never exisited [sic]." In a press release, the RNC whacked Obama for not opting for "The Bold, Comprehensive Approach To Reining In The Fast-Growing Federal Debt That His Own Fiscal Commission Has Said Is Needed, Now." It noted, "OBAMA'S DECISION TO ABANDON THE FISCAL COMMISSION HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS 'AN ABSOLUTE TRAGEDY.'"It approvingly quoted a Bloomberg News report noting that Obama "allowed 2012 election concerns to shape his timing and willingness to advocate Social Security and Medicare reductions." In other words, Obama was a wimp for not fully endorsing the tough medicine of Simpson-Bowles. (In later budget negotiations with Republicans, Obama would indeed show some willingness to raise the age for Medicare and readjust Social Security benefits—but only if the Republicans yielded on tax revenues.)The Republican position for the past three years has clearly been accepting the entitlements-squeezing provisions of Simpson-Bowles. But now that a Democrat has spoken positively of the plan—adopting a position similar to that of Boehner, Ryan, and other Rs—the NRCC gallops to the left to attack her, demonstrating once again that there's little regard for policy and principles among political operatives.
As fact checkers investigated and debunked claims made in an ad attacking the Affordable Care Act, Fox News and other conservative media used a cancer patient's illness to defend the spot's dishonesty.The episode is part of an ongoing pattern in the conservative media of promoting anecdotal Obamacare horror stories that have fallen apart under scrutiny.Michigan resident Julie Boonstra, who is suffering from leukemia, had her existing insurance plan canceled after it failed to meet the law's new guidelines, which forces insurers to provide more comprehensive coverage than in the past.She later signed up for a new plan, which she has said is too expensive, and came to national attention earlier this year after she repeatedly appeared with Republicans attacking the health care law.Boonstra was featured in an ad released last week by conservative group Americans for Prosperity saying that her new "out-of-pocket costs are so high,it's unaffordable." AFP is largely funded by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch; their ad targets Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI), who is running for Michigan's soon-to-be open Senate seat, their second such ad in the state.
But the ad's claim hasn't held up. Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler investigated the ad and noted that while Boonstra says that her out of pocket health care costs are now "unaffordable," her monthly premiums were "cut in half" and that those savings are just two dollars shy of the maximum she would have to pay thanks to the new caps enacted in the law.Kessler noted, "the premium savings appear to match whatever out-of-pocket costs she now faces."He concluded:It is one thing to say there are higher out-of-pocket costs, as she did at the RNC news conference, but another to assume that those higher costs are not offset in some way by the significantly lower premium. (The $350,000 bone marrow transplant, for instance, would be capped at the out of pocket minimum.) The reality is that eventually Boonstra will hit the maximum and no longer pay anything. So over the course of the year, the difference in the costs could well even out.
Are you ready for this? On Thursday, the Arizona State Legislature passed a bill that allows businesses to refuse service based on the owners' "sincerely held" religious beliefs. This means if you're Catholic and don't believe in same-sex marriage, you're legally allowed to turn away gays and lesbians.The proposal already made it through the House and Senate, and is now sitting on the desk of Republican Gov. Jan Brewer.The year is 2014 — approximately six decades after the Civil Rights Era. But by the sound of it, this bill is the modern-day Jim Crow. And what's happening in Arizona is actually the result of a coordinated several-state push, backed by major local and national organizations.Here's the quick backstory. Last year, the New Mexico Supreme Court allowed a gay couple to sue two photographers for refusing to photograph their union. While the shutterbugs argued they were protecting their religious rights, the court ruled they were violating New Mexico's Human Rights Act by discriminating against the couple.The Huguenins [photographers] today can no more turn away customers on the basis of their sexual orientation — photographing a same-sex marriage ceremony — than they could refuse to photograph African-Americans or Muslims," wrote Justice Richard Bosson in the court's unanimous decision.The photographers are now "compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives," he added.In response to the ruling, powerful right-wing organizations urged Republican politicians inover six states including Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee and Utah to put forth anti-gay denial of service bills to protect religious liberties.Who are these powerful right-wing organizations? Many are tax-exempt nonprofits, supported in part by all our tax dollars.
In Arizona, the Center for Arizona Policy, a social conservative group that promotes anti-abortion and conservative Christian legislation, is backing the proposal. On the national front, prominent organizations like the Knights of Columbus, the Family Research Council and Heritage Action for America are behind the efforts.Let's take a deeper look. The Center for Arizona Policy is a tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) organization that is "committed to promoting and defending life, marriage, and family, and religious liberty." It's a $1.6 million-a-year operation with anonymous donors. The Family Research Council (FRC) is the heavy hitter at the national level.Also a tax-exempt 501(c)(3), it's a $14 million-a-year organization. The FRC's primary "exempt purpose is to reaffirm and promote nationally, and particularly in Washington D.C., the traditional family unit and Judeo-Christian value system."
The Sarasota GOP has named Sen. Ted Cruz as its "Statesman of the Year" and will honor him on Feb. 20, according to a release.Cruz, among the possible 2016 Republican presidential candidates, follows past recipients Sean Hannity, Donald Trump and Haley Barbour.
Cruz led the defund Obamacare effort that resulted in the government shutdown, growing his national reputation, good and bad. Among conservative activists he's the next big thing, replacing Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, whose involvement in immigration reform has hurt him with the base.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Oversight Committee and one of the leading voices in attacking the Obama administration over its response to the Benghazi attack,completely ignored a recent Congressional investigation’s conclusions in the name of attacking former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.Speaking at a fundraising dinner in Concord, NH on Monday night, Issa was asked about his committee’s efforts to get to the bottom of just what occurred the night of Sept. 11, 2012 when a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya came under attack.One persistent theoryamong conservatives has been that at some point during the night, a “stand down” order was given to the military, preventing them from rescuing the Americans under attack. “We need to have an answer of when the Secretary of Defense had assets that he could have begun spinning up,” Issa said at the fundraiser during a question and answer segment. “Why there was not one order given to turn on one Department of Defense asset?”“I have my suspicions, which is Secretary Clinton told Leon [Panetta] to stand down, and we all heard about the stand down order for two military personnel,” Issa continued. “That order is undeniable.”But there is one group of people that would deny Issa’s claims: his Republican colleagues in the House Armed Services Committee. Just last week, the committee’s majority released their report on the Pentagon’s actions during the night of the attack, which explicitly denied the existence of the order Issa claims happened.“There was no ‘stand down’ order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi,” the report says within its first few pages.
It appears that Issa hasn’t read the rest of his compatriots’ report just yet either, judging by the rest of his remarks. “They were told not to get on – get off the airplane and kind of standby – and they’re going to characterize it wasn’t stand down,”Issa said, referring to the Obama administration. “But when we’re done with Benghazi, the real question is, was there a stand down order to Leon Panetta or did he just not do his job? Was there a stand down order from the President who said he told them to use their resources and they didn’t use them? Those questions have to be answered.”Luckily for him, those questions already have been answered. “Given the military’s preparations on September 11, 2012, majority members have not yet discerned any response alternatives that could have likely changed the outcome of the Benghazi attack,” the report concludes.
Given how horrible Obamacare supposedly is, it’s a little bizarre that Republicans and their allies have such a hard time finding victims who are unambiguously worse off as a result of the law.GOP leaders trotted out a woman named Bette during their official response to President Obama’s State of the Union address. Once reporters with even rudimentary understanding of the law began poking around, they discovered that Bette was more a victim of anti-Obamacare histrionics than of the genuine article.The ad makers at the conservative pressure group Americans for Prosperity are the Jerry Bruckheimers of atmospherically devastating campaign spots attacking Democrats who voted for Obamacare, but like nearly all Bruckheimer films the plots of these ads fall apart upon the mildest scrutiny.Given how horrible Obamacare supposedly is, it’s a little bizarre that Republicans and their allies have such a hard time finding victims who are unambiguously worse off as a result of the law.GOP leaders trotted out a woman named Bette during their official response to President Obama’s State of the Union address. Once reporters with even rudimentary understanding of the law began poking around, they discovered that Bette was more a victim of anti-Obamacare histrionics than of the genuine article.The ad makers at the conservative pressure group Americans for Prosperity are the Jerry Bruckheimers of atmospherically devastating campaign spots attacking Democrats who voted for Obamacare, but like nearly all Bruckheimer films the plots of these ads fall apart upon the mildest scrutiny.
Boonstra’s central complaint is that she lost her old healthcare plan because of Obamacare, just like an untold number of other individual market patrons. But the ad alsosuggests very strongly that she lost her doctor as well, and has been saddled with significantly higher costs.The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler beat me to the fact check. It turns out that she kepther doctor, and in a separate interview with the Detroit News, acknowledged that her premiums under Obamacare ($571 a month) are half as much as they were last year ($1,100). Her annual savings — $6,348 — are actually just $2 shy of the Affordable Care Act’s $6,350 “Out of Pocket Maximum” for an individual plan, above which the insurance company must pay every penny.
Kiera Feldman’s recent New Republic report on the convergence of rape culture and evangelical culture at a private Christian university in Virginia is a deeply troubling story. It’s also a disturbingly familiar one.In a series of interviews with female survivors of sexual violence at Patrick Henry College, Feldman uncovered an institutional pattern of victim-blaming and impunity for perpetrators that was grounded in the school’s strict adherence to evangelical doctrine, specifically its “gender complementarian” norms and toxic purity culture.
Though generally viewed as a safe haven for young people with an evangelical Christian worldview, Patrick Henry College turned out to be a very dangerous place to be a survivor of sexual assault. It is, in other words, much like everywhere else in this country.Evangelical Christianity makes visible — through purity pledges and doctrine assigning women the role of man’s “helpmate” — the norms and expectations about female virginity and subservience that so often remain hidden in the secular world. While it may be tempting to draw a red line around Christian fundamentalist views on gender and sexuality to distinguish them from supposedly evolved “secular” culture, there is considerable, uncomfortable overlap between the two.evangelical world view, thats just the same as Texas view or any of those foreign states and IMO that is what feeds the mentality they are crying about, if you pee in your bed and don't get up you're just laying in pee.
