On Monday, Texas Governor Rick Perry rejected two major tenets of the Affordable Care act, saying the state would not participate in the individual state exchanges nor in the Medicaid expansion. What does this mean for a state with the highest rate of uninsured citizens — a state that already rejected federal funds for the Medicaid Women’s Health Program? Experts say the result will be escalating private insurance costs and declining public health.
The state would “reprioritize” all federal funding, moving Planned Parenthood to last in line.
Planned Parenthood has sued Texas. Texas has sued the federal government. Who is right?
In another “money is fungible” push, the state is willing to possibly give up over a billion in Medicaid funding to ensure not one dollar is paid to someone who provides an abortion.
As we hold our breath to see how the Court will decide the fate of the ACA, now is a good time to remind ourselves of the importance of health care reform for women living with HIV and affected by HIV.
It is incredibly frustrating that the very women the federal Medicaid law is intended to protect are the ones who are hurt the most, but those sanctions are the only tool HHS has at its disposal to enforce the law.
Maryland’s Family Planning Works Act, which makes Medicaid-funded birth control, testing for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screenings, and other essential services accessible to an additional 33,000 low- and moderate-income women in the states, went into effect today.
Until a change of course is demanded in the state of Kansas, our elected oppressors will no doubt continue to spend their time, energy, resources and taxpayer money in the never-ending pursuit of being the first state to eliminate abortion and even some forms of contraception through the eradication of access, while saddling the taxpayers with an ideological debt.
I firmly believe the requirements under the Affordable Care Act, and the slate of regulations being created to implement it, infringe on no one’s conscience, demand no one change her or his religious beliefs, discriminate against no man or woman, put no additional economic burden on the poor, interfere with no one’s medical decisions, compromise no one’s health — that is, if you consider the law without refusal clauses.
If you’re poor, there’s no need to go to the hospital just because you are losing a pregnancy.