How Warren Blew It

AUTHOR

Gary Rivlin

The brain behind the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is once again facing a hostile congressional committee. And it’s her own fault, says Gary Rivlin.

Jul 12, 2011 11:30 PM EDT

When Elizabeth Warren last appeared before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, she said she could stick around for only an hour due to a scheduling conflict. This time, the Republicans won’t let that happen again. “I expect you to remain before the committee until all members of the committee have had all their questions answered,” Rep. Darrell Issa , the California Republican who chairs the committee, wrote to Warren. His tone called to mind nothing so much as a teacher reprimanding an unruly student.

On Thursday, Warren must once again endure the charade of answering questions about the actions of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that has no official authority until it goes live next week—and over which she is serving as temporary custodian until President Obama nominates, and the Senate confirms, a director.

Yet Warren has only herself to blame—not only for Issa’s tone, but also for this latest demand that she appear before his committee to undergo another round of grilling. The truth is, Warren blew it the last time she was on Capitol Hill. She was cordial on that sweltering Tuesday in late May when she arrived at a small hearing room on the second floor of the Rayburn Building. With equanimity, she answered the prosecutorial questions of Patrick McHenry, the North Carolina Republican chairing the oversight hearing (“Yes or no, Ms. Warren?”)—just as she answered similarly aggressive questions from other Republicans. 

Her mistake came when McHenry called for a recess so that members of the committee could make it to a vote on the House floor. At least a couple of members had not gotten their turn at Warren, so McHenry asked her to stay. Claiming that she had made it clear to his staff that she had a full schedule on tap for the rest of the afternoon, Warren declined. To her credit, at the end of every month she posts her calendar at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau website. But in this case it revealed that she had a few meetings with colleagues inside the Treasury Department and then a 45-minute interview with a Vanity Fair writer.

If only Warren had decided to stay and suffer through interrogations from another couple of Republicans, she wouldn’t have to be going through it again so soon.
 

Elizabeth Warren at the Reuters Future Face of Finance Summit in March, Kevin Lamarque, Reuters / Landov

“I’ve asked questions of a litany of administration officials from Democratic and Republican administrations,” McHenry is quoted as saying in the current issue of Bloomberg Business Week, “and I’ve never seen an action by any witness like I saw that day.” McHenry should have emerged as the victor on that occasion. He and his colleagues had been trying to cast this new creation as a superagency beyond the normal checks and balances of government—and paint Warren, a Harvard Law professor, as one of those pointy-headed elites who think they know what’s best for everyone else. And here Warren was playing right into their hands. McHenry might have kept his cool and said something like “I can’t force you to stay if you don’t think it’s worth an extra few minutes of your time to answer our questions.” Sitting in the chairman’s seat, he might have noted that she seemed contemptuous of Congress.  Instead he dubbed her a liar, Warren gasped, the video of his tough-guy exchange went viral, and the blogosphere cast McHenry as a bully. In sports, the expression is "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."

The first time Warren was summoned to Capitol Hill to talk about the consumer-protection agency was in March, when she appeared before a subcommittee of House Financial Services. The big controversy at that hearing was also the big controversy at the McHenry hearing—and it will no doubt be the big grievance Republicans raise at Thursday’s hearing. It boils down to the settlement agreement the country’s 50 state attorneys general worked out with the banks after their mortgage-servicing subsidiaries were caught taking shortcuts and generally acting too hastily when foreclosing on homeowners. Warren shared some ideas with the AGs while they were working out those agreements--which makes sense, given that consumer protection is her expertise and there’s no rule against a federal official giving advice to a state official who seeks it. But the Republicans who oppose her see this as proof her agency has run amok. Spencer Bachus, the Alabama Republican who now chairs the Financial Services Committee, described Warren’s brainchild as “the most powerful agency ever created.”

Congressman Barney Frank remembers the first time he and his colleagues on the Financial Services Committee debated the idea of a new agency to serve as a kind of product-safety commission for mortgages, credit cards, and other financial products. This was in the fall of 2009, when the Democrats still ran the House and he still served as chair of that powerful committee. Warren hadn’t yet attained national status as a consumer champion, but she was outspoken in her criticisms of the more predatory side of the banking industry.

Republican colleagues on Frank’s committee were hardly keen on this idea of a new regulatory body that monitored the behavior of the banks, debt collectors, and the country’s fringe lenders, but they seemed more intent on ensuring that if such an agency were created, Warren would not be in charge. Scott Garrett, a Republican from New Jersey, even introduced an amendment dictating that the head of this new consumer agency needed to have worked at least one year as a bank employee or a bank regulator. Frank dubbed it “the Elizabeth Warren amendment” because, he told me, “it was written precisely so Elizabeth would not qualify.” Frank recently witnessed more mischief when the House Republicans floated a bill that would have taken away Warren’s salary as the agency’s temporary custodian.

“Who’s Watching the Watchmen,” McHenry dubbed his May hearing. Yet one might ask the same of this four-term congressman, who represents a rural patch of North Carolina. Only a modest portion of McHenry’s campaign contributions come courtesy of anyone who actually lives in his congressional district. His main constituency, at least if his campaign-disclosure forms serve as an accurate stand-in, are the financial institutions and fringe lenders seeking to defang the consumer-protection bureau. The American Bankers Association, Bank of America, and a check-cashing chain based in Florida are among the entities writing McHenry checks for $10,000 or more over the past two years. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan Chase have also been big McHenry contributors. Earlier this year he traveled to the Westin Diplomat Resort & Spa in Hollywood, Florida, to speak at the annual convention of the payday lenders, who make high-interest loans against a person’s next paycheck. In the first three months of 2011, the payday lenders gave McHenry more than $27,000 toward his next election—and it’s fringe players like the check cashers, pawnbrokers, and payday lenders who stand to lose the most in the face of a strong consumer-protection agency. 

Maybe in the end McHenry was simply too eager to please his contributors. Warren scares the bejeebers out of the banks and the fringe lenders, and perhaps he was too willing to take up their cause. Their anger was his. If only Warren had decided to stay and suffer through interrogations from another couple of Republicans, she wouldn’t have to be going through it again so soon. This time she’ll be facing the entire House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform rather than the smaller subcommittee McHenry runs. That means facing a committee of 40, including 27 Republicans. They’ll no doubt ask more or less the same questions and hit on the same talking points: The consumer-protection agency is too powerful, its people aren’t answerable to anyone but themselves. Presumably this time she’ll grin and bear it as she imagines what else she might be doing. 

New Hampshire Executive Council May Reconsider Planned Parenthood Defunding

by Robin Marty, RH Reality Check

July 12, 2011 - 4:05pm (Print)

The New Hampshire executive council must have gotten a lot of blowback on their comments that women who want to "have a good time" should have to "pay for it."  It appears that they may be reversing their decision to cut off a contract with the state's Planned Parenthood organization -- a contract that was the sole source of free or subsidized birth control for many women in the state.

Blog for Choice reports:

The Executive Council will meet again tomorrow, and could reconsider its vote to defund Planned Parenthood. If you live in New Hampshire, take action through our affiliate.

And not a moment too soon: Nick Toumpas, New Hampshire's commissioner of health and human services, said that cuts to family-planning funding put the state at risk of losing federal dollars.

So tomorrow will be a test of how far these politicians want to take their attacks on women's health care.

Let's see if the public outcry will be enough to sway them.

Michelle Obama and Betty Ford: How One Used Her Power and the Other Still Could

by Rebecca Sive, The Sive Group, Inc. www.rebeccasive.com

July 12, 2011 - 12:48pm (Print)

“What is not debatable is that Betty Ford’s tenure as First Lady was the last time in American politics that someone in that role could inspire bi-partisan admiration—even while expressing her own political views.  American politics has become so polarized, and the culture wars so fierce, that First Ladies can only be broadly liked if they suppress their own views on controversial matters. Betty Ford’s passing reminds us of what has been lost in our political culture.” 

While I agree with Carol Joffe “…that [today] First Ladies can only be broadly liked if they suppress their own views on controversial matters,” I’m perplexed at the suggestion that being “broadly liked” is a sufficient standard of review, as well as by Joffe’s apparent assertion that this need for First Ladies to be bland is something new. It isn’t.

Remember Eleanor Roosevelt, please. 

She could have been bland, and, consequently, “broadly liked,” but she wasn’t.  Instead, Roosevelt understood the needs of her times, and the power of the First Lady’s bully pulpit, and chose otherwise.

In fact, every First Lady has the opportunity to define the role. Yes, for Betty Ford, there was Pat Nixon, but there was also Eleanor Roosevelt. 

Fortunately for the rest of us, Betty Ford chose Eleanor Roosevelt.  

As a result of making this choice, today we remember Betty Ford as a political leader of the first American rank: Great political leader, not great First Lady, because she chose, as First Lady, to use her bully pulpit to advocate to make life better for American women, to advocate for nothing less than our equality.

Yes, Betty Ford was fortunate that she was “broadly liked,” notwithstanding her political views, but the fact is that she wouldn’t have done what she did, and said what she said, if she had been worried about being liked. She wasn’t, and so she said what she said, and did what she did, for the rest of us.

Besides, I don’t think the “being broadly liked” standard of review is sufficient to the need in these dark days, if it ever was. Certainly, it wasn’t in Betty Ford’s 1970’s, post-Roe v. Wade America, when we were battling to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to secure our equality.

I repeat:  Fact is, Betty Ford had a choice then, just as Michelle Obama does now.

Yes, childhood obesity and the plight of military families are significant problems that plague America. But they are not our main problems. The main problem today-- in Michelle Obama’s First Lady time-- is just the same as it was in Betty Ford’s First Lady time: American’s women’s lack of equal access to opportunity.

Yes, it’s a good thing that Michelle Obama is so widely admired, but she could be so much more, especially for the millions of downtrodden American women, including those who lack adequate reproductive health care and access to abortion. Why can’t she be a political leader of the sort First Lady Betty Ford was?   How to think about this on this day when Michelle Obama joins Betty Ford’s family to mourn a First Lady who had American women’s equality and reproductive rights first in her heart, mind and speech all the time?

Rightly so, President Obama is fond of telling us how gifted First Lady Michelle Obama is.

Indeed: She is as well-educated as he is; she is equally compelling as a public speaker; she is equally accomplished professionally; and, when younger, she was as committed as he was to a career devoted to securing equality and social justice.

I first met Michelle Obama twenty years ago when she asked me to join the board of directors of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies.  What a treat it was to hear her speak of her dreams of social justice and equality. I’m missing that Michelle Obama right now.

As I was thinking about Betty Ford’s advocacy for abortion rights, I went back to read the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, rendered when Betty Ford was the spouse of one of the most important Members of the U.S. Congress. It’s easy to imagine Betty and Jerry Ford, who shared the same view on abortion rights, sitting at that suburban Virginia breakfast table, discussing the section of the decision I quote below: 

“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is…is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

I imagine that Michelle Obama read that same paragraph while at Harvard Law School. I imagine that it resonated with her, just as it did with Betty Ford.  After all, for Michelle Obama, this Fourteenth-Amendment cornerstone of the Roe decision was the very same Fourteenth Amendment that freed her slave ancestors.

I am very grateful for these two inspiring First Ladies, Michelle Obama and Betty Ford. I am very grateful for these two American girls whose heartland families instilled such high ambitions in their daughters. They are both terrific role models for the rest of us, both testaments to the power of working hard and persevering to achieve for oneself and in order to help others.

But it sure would be wonderful if Michelle Obama, First Lady, were able to be like Betty Ford, First Lady, in yet another way:  To be an unabashed advocate for equality for American women, including women who need to choose abortion.

USA Women’s Soccer Defeat France, Advance To World Cup Final

SPORTS BUZZ The mighty Abby Wambach scored her third goal in five days, and the U.S.A. defeated France 3-1 in today's Women's World Cup semifinal. The United States will face Japan on Sunday in the Championship Match of 2011 Women's World Cup.

Mike Hayesposted about 4 hours ago

The U.S.A. took an early lead after Lauren Cheney scored in the 9th minute to put them up 1-0.

 France answered with a goal from Gaetane Thiney in the 55th minute to tie the game 1-1. (Photo via Times Online)

 

Abby Wambach broke the tie in the 79th minute, burying a header in the back of net off a Cheney corner kick.

 

Three minutes later, Alex Morgan tacked on an insurance goal to put the United States up 3-1. 

The U.S. will face Japan - who defeated Sweden 3-1 in the second semifinal - on Sunday, July 17 in the Women's World Cup Championship match. (Photo via NYdailynews.com)

  

Here's Japan's third goal (from deep) that finished off Sweden in today's second semifinal. (Via Dirty Tackle) 

I Hope I’m Wrong, But Here’s Why Republicans Will Lose the Debt-Limit Fight

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

There are three reasons why I’m not very hopeful about the outcome of the debt-limit battle.

1. There is no unity in the GOP camp.

Republicans have been all over the map during this fight. Some of them want a balanced budget amendment. Some want a one-for-one deal of $2 trillion of spending cuts in exchange for a $2 trillion increase in the debt limit. Others want some sort of spending cap, akin to Senator Corker’s CAP Act. Some want to mix all these ideas together in a cut-cap-balance package. Others want Obamacare repeal.  And the latest proposal is Sen. McConnell’s proposal to let Obama unilaterally raise the debt limit.

These are mostly good ideas, but the failure to coalesce around one proposal – preferably one that is easy to understand – has made the Republican position difficult to define, defend, or advance.

2. The fear of demagoguery is high.

As I explained months ago, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner are trying to spook financial markets with hyperbolic warnings about a risk of default. This is blatant dishonesty and demagoguery, but Republicans are nervous that this tactic might be successful if there is a high-stakes showdown as the government’s borrowing authority runs out.

For those with short memories, this is what happened with TARP back in 2008. The initial bailout proposal was rejected, leading to short-run market gyrations, and many Republicans panicked and switched their votes to yes.

3. Republicans don’t control the Senate or the White House.

I’m stating the obvious, of course, but people seem to forget that any debt limit increase will need to get through the Senate and get signed by Obama.

Imagine you are Harry Reid or Barack Obama. Is there any reason why you would acquiesce to Republican demands? Yes, you need to at least pretend to care about big government, wasteful spending, and red ink, but why not hold firm and then strike a deal based on make-believe spending cuts? That’s exactly what happened during the “government-shutdown” debate earlier this year.

This post, incidentally, is not an attack on Republicans. I’m very willing to attack GOPers when they do the wrong thing, but I’m not sure they deserve to get hammered in this case.

Simply stated, I don’t think there’s a winning strategy, so I don’t see any point in going nuclear.

If nothing else, at least Republicans resisted the siren song of tax increases, which is not a trivial achievement since Democrats clearly were hoping to trick GOPers into giving up one of their strongest political positions.

Business Lobby Pleads for Deal on Debt Ceiling Amid Political Chaos

AUTHOR

Daniel Stone

After holding its fire for weeks, America’s biggest business lobby pushes Congress to reach a debt deal, warning the consequences without one are too devastating.

Jul 13, 2011 3:15 PM EDT


America's most influential business lobby is wading into the thicket of the debt-ceiling negotiations, pushing the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party that has been holding out on compromise to take whatever actions necessary to avoid America defaulting on its debt.
"We believe it is vitally important for the U.S. government to make good on its financial obligations and to put its fiscal house in order," wrote the Chamber of Commerce in a letter signed by nearly 500 American CEOs that was sent to the White House and all Capitol Hill offices. "Now is the time for our political leaders to put aside partisan differences and act in the nation's best interests. We believe our nation's economic future is reliant upon their actions and urge them to reach an agreement."

The high-profile signers included Tom Donahue, the influential chairman of the Chamber of Commerce; Robert Koch, CEO of Koch Enterprises; and James Gorman, president of Morgan Stanley.

The message highlights a new fracture among conservative leaders, many of whom have pushed for Republicans to oppose a debt-ceiling increase without assurances from the White House that a deal would not include tax hikes.


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (second from left) has floated a plan that would allow President Obama to raise the debt ceiling., Susan Walsh / AP Photo

But seeing the urgency of reaching an agreement, some Republicans have lowered their standard to ensure that a deal is reached prior to the hard August 2 deadline the White House has set.

Long an opponent of President Obama's position in the talks, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday suggested a backup plan that would allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling at a smaller increment but with approval from only about one third of Congress.

The statement came with intense blowback from some wings of the Republican Party that have urged the GOP to stand strong against the Democrats' negotiating position in hopes of extracting larger concessions from Democrats. The Heritage Foundation, the conservative advocacy group, said it was shocked at McConnell's idea and disappointed it had not been consulted prior to the Republican leader's statements.

“The message highlights a new fracture among conservative leaders, many of whom have pushed for Republicans to oppose a debt-ceiling increase without White House assurances that a deal would not include tax hikes.”

"We think it's a total walkback of the GOP position and gives up leverage to Democrats with their overspending policy," said Mike Needham, chief officer of Heritage's policy wing, Heritage Action. "It's critical that Republicans be seen as fighting hard for real change. The backup plan would be incredibly demoralizing to GOP grassroots."

Even if McConnell's plan were to become the framework of a deal, the remaining question is how much of the House Republican caucus would support the proposal, even with the lower vote threshold. Over several days of frequent talks between parties, GOP House leaders led by Rep. Eric Cantor have appeared to harden their opposition against any new forms of government revenue included in a final package.

The White House has not directly engaged McConnell's proposal, saying simply that it was still focused on a larger package that leaders could agree upon.

States Enact Record Number of Abortion Restrictions in First Half of 2011

by Rachel Gold and Elizabeth Nash, Guttmacher Institute

July 13, 2011 - 11:29am (Print)

In the first six months of 2011, states enacted 162 new provisions related to reproductive health and rights. Fully 49 percent of these new laws seek to restrict access to abortion services, a sharp increase from 2010, when 26 percent of new laws restricted abortion. The 80 abortion restrictions enacted this year are more than double the previous record of 34 abortion restrictions enacted in 2005—and more than triple the 23 enacted in 2010. All of these new provisions were enacted in just 19 states.

A Mix of Old and New Strategies to Curb Access to Abortion Care

Counseling and waiting periods. Five states (IN, KS, ND, SD and TX) adopted laws related to abortion counseling and waiting periods in 2011, but a measure adopted by South Dakota at the end of March went significantly farther than those approved in other states. The law expands the pre-abortion waiting period to 72 hours, requires the woman to visit a crisis pregnancy center in the interim and mandates that abortion counseling be provided in-person by the physician who will perform the procedure. The counseling must include information on all known risk factors related to abortion, even when the information is not supported by mainstream medical opinion and is methodologically unsound. The law is currently not in effect, pending the outcome of a legal challenge.

Gestational bans. Legislators in 15 states introduced measures based on a law adopted in Nebraska last year. The provision bans abortions at and after 20 weeks’ gestation, based on the spurious assumption that a fetus can feel pain at that point. Under the measure, abortions may be performed after 20 weeks only if the woman’s life is endangered or if there is a risk of “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.” So far this year, similar measures have been adopted in five states (AL, ID, IN, KS and OK; see State Policies on Later Term Abortion). These laws appear to conflict with Supreme Court rulings barring states from placing an undue burden on women seeking an abortion prior to viability, a point that occurs well past 20 weeks.

“Heartbeat” bill. Ohio is taking a different approach to achieve the same goal of banning abortion. In June, the House adopted a measure that would ban abortion once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which usually occurs between six and 10 weeks’ gestation. The bill is awaiting action in the Senate.

Banning abortion coverage in new insurance exchanges. With plans for the implementation of health care reform underway in most states, the issue of insurance coverage for abortion was considered in 24 states, and restrictions were enacted in eight. In four states (KS, NE, OK and UT), the new laws restrict abortion coverage under all private health insurance plans. These restrictions will apply to coverage that will be available through the health exchanges being set up, as will new measures enacted in four other states (FL, ID, IN and VA). Including these new laws, eight states now restrict abortion coverage that is offered in any private health plan (including coverage through an exchange), and six others have restrictions that apply only to coverage through health exchanges (see Restricting Insurance Coverage of Abortion).

Medication abortion. Legislatures devoted significant attention to medication abortion for the first time during the 2011 session; measures were introduced in 14 states and enacted in six. Medication abortion has become an integral part of abortion care, now accounting for 17 percent of procedures provided in nonhospital clinics. Lawmakers considered two types of restrictions related to medication abortion:

• Laws enacted this year in Kansas and Oklahoma require abortion providers to use a protocol that was specified by the FDA when the method was approved in 2000. This protocol has since been supplanted by a new one that, based on a substantial body of evidence, supports a more streamlined procedure under which women are given a lower dose of the medication and allowed to take the second dose at home, eliminating a second visit to the abortion provider. The new protocol also allows use of medication abortion up to 63 days’ gestation, rather than the 49 days permitted under the FDA protocol. A similar restriction that was enacted by Ohio in 2004 was recently upheld in federal court.

• In an entirely new approach to restricting access to abortion, five states (AZ, KS, ND, NE and TN) banned the use of telemedicine for the provision of medication abortion, a procedure through which a woman can go to an abortion provider, receive counseling via videoconference from a physician in another location who then authorizes on-site staff to dispense the medication. Use of telemedicine in general has been growing rapidly in recent years, and is widely credited with expanding access to medical care in areas, especially rural communities, where services have often been inaccessible.

Family Planning Programs in the Crosshairs

For the first time in recent memory, state legislatures devoted significant attention to issues related to family planning in 2011. Much of this came in the context of state budget bills.

Holding the line in some states. Considering the historic fiscal crises facing many states, it is significant that family planning escaped major reductions in nine of the 18 states (CO, CT, DE, IL, KS, MA, ME, NY and PA) where the budget has a specific line item for family planning.

Deep cuts in others. The story, however, was different in the remaining nine states. In six (FL, GA, MI, MN, WA and WI), family planning programs sustained deep cuts, although generally in line with decreases adopted for other health programs. In the other three states, however, the cuts to family planning funding were disproportionately large: Montana eliminated the family planning line item, and New Hampshire and Texas cut funding by 57 percent and 66 percent, respectively.

Expanding Medicaid eligibility. It is especially noteworthy in this fiscal climate that two states moved to expand Medicaid eligibility for family planning. In Maryland, the legislature directed the state to extend coverage to individuals with an income up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level; the state currently has a limited expansion that extends coverage only to women following a Medicaid-funded delivery. The state received approval for this change from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency that administers Medicaid, at the end of June, and the expansion is expected to go into effect in January 2012. Washington State dramatically reversed earlier attempts to roll back its existing Medicaid family planning expansion entirely. The legislature directed the state to raise eligibility under the program from 200 percent to 250 percent of the federal poverty level.

Targeting providers. Nonetheless, five states moved to restrict funding to family planning providers, largely paralleling similar attempts made in Congress earlier in the year. These states took three distinct approaches:

• Two states moved to restrict eligibility for family planning funds for providers that have any association with abortion. Indiana prohibits agencies that provide abortion from receiving any funding through the state, including Medicaid. (On June 30, a federal district court blocked enforcement of the legislation pending resolution of a legal challenge filed by the state’s Planned Parenthood affiliate.) Wisconsin prohibits agencies that provide abortion services or referrals from receiving funding through the state. Neither state is a Title X grantee, so Title X funds are not affected by the restriction. Planned Parenthood is the only agency that is affected in either state. These new measures join long-standing provisions in three other states (CO, OH and TX) requiring agencies that receive funding—either state family planning funds or federal block grant allotments—through a state agency to be separate from agencies that provide abortion services (see State Family Planning Funding Restrictions).

• North Carolina adopted a measure that explicitly bans Planned Parenthood from obtaining funding, including Medicaid, through the state. Since North Carolina is a Title X grantee, the measure blocks Planned Parenthood affiliates in the state from receiving Title X funds. (Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this provision; as of this writing, the measure remains in effect.)

• Two additional states took aim at agencies that provide mostly family planning services, regardless of whether they have any connection to abortion. Kansas enacted a measure that limits the distribution of Title X funds to health departments, hospitals and community health centers; other types of family planning providers are not eligible. (Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri has filed a legal challenge to the provision; as of this writing, the measure remains in effect.) Texas, meanwhile, adopted a measure that gives priority to health departments, community health centers and hospitals in the distribution of family planning funds, including Title X funds; other family planning providers may receive funding should any remain.

The 2011 state legislative season is rapidly drawing to a close, with only 10 state legislatures remaining in session. Additional states are likely to adjourn in the coming weeks.

For more information:

Guttmacher State Center

Chart of laws enacted in 2011

State Policies in Brief

Guttmacher's video on "Abortion in the United States"