Last year, the Texas legislature (GOP controlled) prohibited state agencies from providing funds to organizations affiliated with abortion providers. The law was set to take effect May 1 (tomorrow).

A federal judge issued a temporary injunction blocking the law because it would have a substantial likelihood of being found unconstitutional as written and applied.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel ruled Monday there is sufficient evidence the state law is unconstitutional. He imposed a temporary injunction against enforcing the law until he can hear full arguments.

The law passed last year by the Republican-controlled Legislature forbids state agencies from providing funds to an organization affiliated with abortion providers. It was set to go into effect on Tuesday.

In response, eight Planned Parenthood clinics that don't provide abortions sued the state. The clinics say the law unconstitutionally restricts their freedom of speech and association.

In granting the preliminary injunction, Planned Parenthood can continue to serve women, and getting reimbursed by the state, according to the Austin Statesman.

"The court is particularly influenced by the potential for immediate loss of access to necessary medical services by several thousand Texas women," Yeakel said in a 24-page ruling.

But that's not the end of it - blocking the law's effect may have repercussions almost as bad. As per the Austin Statesmen:

The Women's Health Program, which receives 90 percent of its funding from the federal government, provides about 130,000 women a year with contraceptive care and potentially life-saving screenings for a wide range of conditions, including sexually transmitted infections, high blood pressure, cancer and diabetes.

According to Tom Suehs, executive director of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, state law bans abortion providers and their affiliates - specifically Planned Parenthood - from participating in the program.

'If plaintiffs obtain an injunction forbidding state officials to exclude Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid Women's Health Program or any similar successor programs, state law will require the commission to cease operating the program upon termination of federal funding,' Suehs told Yeakel in an affidavit.

'The commission will not introduce a similar successor program unless otherwise directed by the Legislature,' Suehs added.

Planned Parenthood counters that the law does not tie the state's hands, saying the program could continue even with the organization's participation.

But just remember - the GOP keeps saying that they're not against women even as they go after women's access to health care by and through Planned Parenthood - a provider for millions of women nationally.

The House GOP passed its version of a student loan relief package that would extend low-interest rates under the Stafford Loan program.

Lawmakers voted 215-195 to approve a bill that has become an election-year battle between the two parties over helping families in a persistently ailing economy. The measure sparked debate over women's health issues, too.

The White House and most Democrats opposed the $5.9 billion bill because of how Republicans covered the costs: eliminating a preventive health care fund in President Barack Obama's health care law. They say the program mostly benefits women, while Republicans call it a loosely controlled slush fund.

"This is a politically motivated proposal and not the serious response that the problem facing America's college students deserves," the White House wrote in a veto message shortly before the House vote.

Democrats accused Republicans of supporting the effort to keep student loan interest rates low only because of political pressure from Obama.

The House measure is destined to die in the Senate, where majority Democrats have written a version of the bill paid for by raising Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes on high-income owners of some privately owned companies, which GOP senators oppose.

GOP lawmakers were pressured by conservative groups like the Club for Growth to oppose the legislation because, they said, the government should not subsidize student loans. In the end, 30 Republicans voted no, while 202 voted yes.

The GOP's solution for solving the student loan funding was to gut funding for preventative health care that is primarily aimed at women under the HCR package.

That's the modern GOP for you. They'll claim that this money wasn't sufficiently controlled or a slush fund, but can't defend the fact that it was designed to help women and low-income households with their health care expenses. In fact, preventative health care is something of a bargain since catching and treating ailments early can save money in the long run.

Appendectomies are a relatively common medical procedure, which means that there are plenty of them done around the country. It therefore makes a great study to see just how much they cost.

The results of that study are eye-opening.

The costs range by tens of thousands of dollars.

In fact, the cheapest appendectomies were under $2,000 while the most expensive were over $100,000. The median cost was $33,000.

Many patients have no idea how much procedures are going to cost before doctors go and perform them. There's little transparency on costs, though some insurers are beginning to provide that data to their customers.

It's cost-roulette. The differences can be significant within geographical areas, and even between hospitals in the same city.

The NY Times indicated that one instance found a patient hit with charges for his appendectomy that were six times the median for his geographical area.

So, how do we deal with these disparities? Seeking more transparency in how these costs are billed - letting the health care consumer know what the median cost for the region and how and why hospital X is charging more or less for the same service is a start. Billing should be providing more information and insight into how and why items are billed out at certain rates.

The fact is that researchers could find no explanation for about one-third of the cost differences. That means that there's tremendous opportunities to engage in real reform and cost containment that wont affect outcomes - making sure that people get the necessary care and are properly treated and make full recovery from the procedures.

Protesters at Tahrir Square helped lead the overthrow of Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak. He was deposed by the military that lost confidence in their former leader.

Now, the military finds itself being protested against for some of the same complaints that led to Mubarak's ouster.

The crowd was as large as almost any that gathered in Tahrir Square since the protests that forced out former President Hosni Mubarak in February, 2011. Even more unusual in the increasingly polarized political climate, Islamists, liberals and leftists all found common ground on at least one front: to demand the generals who took power with Mr. Mubarak's ouster finally give it up.

The catalysts for the protest were the military-led government's management of the early stages of the election and in particular the selection of the candidates. In the last two weeks, Mr. Mubarak's former spy chief, Omar Suleiman, launched a short-lived campaign from inside the office of the intelligence services that triggered fears of a plot to restore the ousted order. In that same period, a secretive commission of Mubarak-appointed judges unexpectedly ruled that Mr. Suleiman and two Islamists considered front-runners for president were ineligible to run. And the top military leader suggested that a new constitution should be written and ratified before a handover of power, meaning the military leaders would control that process, too.

'The military council is putting the people in a very hard situation, and people are angry because their demands have not come true,' said Mohamed Hedaya, 19, a student from the countryside who wears the wispy beard of an ultra-conservative Salafi Muslim, and was out in the streets for the protest.

'People feel like the old regime has not gone anywhere, and under the army we are living with them still.'

Protesters from liberal groups and Islamist movements marched to Tahrir from landmarks across the capital, while others from the provinces beyond arrived in a fleet of chartered buses. Egyptian flags competed for space with the Muslim Brotherhood's green flag and the black flags of the ultra-conservative Salafi movement, while a handful of kites in the national colors of red, white and black bobbed in the sky overhead.

'The people will not accept a rigged election,' declared one banner.

The military has rejected several leading candidates for the presidency, and the military has further suggested that they be the ones to write and ratify a constitution before any change in political power, but that move only smacks of trying to continue and formalize control in a new ruling elite that comes from the military.

Considering that some of the remaining candidates are former members of the anciens regime, Egyptians aren't looking too kindly upon the situation.

History does seem to be repeating itself. After all, it was a military coup that led to the rise of Gamel Abdel Nasser in 1956 until his death in 1970, when he was succeeded by Anwar Sadat. Following Sadat's assassination at the hands of terrorists associated with Egyptian Islamic Jihad (including spiritual leader Sheikh Abdel Rahman who was later involved in the 1993 WTC bombing), his vice president, Hosni Mubarak was selected to run the country.

Now, the military is hoping to be the one to select the next generation of Egyptian leadership.

It's little surprise that there's agreement among and across the political spectrum that the military has to give up its hold on power. That was one of the longstanding complaints about Mubarak and the old regime. Now, that the military is firmly in control, they're not about to give up the power and they're going to quickly find out that the goodwill they gained from refusing to take Mubarak's orders to disperse the crowds of protesters by armed force will disappear.

Anders Breivik wont get his wish for the death penalty or acquital, despite the fact that his claims that he was acting in self defense simply don't pass the smell test.

Norweigan law permits only a maximum of 21 years in prison. If he's found insane, he'd be locked away for as long as necessary to keep him from being a menace to society.

Consider that in his statements and evidence proferred, he doesn't consider the court to have proper jurisdiction, he claims that he was acting in self-defense, and that he justifies the murder of 77 people to be in defense of the creeping multiculturalism and influence of outsiders on Norway.

Part of the problem in determining his sanity and his political claims is that he's refusing to give any information that might reveal the identities of the Knights Templar and other like-minded individuals with whom he's had contact and might confirm his claims that he's part of a wider right-wing white nationalist group intent on fighting against multiculturalism and igniting a race war in the process. Thus far, police have been unable to corroborate his claims of other cells in Europe or Norway though he's using a vocabulary common to those on the far right and many of these extremists are shifting away from politics towards a potential military solution.

It's also interesting that he considers al Qaeda to be methodological role models, even though Breivik claims that his goals are isolationist in nature. He's also claimed that he was inspired by Serbian nationalists, not Nazis, even though Serbian nationalists were inspired by Nazi ideas of ethnic nationalism, racial purity, and unabashed brutality.

Ultimately, his views were inspired by hate and fear of the other - people who didn't look or act in a manner that he considered to be traditionally Norwegian. They practice different religions - Muslims, or spoke or came from different countries.

Breivik differs from other white supremacists and right wingers only by degree - in acting on his hate and fear, he went beyond what other white supremacists and right wingers have thus far engaged in by murdering dozens of people in the process all because they subscribed to a different political agenda than his own.

His is an outcome resulting from an ideology whose goals are ultimately achieved not through politics, but by violent confrontation and eliminating the political regimes that encourage and protect multiculturalism.

Newt Gingrich, who has long fashioned himself the only intellectual, conservative, and fiscal conservative (and only one who can beat Barack Obama in the election), has once again found himself in financial trouble.

Last week, the health care think tank he founded declared Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

This week? His campaign bounced a $500 check to the State of Utah to get on the Utah ballot.

In fact, his campaign is $4.5 million in debt and can't raise funds sufficient to bail the campaign out.

He can't even keep the books straight, but thinks he can fix the nation's financial problems? His campaign is a mess, and not even Rick Santorum quitting the race (sorry, it's quitting the race, not suspending it - though it still means Santorum can raise funds and can use the money for other purposes) improves his chances against presumptive nominee Mitt Romney.

At this rate, Gingrich's going to be flying dog poop on a cargo plane to Hong Kong if he's lucky.

James Murdoch, son of Rupert Murdoch, and a key member of Murdoch's communications and broadcasting empire, has resigned as chairman of BSkyB. The resignation comes as a result of increased scrutiny over its hacking scandal.

BSkyB said Nicholas Ferguson, currently deputy chairman, would succeed Mr. Murdoch as chairman. Mr. Murdoch continues to be a nonexecutive director of the company.

'I am aware that my role as chairman could become a lightning rod for BSkyB and I believe that my resignation will help to ensure that there is no false conflation with events at a separate organization,' Mr. Murdoch wrote in a letter to the BSkyB board that was made public by the company.

The Murdoch family has a roughly 40 percent stake in BSkyB that it had hoped to expand to strengthen its hold on the British satellite television business. Along with its news division, Sky also operates lucrative sports, movie and general entertainment channels.

But as the hacking scandal within its British newspaper holdings gripped the nation last July, the family announced that it was withdrawing a $12 billion bid to buy complete control of the broadcaster — a major setback to its corporate planning and European ambitions.

Almost immediately, analysts began speculating about Mr. Murdoch's tenure as chairman.

Speculate no more. He's gone. He already resigned as head of the newspaper properties that came to be the center of the hacking scandal.

I think we might expect to see him resign from other portions of the News Corp empire that he still has contact with - effectively pushing him from the company altogether.

A study that was published in the April issue of American Sociological Review isn't likely to shock anyone when it finds that conservatives' confidence in science as an institution has steadily declined over the past 36 years while confidence levels for other ideological groups has remained steady.

"You can see this distrust in science among conservatives reflected in the current Republican primary campaign," Gordon Gauchat. a postdoctoral fellow at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Sheps Center for Health Services Research, said in a news release from the American Sociological Association. "When people want to define themselves as conservatives relative to moderates and liberals, you often hear them raising questions about the validity of global warming and evolution, and talking about how 'intellectual elites' and scientists don't necessarily have the whole truth."

It's not clear how much impact Gauchat's study will have on the debate over politics and science: Liberals are likely to see it as confirmation of what they already believe, while conservatives who are skeptical about the scientific elite are likely to greet the scientific claims with skepticism.

But the analysis represents a serious effort to flesh out political attitudes toward science with real data. Gauchat bases his findings on a statistical analysis of survey results from the General Social Survey, a long-running project that has weighed public confidence in social institutions since 1974. The GSS has been conducted annually or semiannually by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, or NORC, with an annual average of 1,500 Americans taking part.

Gauchat cross-referenced attitudes toward the scientific community with various demographic categories, and found that two categories showed a significant erosion of trust in science: conservatives and frequent churchgoers. People who identified themselves as conservatives voiced more confidence in science than moderates or liberals in 1974, but by 2010, that level had fallen by more than 25 percent.

Considering that more and more of what our nation does relies upon technological and scientific achievements (think biotech, military, computer tech, etc.) and the growing disdain about science as a community - particularly climate change (environmental issues generally), and there are serious problems for conservatives and the GOP that panders/caters/extols such views and the nation at large.

UPDATE:
Link added above. Also, the full text of the study can be found here.

I've been slowly getting up to speed after my wonderful vacation in Israel, and jumping right into the health care debate at the Supreme Court seems like just as good a place as any.

The justices have been focusing on whether government has the power under the Commerce Clause to require individuals to purchase health insurance or else face penalties collected by the IRS under the PPACA (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010).

The oral arguments yesterday focused on this debate, and this got me wondering.

What happens if the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate provisions because it is Congressional overreach.

Could the same line of reasoning be used to strike down the abortion "slut shaming" restrictions that several states have floated that would require invasive and often unnecessary and expensive ultrasound procedures before a woman could obtain an abortion. The whole notion of the transvaginal ultrasound has been to throw up another restriction and roadblock preventing women from obtaining abortions, but if we follow the Court's potential reasoning against the individual mandate, the ultrasound provisions could be struck down along similar reasoning.

The big difference, however, is that it would be the liberal branch of the Court that would pose the argument, not the conservatives that are potentially looking to kill the individual mandate provisions.

After all, in both instances, we're talking about requiring an individual to submit to fees/costs that they would not otherwise have to but for government action and intrusion into health care delivery/funding.

Frankly, the US Constitution does give Congress wide latitude to administer and direct interstate commerce under Article 1, Clause 8, and health insurance is a huge interstate industry. Facially, the individual mandate is Constitutional on those grounds, but acts as a tax, not a fee as the government has argued. That is a significant distinguishing characteristic between the abortion debate and the health care debate.

But getting back to the health care debate, if the individual mandate is struck down, it doesn't mean that the entire health care package would be rendered unconstitutional. If one section is rendered unconstitutional, the rest of the package would remain valid and enforceable because the various provisions are severable. However, as I've noted previously, it would blow a hole in the revenue measures funding other parts of the package. It could mean that Congress and the states would have to come up with new funding sources to cover areas such as preexisting condition requirements. That's a huge potential mess, particularly in an election year when everyone is angling for votes.

While some elements of the health care plan have already taken effect, the individual mandate kicks in in 2014, and the tax on Cadillac plans hits in 2018.