GOP Jumps Health Care Shark

by: Matt Singer

Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 08:55:45 AM MST

But this doesn't hold a candle to Nevada, where the frontrunner against Harry Reid wants to replace fee-for-service medicine with chicken for service medicine. Crazy.

Steve Bullock Writes a Letter

by: Matt Singer

Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 10:17:19 AM MST

Some of my favorite excerpts:

Like you, I take seriously my oath of office to "protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of Montana," as well as to "discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."

[...]

I have analyzed these claims as I analyze constitutional challenges to our own laws, with the understanding that overturning the constitutional judgment of a popularly elected legislature grave matter in a constitutional democracy.

Although your letter is short on legal specifics [...] [emphasis added]

[...]

As Justice Scalia explained in Raich, "[w]here necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce." Id. at 35 (Scalia, concurring).

[...]

The lawsuit you urge me to join does claim that States participating in the federal Medicaid program must provide coverage, but also concedes that States may "avoid the Act's requirements" by "drop[ping] out of the Medicaid program." Florida v. Sebelius, Complt. fl 40. Although this choice would leave millions of people uninsured, it is a choice any of the States may make if they disapprove of how Congress wants federal Medicaid funds spent, and this choice is consistent with the Tenth Amendment. See New York v. United States. 505 U.S. 144 (ree2).

The lawsuit also presents serious standing and ripeness issues, given that it appears to be filed based more on the timing of the November 2010 elections than the date in2014 when individuals and states might first be subject to the Act's requirements.

Therefore, I have concluded that once you take the politics out of these issues, there is no credible constitutional claim. So, like nearly three-quarters of my Democratic and Republican colleagues in state Attorney General offices across the country, I have not joined the lawsuit. We are not alone in our bipartisan opposition to politicizing the Constitution and the courts in this way. Eighteen of your Republican counterparts in the United States Senate sponsored a similar health insurance reform bill in 1993, see 5.1770,103rd Cong. (1993), and I do not doubt their fidelity to their constitutional oath. Lawyers and constitutional scholars across the political spectrum have determined, as President Reagan's former Solicitor General Charles Fried has said, that the lawsuit is "simply a political ploy" without legal merit.

As legislators, you understand as much as any citizen the importance of resolving our heartfelt policy differences through the democratic process. Montana's decision not to join these lawsuits will not change the outcome if, contrary to nearly a century of precedent, the Supreme Court takes the surprising step of striking down this law and taking the country back to the days when the farm bill and social security were constitutionally suspect. Most importantly, however, Montana's decision not to join these lawsuits leaves these critical questions of national policy in the hands of "We the People" and our elected representatives, where these decisions belong.

Roy Brown Has His Facts Wrong on Health Reform

by: Matt Singer

Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 16:49:57 PM MST

KULR-8 has the Billings Senator on video. In that clip, he makes two notable arguments, both of which are patently false:

1. First, that every single person in this country buy a product. There are huge classes of people not required to buy any product. Individuals insured through their employer or by another government program (including Medicaid, which will be available to all low-income Americans by the time the individual mandate kicks in) or for whom the purchase would represent a financial hardship are exempt from the mandate. In other words, the tax for not having insurance only applies to working Americans who make too much to qualify for Medicaid and choose to remain uninsured. They pay an extra tax in exchange for having access to the insurance regulations and protections, like the end of pre-existing condition discrimination, available under the bill to all Americans.
2. If you don't buy insurance you get fined and if you don't get fined you go to jail. Actually the law explicitly prevents people from being jailed:

   The law specifically says that no criminal action or liens can be imposed on people who don't pay the fine. If this actually leads to a world in which large numbers of people don't buy insurance and tell the IRS to stuff it, you could see that change. But for now, the penalties are low and the enforcement is non-existent.

   Enforcement would occur through the holding of tax refunds or other mechanisms presumably in the meantime.

Montanans Helped by Health Insurance Reform

by: Matt Singer

Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 13:11:50 PM MST

I've heard other stories, mostly about young adults eligible to get on to their parents insurance again, sometimes at a very crucial period of their lives.

I find these stories shocking, though, since my understanding was that only BCBS's CEO would benefit under this bill. Maybe I've been misinformed.

Libby and Equal Playing Field: This is Controversial?!?!?!?

by: Matt Singer

Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 13:17:39 PM MST

Michael Jamison writes:

If the nation's new health care bill has a hometown, it must be Libby, Mont., and if it has a face, it must be the face of Red Busby.

[...]

He's on a fixed income now, unable to work, and after basic expenses lives on less than $200 per month. Much of Busby's health care is paid for by W.R. Grace and Co. - the mining outfit that left this town riddled with asbestos - "but I have fears that they will discontinue my coverage when they have gotten out of bankruptcy."

Meanwhile, Senator Baucus is under fire for talking about the bill as a way of correcting an upward redistribution of wealth, which is basically true. Prior to the bill, there were 3 major sets of subsidies for health insurance in this country:

• The public systems like the Medicare, VA, and IHS that target certain segments of the population.
• Subsidized coverage or full coverage for certain classes of low-income people -- SCHIP, Medicaid, etc.
• The employer tax exclusion that really applies to the middle-class and up.

Health Reform Will Be a Political Winner for Democrats

by: Matt Singer

Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:25:57 PM MST

But there's something else interesting about all of this, which is that the issue that Republicans were planning on turning into Obama's Waterloo is in the process of kicking them in the ass. Polls numbers are already quickly moving in favor of the bill and its champions. Here's why:

• An Actual Landmark Achievement. In the words of Joe Biden, this is a big fucking deal. Literally. And no matter how painful the compromises are, this is a boost for the progressive base that feels it has waited a year to see the fruits of victory here they are.
• The Right Can't Get More Mobilized. And, at some point, I think the crazy train has to lose a little bit of steam. That much anger has to result in heart attacks or something, right?
• Moderates May Still be Uneasy with Dems, but They Don't Want a Tea Party Majority. The behavior of Republicans in the past week and its on-going operations of running on repeal of the bill, suing to stop its implementation, etc., doesn't look good. No one wants a bunch of children running the Congress.

Cost Controls in the Health Care Bill

by: Matt Singer

Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:35:35 AM MST

There's a bunch of other stuff, though, and Ezra walks through the five most proimising. These changes include Medicare programs to reform payment systems away from fee-for-service. If it works, private insurance will be under fairly significant pressure to follow suit, in large part because the transparency under the exchanges will strengthen competition while the regulations will protect consumers from fake insurance.

The only public option that ever scored significant savings was the one tied to Medicare. That one died way back before the full House moved to a vote. It's still a good idea, but it is only one of many.

And the bottom-line is that the bulk of the other ideas to contain costs are in this bill. Comparative effectiveness, MedPAC, capping the subsidies for the employer-based system, payment reform, etc. There's a whole lot of folks who disagree that these will lower costs in the long-term, but they're every bit as proven and sound of ideas as the public option when it comes to long-term cost containment.

Jay and others are probably offended that I'm referring to their criticisms on this front and disregarding research and science. Fine. I'm gonna call that one like I see it. The President didn't fight the House on the excise tax and payment reform because the issues were political winners in the short term. He did it because they're among the most likely ways to actually contain costs in this country.

Health Reform on Track for Passage

by: Matt Singer

Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 10:39:00 AM MST

From everything I can tell, the pieces are set and a vote in the next 4-5 days on comprehensive federal health reform is likely to be successful. Ezra has a good run down of the particulars of the bill:

Legislation that covers 32 million people. A world in which 95 percent of all non-elderly, legal residents have health-care coverage. An end to insurers rescinding coverage for the sick, or discriminating based on preexisting conditions, or spending 30 cents of each premium dollar on things that aren't medical care. Exchanges where insurers who want to jack up premiums will have to publicly explain their reason, where regulators will be able to toss them out based on bad behavior, and where consumers will be able to publicly rate them. Hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to help lower-income Americans afford health-care insurance. The final closure of the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit's "doughnut hole."

But you also get the single most ambitious effort the government has ever made to control costs in the health-care sector. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill cuts deficits by $130 billion in the first 10 years, and up to $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years.

There are some people out there pretty furious about this legislation. I hear talk that it doesn't really control costs (still haven't figured out how comparative effectiveness research and bundling aren't important parts of controlling costs) or that it forces people to buy terrible insurance (the same terrible insurance that it monumentally improves and that so many of us currently fight like hell to hold on to despite rate hikes).

Anyways, I've been working off-and-on on federal health care reform since late '06. This just feels damn good. One more vote to go in the House. One more in the Senate. A signature from the President.

That's how history is made.

Health Reform Enters Final Stretch, Good Impacts for Montana

by: Matt Singer

Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:43:35 AM MST

Health care reform is entering the final stretch in Congress. All sorts of stories will be written in the next few days, but the bottom line is that the Congress is about to pass the most significant economic justice legislation in 40 years and the most fundamental rewrite of our social contract since the New Deal and Social Security.

Like Social Security, Medicare, and, well, everything, this bill is a process, not an end-point. But the expansions of Medicaid, the creation of health insurance exchanges paired with meaningful regulation to make insurance function more like a regulated utility than the ferocious beast it has become, and the subsidies to make insurance affordable are all huge immediate gains for low- and middle-income Americans.

Combine all of those moves with the strong attempts to control costs -- bundling of prices, comparative effectiveness research, etc. -- and we've got something that just may keep people insured for the long term while also being the single biggest piece of deficit reduction legislation passed in the history of this country.

Damn. I know there are a lot of complaints out there, but we stand at a major turning point of American history. The future will build upon this point in a few ways:

• Creation of a public option. Count me skeptical that we'll get it in this bill. But the public option is an easier thing to pass in the future than the framework in which it would live and, over the long-term, it is important, but nearly as important as the insurance market regulations and subsidies that will make insurance fair and affordable. We can get back to this and probably in better form than the compromised version we'd get today.
• State experimentation. One of the amendments that both Ron Wyden and Bernie Sanders helped insert allows states to take the revenue streams under the bill and implement alternate models of reform, so, yes, California, New York, or even Montana could pass, for example, a single-payer plan and use the federal funds to make it happen.
• Implementation of further cost control. This last piece will be the hardest, but it may prove the best. Focusing especially on bundling and comparative effectiveness research, which both create the opportunity to cut costs while increasing quality, we may be able to significantly restrain health care spending while improving health outcomes.

Health Reform Still Alive

by: Matt Singer

Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:54:04 AM MST

The GOP's predictable response? "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA. I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" They're calling to start the whole process over. Whaaaaa.

If they want to take a pass on being able to provide input, let them pass. Hold the summit, ask for their ideas, let the President outmatch them once again, and pass the Senate bill and a corrective bill through both chambers, on party lines if need be.

You don't punt at second and goal.

Affordability in the Long Term; Why the Senate Bill is Good

by: Matt Singer

Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 14:38:10 PM MST

The Senate bill, by most accounts, is a more conservative bill. It is financed primarily not by an explicitly progressive tax, but by an excise tax on health plans that will hit Goldman Sachs executives for sure, but will also hit a lot of working class union members who have negotiated health benefits for years.

The subsidies for purchasing coverage in the Senate bill are lower than I would like, meaning near-term affordability isn't what I would hope (of course, it also means less of a public transfer to private insurance companies, which I suppose is OK).

With all that in mind, people have been asking me a lot lately why I'm still supportive of the bill. For me, it really cuts to a few things:

1. The underlying structure of the bill -- subsidies, insurance exchanges, insurance market regulations, etc. -- are the right underlying reforms to make a public/private system work. They also may take us a bit closer to single-payer and certainly do not move us further away (e.g. single-payer supporters may not get what they want in this bill, but it does not foreclose victory down the road, which is important).
2. There are some very smart political incentives built in. For example, members of Congress get thrown into the exchanges with a lot of the rest of us, helping guarantee that the incentive down the line is for them to maintain high quality and affordability (relatively speaking on the affordability, a lot of members of Congress happen to be very rich and all are higher income than the majority of Americans).
3. The biggest point of all is that the Senate bill is extremely serious about costs over the long-term. What should worry just about everyone in the healthcare debate is how completely unsustainable the current system is. It isn't just that it is expensive or that administrative costs run too high. Those administrative costs don't even begin to explain the wild inflation that occurs in America's healthcare sector. You simply cannot have costs in 17% of your economy rise at rates 5-10% faster than the economy as a whole in perpetuity.

   My friend Jay Stevens wrote a while ago that his problem with the excise tax was that it penalized spending on healthcare and that we should be happy to encourage people to spend more on healthcare. If healthcare actually improved health, I'd be inclined to agree that it is worth subsidizing. But the correlations are relatively weak (and the odds that hospitalization can hurt or kill you are unfortunately high). Under these circumstances, reducing healthcare spending and allowing ourselves to spend more money on other things (perhaps sporting equipment or healthy local food, both of which can be expensive but would do more in general to improve health than more heart surgeons) would be a good thing.

   Does the Senate bill do this? We don't know. But it does everything it can to "bend the curve." Is that good for progressives? Depends on what you mean by progressive, but anyone concerned that health insurance is too expensive for low-income people and tthe middle class should hope that the low- and middle-income people of 20 years in the future have better choices. That requires bending the curve. And by all accounts, the Senate bill works harder to bend the curve than the House bill.

Even better news: CBO has at times been known for being woefully pessimistic. They overestimated the cost and underestimated the impact of tradeable permits for reducing SO2 pollution (which helped clean the air in my (and Dennis Rehberg's) hometown of Billings -- maybe "cap and trade" ain't such a bad idea, Mr. Rehberg). They overestimated the cost of Medicare's prescription drug benefit. And they routinely admit that they can't "score" the cost of key provisions of health care bills that may further reduce spending because these are experiments and folks like CBO approach experiments conservatively.

A couple months ago, a "meme" flew around Facebook as millions of social networkers changed their status to read "No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick." Both the Senate and the House legislation accomplish these goals. If we want to establish additional corollaries, such as "No insurance executive should make money" or "No brain surgeon should make more than $250,000 per year," we could have done that. But those goals aren't really as important, either policy-wise or politically.

Soon, we'll pass a bill that should effectively end medical bankruptcy in America and guarantee baseline health care access for all citizens (too low a bar, I agree, for a variety of reasons). Over the long-term, this bill will likely ensure that we need not ever turn back on that promise and that we may even expand on it, just as we did over time with the promises of the civil rights acts and Social Security.

For me, that's a victory.

Analysis: Additional Insight on Health Care Reform from MSU-Billings Poll

by: Montana Cowgirl

Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:44:56 PM MST

One way to interpret the results would be to conclude that the health care reform plan of a Democratic president is profoundly unpopular to the people of Montana.

A second way to look at the poll results, however, would be to compare the approaches to reform of the two major figures who have been the most outspoken on this issue: Senator Baucus (who has tirelessly worked on this issue and should be commended for his efforts) and Governor Schweitzer (who has been an unabashed proponent of progressive reform, praising the Canadian system in the media and at public events-including at President Obama's town hall meeting in Bozeman.)

Thoughts?

The Wait After Reform

by: Matt Singer

Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 10:13:09 AM MST

For some folks, this is another major black eye for an already deeply flawed bill. For many of us, though, this is simply another foreseen frustration inevitable with major system changes in a huge sector of the economy.

The health care bill will have a handful of immediate changes. Although the structure of the national high-risk pool is currently unclear, it should provide some near-term help for the currently uninsurable. In the slightly longer term, the exchanges and the subsidies and insurance regulations should make coverage affordable for basically everybody and near-universal coverage will be the standard in the U.S. And we'll also put some key systems in place to actually bend the cost curve on health care -- which eventually will mean fewer procedures, devices, and drugs that aren't improving our health.

What marked me most about the Dennison piece wasn't the sadness of the young woman at the end when she hears that no help is coming for three or four years, it is that based on these five (representative?) stories, help is actually on the way. It's been a long time since anyone could say that on the health care front.

Media Parrots Rehberg Parroting Limbaugh; This is How Lies Spread

by: Matt Singer

Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 12:20:13 PM MST

But the bigger problem here isn't that Rehberg is simply using the right-wing playbook out there to kill health reform. We've known that for months.

The problem is that Rehberg is being either deliberately dishonest or dumb as shit.  

2 Problems

by: Matt Singer

Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 10:03:28 AM MST

The local Dems have responded by filing a complaint with the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices over Hendrickson's practice, since Engen has fully endorsed Roy Houseman (who, I should note, is a friend and an all-around badass).

I'm of 2 minds on this:

1. What Hendrickson is doing is really quite unacceptable. It definitely skirts ethical lines to imply endorsements you don't have and goes even further when you imply that someone supporting your opponent actually prefers you. So I'm certainly not defending Hendrickson's behavior. That being said...
2. The Commission of Political Practices is a quasi-judicial body that should have limited power to evaluate truth claims in political campaigns. I don't think that there should be legally empowered bodies that gain the power to factcheck campaign ads. In fact, I find that pretty horrifying.

All that being said, the Commissioner and the courts should protect the 1st Amendment. And John Hendrickson shouldn't willfully mislead voters.

Update: (from Jay) Keila Spitzer has a post up about this, too, with quotes from Hendrickson and council member, Jason Weiner...

Closer Than We've Ever Been; So Far Left to Go

by: Matt Singer

Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:04:26 PM MST

But people have no doubt seen the commentary in the last 48 hours regarding the fact that we don't have 60 votes for cloture in the Senate yet. As I have been before, I'm fundamentally optimistic about this. I think the CBO scoring of the merged bill will come back favorable. I think scores on amendments to remove the public option will put the deficit burden on opponents of the public option. I think choice is fundamentally popular and that Republicans and the sell-out Democrats are facing an uphill battle against polling.

All that being said, the fact that we can't move to a consensus point yet on the public option means that progressives have less leverage on three other important points: financing mechanisms, subsidies for affordability, and the strength of the employer mandate. That may be the reason for the foot dragging. Who knows?

But a few other thoughts:

1. I don't know if Max Baucus has been trying to gut this bill like a fish or busting ass to strengthen it back to his white paper while making sure he has the votes to move forward. I do know that the general momentum in this fight right now is with reformers and specifically with public option advocates and that is both a result of progressive pressure, progressive insiders, and the slow and steady work of Max and his staff and others like him in Congress.
2. The last 48 hours should have proven that while the problem in DC is with 40 given bad votes that require a bill that "runs the table" with Dems and the two Independents, that still means that putting together a bill that can pass is a damn tough thing to do. Both the Senate and the House will be moving toward floor consideration of their respective bills soon. That is historic. It is amazing. But we don't have the votes for cloture yet.
3. The Senate is a uniquely messed up institution. If you've been in the weeds, you've read that Joe Lieberman has agreed to let the health care bill be considered...because the world's greatest deliberative body requires sixty votes for debatee to even begin if a single Senator objects. This same body requires 60 votes to end debate in such a manner that the most unpopular political party in the history of the country or something can literally find one grandstanding member of the majority and lock down the chamber. Why no one has launched a full-frontal assault on the chamber's structure and existence in American political life is, frankly, beyond me.

Baucus Back on Board Public Option Ship

by: Matt Singer

Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 14:01:40 PM MST

I included a public option in the health reform blueprint I released nearly one year ago, and continue to support any provision, including a public option, that will ensure choice and competition and get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate. Success should be our threshold and I am going to fight hard for the 60 votes we need to meet that goal this year.

Right now, we're on track to get a bill passed with a public option while overcoming a filibuster. I know there are still naysayers in comments (and as I wrote below, I still want improvements on the employer provisions and the affordability) because the Eeyore wing of the progressive movement is alive and well, but this is a victory.

What's more, it is a victory that would not have been possible without this whole insane hand-holding process. How do we know that the White House and Max bent over backward far enough seeking GOP support? Newsweek's Howard Fineman is calling it pointless. When the conventional wisdom becomes that Republicans obstructionism is worthy of being dismissed, we're in good shape.

We're closer now than we've ever been to passing systemic health care reform. It's a massive down payment on fixing this system. I, like many others, have gotten frustrated during this process, but damn if we don't keep getting the ball down the field at the crucial moments.

Senate Goes for Opt-Out Public Option

by: Matt Singer

Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:12:23 AM MST

So Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi appear to be showing some decent spine in the last couple weeks.

On a worse front, the bill appears set to feature an employer pay or play provision that penalizes the hiring of low-income individuals by small businesses. It also isn't clear what subsidy levels will be like.

But still, we've got some progress.

Update - Two other thoughts:

1. I'd prefer no opt-out clause. with what is happening in the House, we may get a straight national public option -- that'd be good.
2. Still, worth keeping in mind that Medicaid is actually an opt-in program -- and all 50 states have Medicaid.

Rehberg's Public Option Concerns...

by: Matt Singer

Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 11:44:56 AM MST

I just got this email from Congressman Rehberg's office forwarded to me outlining his concerns about a public option:

He has concerns about a new "public option" because he's worried that employers will stop offering health benefits, which would force too many people into a public system, which the government will not be able to pay for, so instead of making the system better for those who it isn't working for, we've made it worse for everyone.

But there isn't a single proposal for a public option where people would be forced into it. Once again, for the folks at home, the public option would be one of many options housed inside a health insurance exchange. The exchange would be the likely stopping place for individuals buying insurance on the individual or small group market. By imposing guaranteed issue, community rating, and a reinsurance to reweight the risk pools, the idea is to create a pretty competitive marketplace and reduce administrative overhead of offering individual plans.

Within that exchange, one of those plans would be publicly administered and publicly accountable. Under the (likely) House plan, it would also leverage Medicare's network to be established and pay rates slightly higher than Medicare. Under the (likely) Senate plan, it would simply be a government run health plan, may be national (good) or a set of state-based (not as good), may be an option everywhere (best), everywhere that hasn't opted out (OK), or everywhere that has opted in (bad), or it might be triggered by the lack of affordable insurance (bad). Or it might not exist at all (booooooooooooooo).

But there simply isn't a proposal out there that would do what Rehberg's office is claiming.

Beyond that, Rehberg continues to say he wants insurance companies to be able to compete across state lines. Max's bill actually allows for that, just not in the willy nilly manner that credit card companies currently compete. It would just give states the authority to approve insurance companies based in another state to enter their market (Montana could say they think Washington State's regulations are sufficient for Washington insurance companies to sell their product here). The national public option proposal is based in large part on the advantage of pooling across state lines. Rehberg says he supports tax credits. That's a backbone of the major Democratic proposals. He calls for HSAs but then says he wants resources for prevention. HSAs really don't incentivize prevention. The Democratic bills actually make prevention a reality.

Beyond that, Rehberg is really worried about the cost. Fine, get out there and champion comparative effectiveness research and make it clear that the government will only subsidize proven cost-effective medicine and paying for the rest will be up to the individuals paying out-of-pocket for insurance or care. I'm all for being hard-minded in how we cover people.

The problem is that the entire Republican Party is either ignorant as dirt on these actual policy questions or more dishonest than Pinocchio. Either way, these answers are utter bullshit and Montanans deserve a hell of a lot better.

Out-of-State Extremists Coming Our Way - Along with One Out-of-Touch Democratic State Senator

by: Montana Cowgirl

Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 16:33:26 PM MST

Why us? National groups are focusing their attention on the states because Congress wants no part of something this extreme. They are coming to Montana because our low population and cheap media rates make us the perfect target to force their extremist experiment on the nation without spending a lot of money.  Also, we actually elected a member of the Constitution party to our state legislature who backed previous failed bans.

The thing is, they don't have local support - the Montana Right to Life, Montana Catholic Conference, and the Montana Family Foundation have all said in the press that they want no part of this.

Even Republicans are starting to come out against these efforts to force their big government extremist agenda on the rest of us though state ballot initiatives.

Women in Montana (and especially Native women) don't want to give the government control over whether and when we have children. In addition to the out-of-staters, it will be interesting to see if any local officials actually show up.  The personhood conference website touts Senator Jonathan Windy Boy (D-Box Elder) as supposedly attending.

Why would Windy Boy attend?  He may be confused.  When asked what the reason is for his anti-abortion rights votes in the legislature Windy Boy has said "my uncle had 23 children and he told me to go forth and multiply."

I love kids as much as the next gal. However, 23 kids! That's five more kids than the Duggars.  What if each of those kids all had 23 kids, how much is 23 x 23? 529 I think. And 529 x23 = 12, 167. In just three generations this family could be 12,000 strong. Two hundred eighty thousand strong in four generations.

The conference website lists Senator Windy Boy's phone number--give him a call and tell him that if he's against abortion, he should vote to increase access to affordable birth control and medically accurate sex education in his district to prevent unintended pregnancy in the first place instead of aligning himself with wing-nuts.