Note: This new report on bark beetles is the latest research which counters much of the fear-based, unscientific rhetoric we're heard from Senator Tester and supporters of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act regarding the bark beetle issue here in Montana.
DENVER - Forest ecologists warned leaders today that plans to log beetle-killed trees in remote backcountry, instead of implementing fuel reduction efforts directly adjacent to communities, will not make people safe and will squander scarce tax dollars.
A new scientific report released today suggests that bark beetle outbreaks will not lead to greater fire risk, and that tree thinning and logging is not likely to alleviate future large-scale epidemics of bark beetle. The report's findings apply to millions of acres of lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests across North America.
The report also indicates that tree cutting in designated roadless areas protected under the national 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is not likely keep communities safe from wildfire, according to "Insects and Roadless Forests: A Scientific Review of Causes, Consequences and Management Alternatives." The report is based on years of field research and a comprehensive scientific literature review and is available online at http://nccsp.org.
Report authors also suggest that the limited funds available to mitigate fire risk for vulnerable communities would be most effective if used to create defensible space around homes, including using flame retardant building materials and removing brush and trees within several hundred feet of homes.
Additionally, any building of temporary or permanent roads in roadless areas to combat beetle outbreaks could have substantial "short- and long-term ecological costs," the report's authors found. Those costs could include damage to wildlife and water, increased wildfire risk and the introduction of invasive species.
The National Center for Conservation Science and Policy, an Ashland, Ore.,-based nonprofit organization, is releasing the report. Its authors include professors at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colo., and Clark University in Worcester, Mass., along with experts at the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation in Portland, Ore., and the National Center for Conservation Science and Policy.
The report's release comes as the West continues to face the worst outbreak of beetles in centuries. In recent years, bark beetle outbreaks have killed millions of acres of lodgepole pines throughout the West with Colorado at the epicenter.
"Drought and high temperature are likely the overriding factors behind the current bark beetle epidemic in the western United States," said Scott Hoffman Black, executive director of the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and lead author of the report. "Because logging and thinning cannot effectively alleviate the overriding effects of climate, it will do little or nothing to control these outbreaks."
Insect outbreaks and fires are a natural part of the ecology of western forests. And the report found no causal link between insect outbreaks and the incidence of wildfires. It also suggests that insect outbreaks in backcountry forests and roadless areas are unlikely to heighten fire risk in adjacent communities.
"Fires in lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests, such as those found in Colorado, are primarily determined by weather conditions," said Dominik Kulakowski, a professor of Geography and Biology at Clark University. "The best available science indicates that outbreaks of bark beetles in these forests have little or no effect on fire risk, and may actually reduce it in certain cases."
The report also suggests, "tree-cutting is not likely to control ongoing bark beetle outbreaks." Nor will it be "likely to alleviate future large-scale epidemics," according to the report.
The report's findings come as Colorado officials move to finalize a plan to be considered by the U.S. Forest Service that would exempt the state from the 2001 national rule. The Colorado plan, while protecting some roadless areas, would allow new road construction and timber-cutting to battle beetles and to reduce fire-risk from insect infected trees.
Colorado is one of two states that has pursued a state-based approach to protect its roadless areas. That is an option the Bush administration created in the wake of its rollback of the 2001 roadless rule, which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld last year. The Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is currently reviewing a separate challenge of the 2001 rule.
According to report authors, the 2001 national rule allows sufficient flexibility to protect roadless backcountry while allowing local land managers to address public health and safety concerns, including fire.
"The science is clear. Unless preventive measures are aimed at creating defensible space around homes, the federal government will be shoveling taxpayer money down a black hole," said Dominick DellaSala, a report author and president and chief scientist for the National Center for Conservation Science and Policy. "Logging in the backcountry will do little to prevent insect infestations or reduce fire risks, and it will not solve Colorado's concerns over dying trees.
"Colorado's pristine roadless areas are best protected for their clean water and unbridled fish and wildlife recreational opportunities," DellaSala said.
Note: The following perspective is from Thomas Michael Power. Dr. Power is former Chair of the Economics Department at the University of Montana, where he currently serves as a Research Professor. Dr. Power is also the author of Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies: the Search for a Value of Place and Post-Cowboy Economics: Pay and Prosperity in the New American West.
---------
The development of renewable energy resources has become an increasingly important part of our nation's and states' current energy strategies. Most states have mandated that electric utilities obtain an increasing share of their electric supply from renewable sources. Federal and state governments have provided significant subsidies to those who develop new renewable energy resources, and energy firms are enthusiastically responding to those subsidies.
Montana's Senator Baucus was among a handful of senators who signed a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency this week attempting to call into question the EPA's ability to regulate coal and, get this, asked them to
"suspend ANY regulations for coal-fired utilities and other industrial facilities until Congress acts on climate and energy legislation." [emphasis added]
The idea that the EPA can't regulate coal is of course total crap. Baucus' support for the deregulation of coal power plants is shocking, but it shouldn't be a total surprise. It appears that he is beholden to industry, raking in over $1.8 million in campaign contributions from mining and resource extraction.
The contributions from these industries were likely the reason Baucus was the only Democratic Senator to vote against the Clean Power Act in 2005. The act had been vigorously opposed by the coal industry as well as the electric utilities industry because it would have regulated the emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and most notably -- carbon dioxide.
You'd have to be a total idiot to want to return to the bad old days of unregulated extractive industry. Ask someone dying of mesothelioma if they think asbestos shouldn't be regulated.
Regulating CO2 emissions is not going to put anyone out of business; in fact, it will force all of these dinosaurs to start investing in new energy infrastructure. Only someone with a sub par understanding of the issue fears natural advancement and much-needed innovation.
Oregon just raised it taxes on businesses. And Senator Jeff and 44 others say we need to advertise in Eugene and Ontario and Hines and elsewhere and entice businesses there to come to Montana because of our business-friendly tax climate.
To his and the R's credit, the rhetoric is, well, rhetorical:
Essmann said Oregon had taken a "higher tax path" to the detriment of good business. And while Montana's own tax system isn't perfect, he added, it does offer a favorable tax policy when compared to Oregon.
Among the advantages, Essmann named Montana's top marginal income tax. He said it helps small businesses retain capital and reinvest it, making it possible to expand and hire new employees.
"We need to leverage every competitive advantage we can," Essmann said. "We think now is the time, when we have a need for more jobs - and with small business in Oregon feeling under duress - to advertise the availability and the quality of our work force, and have Oregon businesses take a look."
So, what's going on? Jeff and his fellow travellers might need to review how the higher tax path was accomplished. By a vote of more than half of the state's registered voters.
Actually, there were two initiatives that passed. The Montana R's conveniently ignore the fact that the Legislature approved the tax increases last spring. Irate Oregonians took matters into their own hands and gathered enough signatures and place the tax increases on the ballot. By gum, we'll show 'em. Measure 66, which raises taxes on households earning $250,000 or more, passed by 54 percent. Measure 67, which increases corporate levies, passed with 53 percent.
This is big. Faux News has been hyping the conference up for the past two weeks. And it's not just them: CPAC has been called "... A showcase of the heart and soul of American conservatism" by the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post says "CPAC is the preeminent yearly gathering of conservative activists."
"It is with a heavy heart we are compelled to oppose the organization we once served as Council members and officers."
We, the undersigned former Council members and officers of the Montana Wilderness Association, respectfully urge Senator Tester to modify the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009 to rectify the problems outlined by the Undersecretary of Agriculture as well as the Last Best Chance Wildlands Campaign. We cannot support the legislation as now written. We diverge from MWA here because we believe that the bill degrades both the quantity and quality of some of America's most cherished wildlands in Montana. We encourage consideration of the issues we have outlined below that would be necessary in order for us to support it.
The bill legislates the net loss of hundreds of thousands of roadless area acres, including S-393 Wilderness Study Areas designated in 1977 by the late Senator Lee Metcalf. This will create widespread environmental damage and the loss of an irreplaceable legacy for which future generations will, quite correctly, hold ours accountable. Also, the bills' Congressional mandate for timber cut levels sets a dangerous precedent. Resulting below-cost timber sales will cost taxpayers over $100 million. And proposed new Wilderness Areas are small, often disjointed, primarily "rock and ice" parcels that would fail to protect fragile wildland and wildlife ecosystems and corridors.
To make matters worse, the bill includes special provisions for new "Wilderness" units that defy both the intent and letter of the Wilderness Act, and the spirit of Wilderness that so many Americans believe is a vital and wondrous part of this great nation's heritage. Motor Vehicles, including helicopters, simply have no place in designated Wilderness. Yes, we need more Wilderness - lots of it - but we want it to be real Wilderness!
The bill also codifies secretive negotiated agreements - such as the Beaverhead-Deerlodge - that excluded many individuals and groups who've long been involved in the public process. This, and similar agreements, have been sealed by MWA and others over the objections of excluded organizations and individuals, of whom most live and work close to the land and know the compromised areas intimately.
It is with a heavy heart that we are compelled to oppose the organization that we once served as Council members and officers. Most of Montana's undeveloped wilds are long gone, and we cannot afford to lose big chunks of what remains. We believe that in recent years, the Montana Wilderness Association [MWA] has clearly compromised its long-held wildland protection mission and vigilant advocacy. We know many current and former MWA members who agree. In fact, many conservationists in the region are convinced that, quite simply, MWA has lost its way. We are among those people.
In summary, this bill will irreparably damage Montana's dwindling public wildland legacy. It will salt the gaping social wounds created by MWA's recent actions. It degrades the Wilderness Act of 1964 with provisions that damage both Wilderness and the Wilderness Idea. And it's a bad deal for future generations of Montanans who will need wild country more than ever in an increasingly crowded and uncertain future.
Lou Bruno (past president) - East Glacier
Joan Montagne (past president) - Bozeman
Elaine Snyder (past president) - Kalispell
Loren Kreck (past vice-president) - Columbia Falls
Larry Campbell - Darby
Susan Colvin - Great Falls
Paul Edwards - Helena
Randall Gloege - Billings
Keith Hammer - Kalispell
Steve Kelly - Bozeman
Lance Olsen - Missoula
Bob Oset - Hamilton
Paul Richards - Boulder
Ross Titus - Big Fork
George Wuerthner - Helena/Livingston
Janet Zimmerman - Pony
Note: The following perspective is from Bill Worf. Mr. Worf was born in 1926 on a homestead in Eastern Montana and grew up on a ranch through the Great Depression. When World War II came along, Worf left high school to join the Marines. He fought in the battle of Iwo Jima.
Worf joined the Forest Service in 1950 and spent 12 years in Utah on the Uinta, Ashley and Fishlake National Forests. Mr. Worf then became the Supervisor of the Bridger National Forest in Wyoming. When the Wilderness Act passed in 1964, Worf was sent to the Forest Service National Office to head the development of Regulations and Policy for implementation of the Wilderness Act. In 1969, he was assigned to the Regional Office in Missoula as Director for Wilderness, Recreation and Lands, a position he retired from in 1981. He lives in Missoula. Click here for a short video featuring Worf. - mk
-------------------------
Gutting the Forest Service is not the Solution By Bill Worf
I am a Montana native who graduated with a degree in Forestry from the University of Montana in 1950, when I started a career in the U.S. Forest Service. When the Wilderness Act passed in 1964, I was serving as Supervisor of the Bridger National Forest in Wyoming.
Forest Service Chief Ed Cliff and Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman immediately tapped me to serve in the National Office to oversee implementation of the Wilderness Act. I moved from Wyoming to Washington DC to administer the National Wilderness Preservation System established by the Act. I served in that position until 1969, when I was appointed Deputy Regional Forester for Wilderness, Recreation and Lands in Missoula, Mt.
Although I retired in 1983, I have remained involved in National Forest issues. In this capacity, I have strong feelings about the Jobs and Recreation Bill (S 1470) introduced by Senator John Tester. I share the Senator's concern about growing fire and insect problems in our National Forests. The Senator's heart may be in the right place, but his proposed solution would result in severe long-term damage to the Forest Service as an institution.
The Forest Service is one of the most respected agencies in government. It contains the finest collection of natural resource professionals in the world. I spent my professional career as a proud member.
With his logging bill, Tester is saying he knows more about how forests ought to be managed than professionals who work for the Forest Service. Tester is telling us what to do and how to do it, even though what Tester wants may violate federal laws. If Tester gets away with dictating forest management in Montana, every Senator and every Representative in Congress will try to do the same. Instead of being managed by one professional agency that considers all the views of public stakeholders from throughout the country, our National Forests would be managed by local interests primarily geared towards resource extraction.
By effectively dissolving the Forest Service, Tester would create 535 fiefdoms, all with different management mandates dictated by different members of Congress. This would take away Americans' rights concerning our public lands.
What Tester may not know is that the National Forest System was established in 1897 by Congress. Congress also established the Forest Service to administer these National Forests for the benefit of all Americans of present and future generations. Subsequent laws provided additional guidance, including the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the National Forest and Range Land Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976. Congress passed these laws to ensure our National Forests are administered in a planned and sustainable way - in perpetuity.
Because Tester is a Hi-Line farmer, I figured he may not know much about Forest Service history. So, I attended an open house on Monday, October 26, 2009, concerning his logging bill. I shared with the senator that heavy corporate and political pressure had caused the violation of the 1960 Act mandating "Sustained Yield". This unwise overcutting of our National Forests resulted in the closure of mills in Montana and elsewhere.
I followed up my conversation with Tester by sending him a detailed letter on Thursday, November 12, 2009. I included a 20-page comprehensive analysis of Forest Service reports which clearly shows the failure to maintain a "Sustained Yield" throughout the National Forest System.
I strongly disagree with Tester that the answer to overcutting in the past is to overcut in the future. Congressionally mandating logging quotas and legislatively dictating management would convert our National Forest into "Private-Local Forests." This is directly contrary to 113 years of precedence. When Congress passed the Organic Act in 1897, lawmakers were assured that National Forests would remain open to the public and not restricted to private companies or privileged groups.
The Tester bill effectively says that a handful of local extractive interests have greater knowledge than the professionals of our Forest Service. This dangerous precedent would be viewed with glee by special interest groups of all kinds! For that reason, I must oppose the Tester bill.
Bill Worf served with the Forest Service for 33 years. Worf reports he has not yet received any reply to the detailed analysis he sent Tester on November 12, 2009.
Sources at the Department of Labor have confirmed that Roger Koopman, the arch-conservative leader and former legislator from Bozeman, has been notified by the Department of Labor that he is violating Federal Law. It appears that he could face criminal prosecution if he continues to defy multiple cease and desist orders.
Koopman's employment firm, Career Concepts, has been collecting massive fees, which sources say are as high as $1500 in some cases, from job applicants who are unemployed and have been answering job offers on the state jobs website. That is a federal crime. There will be more to come on this. I'll keep you posted.
Koopman has in recent times become the self-appointed Anti-Government/Tea Party/Far-Right Wing leader, even recruiting super-conservatives to challenge right-wing incumbents in republican primaries.
Now, Koopman could be finished in that role.
UPDATE: I fixed the link. You can view the letters here. To view the large file size, click "all sizes" at top of photo.
***UPDATE 2***: Here's the latest letter from this month, and the second page of that letter.
Interesting story in this morning's Missoulian about John Barrrett and Barrett Production's quest to lower airfares in-and-out of Missoula as an economic development bid. It's a great reminder that:
Markets occasionally get into trouble but that internal corrections are possible.
Some of the biggest barriers to growth and development in Montana probably have virtually nothing to do with government.
Identifying and creating opportunities for cost savings in travel budgets is just as important as identifying savings in taxes. In fact, it may be an improvement. While much of government spending (infrastructure, education, and emergency services come to mind) is actually helpful for business, a restructured travel system can be cheaper and equally effective for business.
There's a lot this state could do to strengthen the state's economy. But doing it means some serious conversations that look at all of these factors, as well as tax structures (not just overall revenue levels).
The champions of our miserable status quo have launched an offensive against financial reform with a whole new series of myths.
A new ad now airing in Montana tries to make a claim that proposed reforms of our nation's financial system amount to a "big bank bailout bill."
It's a deliriously cynical and misleading statement from the people who brought us the absurd cries of "death panels" and "socialized medicine."
The new myths from these old fear mongers are funded by a right-wing North Carolina organization -- the ironically named Committee for Truth in Politics -- and were scripted by Frank Luntz, an ultra-conservative stooge for Wall Street and the Big Banks.
Montanans and people throughout the nation are angry at Big Banks and Wall Street and the reckless business practices that have eviscerated our economy. But in the strange world of Luntz -- where everything is what it isn't and facts are meaningless -- the ads somehow wave the populist flag while railing against the very policies that will stabilize our financial system and rein in the Fat Cats.
The financial reforms before Congress would impose rules and consequences on the massive corporations that got us into our economic mess.
That's why big-bonus CEOs and the enemies of reform are launching such a hard and dirty fight against these changes.
It's time our laws protected Main Street, not Wall Street.
Are you aware that we're in the middle of the biggest economic crisis/recession that our country has seen in 70 years?
Are you aware, Senator Tester, that demand for lumber in America is down 55% and housing starts in America are down 70%? Do you know that because of the economic crisis, lumber mills in places like Main, North Carolina, New York, etc, - where nearly all the timberlands are privately owned - have also closed?
I ask these questions in all sincerity because your guest column here makes no mention of these profound economic realities facing the logging industry and our nation.
Rather, it seems obvious that in order to garner more support for your bill that you're willing to just blame the timber industry's tough times on national forest policy.
Doesn't this seem pretty disingenuous to you, especially considering the hard to ignore economic realities? I mean, seriously, how can you lament the timber industry's tough times with zero mention that lumber demand is down 55% and housing starts are down 70%? Are these not important factors?
Has anyone in your office figured out just how many jobs your logging bill will "create or save?" Seems like that figure should made public, especially if you are going around making these general/generic jobs claims.
Fact is, right now the Forest Service has more timber volume under contract in Montana and our region (300 million board feet) than at any point in the past decade.
That's right, while some people claim we need the FJRA because no logging is able to happen on Forest Service lands, the fact of the matter is that right now the logging industry has enough national forest timber volume under contract to fill 60,000 log trucks lined up end-to-end for 500 miles. All this national forest timber (already under contract to logging outfits) could be logged today or tomorrow or next week.
But with little demand for lumber, the logging companies aren't cutting much of what they already have under contract.
Given this reality Senator Tester, just how will mandating even more logging help? Please honestly answer these questions Senator Tester.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Matthew Koehler
WildWest Institute
Missoula, MT
Good news for Montana. The slightly-less-insane-than-declaring-corporations-to-be-people initiative put forward by United Property Owners of MontanaChuck Denowh is probably not headed for the ballot any more. Chuck Denowh says the complex issues deserves a legislative look before it heads to voters. That strikes me as politicese for "we ain't got no money or volunteers" or "turns out the damn thing doesn't poll that well."
For more details on how this initiative could have hosed the state to the tune of $5 billion, check out this blast from the past.
Jack Ward Thomas, chief emeritus of the U.S. Forest Service and Bitterroot Valley resident, had a guest column in today's Missoulian about Senator Tester's logging bill.
Specifically, Mr. Thomas, stated that the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act "approach is flawed, inappropriate, less than fully informed, and has implications for the management of the entire national forest system. It should be debated in that context."
Mr. Thomas clearly expresses many of the same exact concerns about Sen. Tester's bill that have been expressed for months by members of the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign.
At what point will Senator Tester, and supporters of his flawed logging bill, begin addressing these serious concerns?
Brian Schweitzer recently announced a contest to save money in Montana. They're asking for ideas to be submitted through the state website. I proposed providing rewards to agencies that come in under budget to get away from the use-it-or-lose-it mindset that current budget rules inspire (my understanding, possibly exaggerated). One of my coworkers proposed moving the state's email systems over to Google Apps, which seems to run far more efficiently and easily than the current Department of Admin setups.
Mike Jopek is proposing moving a lot of state money into local banks in order to free up capital for Montana small businesses. This is less of a savings idea and more of a combination of economic development/fuck you to Wall Street.
What else can the state do? What should they consider?
The Montana Budget and Policy Center, a fiscal think tank based in Helena, has a new report out looking at how to cut spending to maintain Montana's balanced budget. They conclude that the state currently needs to enact about $15 million in cuts. The Governor has prepared for as much as 3 times that.
MBPC has some other suggestions, including warnings that excessive cuts may cause negative ripple effects as well as some guidance as to where to target initial cuts.
This pdf document contains a sampling of the types of comments submitted to the US Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests regarding S1470, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, by members of the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign. These comments were officially entered into the record for the Subcommittee's Dec 17, 2009 hearing.
The Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign is a coalition of conservation organizations and citizens dedicated to wildlands protection, forest restoration and the sound long-term management of America's public lands legacy. Our coalition includes 4th and 5th generation Montanans, hikers and backpackers, hunters and anglers, wildlife viewers, outfitters and guides, veterans, retired Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management officials, small-business owners, scientists, educators, craftspersons, and community leaders.
Mike Dennison's got a report on the Montana Republicans' launch of their new legislative campaign. There's not much surprising here; it's the same, stale lines they've been doling out for years: Democrats are for higher taxes, Republicans lower. Democrats want to increase the size of government, Republicans decrease it. Democrats are the party of "environmental obstructionism," Republicans...the corporate whores? Or something.
Of course, the political reality doesn't support these allegations. Under Democratic leadership, the state has done fairly well compared with the rest of the country. The state has run budget surpluses under its Democratic governor and the state has had sound fiscal management. A good response should be to remind folks (especially some of our own) that Democrats and leftys believe, not in bigger government, but better government. That we want to build a party for the people, not the plutocrats.
And, yes, I'm aware that the present state of the Democratic party falls short of those ideals.
And then there was this:
Senate Majority Leader Jim Peterson, R-Buffalo, ripped into the Democratic-controlled Land Board, saying it "turned its back on responsible natural resource development" last month by voting to set overly high lease prices for state coal in eastern Montana's Otter Creek Valley.
"We're committed to developing our energy resources and putting Montanans back to work," he said.
Republicans will push against the Land Board, claiming they set the price too high on purpose to prevent the coal from being leased. After all, why not? They have a tendency to treat public land as corporate America's backyard, why not try to pressure the Land Board to essentially give away the state's coal tracts? It's good for teh childs! Well, not so much.
The Republicans are dutifully stepping up to play their part in the Otter Creek Kabuki. Man, don't you just hunger for someone, anyone in politics - Republican or Democrat - and just say this whole deal is bullsh*t, and have done with it?
What a joke that something called "health reform" could withhold affordable medical care from patients. Abortion is a safe, legal procedure that one in three women has before age 40. I feel totally sold out.
What exactly did Congress do to your rights? It's not good.
Senate Version:
Creates major administrative burdens for people with health plans and stigmatizes abortion care. You wouldn't get the abortion coverage that you currently already have, unless you wrote a separate check for the portion of the premium related to that coverage. But it also would open a new front in the legislative fight over abortion, allowing states to pass laws barring insurers from including abortion coverage in policies for individuals and small businesses. The result could be a significant setback for abortion rights in states where social conservatives dominate the legislature. It could happen in Montana. It's happened before.
Why let states ban abortion coverage just for women not lucky enough to work for an employer who provides it? That doesn't make sense. It harms those folks who don't make a lot of money the most. Thanks a lot Ben Nelson.
83 U.S. Senators are men. If all the women who had ever served in the Senate since 1789 were still there we'd still only have 38.
House version:
The house version includes a total ban on abortion coverage in what's known as the "exchange." This would make abortion coverage unavailable, as in illegal, for millions of women who already have it. And it would prohibit people who receive "affordability credits" under the House health care bill from using those credits to purchase a policy with abortion coverage.
This amendment would inflict special punishment on those who are ready to become mothers but whose pregnancies are making their medical conditions worse. A lot of damage can be done before a woman reaches the life-threatening stage when the Stupak amendment would relent and allow payment for abortion.
Because of their health problems, these women must have their abortions in the hospital, racking up thousands of dollars in bills that destroy their families' finances. The Stupak-Pitts amendment would even prohibit an insurance company in the exchange from covering a patient's abortion if her health is in danger or if the fetus is malformed. You can read more here.
In the House, 441 members of Congress are male (83%) and 92 are female (17%).
