From barackobama.com:

As part of the Affordable Care Act, starting August 1st, many insurance plans will be required to fully cover contraception without co-pays or deductibles as part of women's preventive care. This step will help more women to make health care decisions based on what's best for them—not their insurance company—and could save them hundreds of dollars every year.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius announced that certain religious organizations, including churches, will be exempt from paying their insurers to cover contraception.

Here's a look at how the new contraception policy will affect women and religious institutions.

• More than half of all Americans already live in the 28 states that require insurance companies to cover contraception.

• Most women—including 98 percent of Catholic women—who have had sex have used contraception, according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute.

• Some religiously-affiliated hospitals and universities already provide birth control coverage to their employees.

• A majority of Americans support including contraception coverage in health plans at no cost to women.

• Health care experts like the American Medical Association and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend contraception as a preventive service.

Protecting women's health

• Under the new provisions in the Affordable Care Act, women will have access to the care and family planning services they need without worrying about the cost.

• Women using contraception reduce their risk of developing ovarian and endometrial cancers to about half the rate of the rest of the population.

Religious employers

• Churches and other houses of worship are exempt from the new law.

• Other non-profit organizations, like religiously affiliated hospitals and universities that employ or serve people regardless of their faiths may qualify for a one-year transition period to prepare for the new law.

Protecting individual religious beliefs

• No individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception.

• No one will be forced to buy or use contraception.

• Drugs such as RU-486 that cause abortion are not covered by this policy. The President remains committed to maintaining strict limits on federal funding for abortions.

Reducing costs

• While the monthly cost of contraception for women ranges between $30 and $50, insurers and experts agree that the savings would more than offset the costs.

• It will also save employers money. The National Business Group on Health estimated that employers would pay 15 to 17 percent more not to provide coverage than they would to provide it.

Let us know how the new policy will impact your life.

This morning, we got some very encouraging news about our economy. For the 23rd consecutive month, the number of new American jobs has continued to grow. January saw an additional 257,000 private-sector jobs, bringing us to nearly 3.7 million cumulative private-sector jobs under this administration.

This is really positive news, and it's a sign that the job-creation policies that President Obama and Democrats in Congress have fought for and implemented—despite near-universal Republican obstruction—are working. But the reality is that the hard work of rebuilding our economy is far from over. We need to continue to stand behind our President and congressional Democrats to build an economy that lasts—and to ensure every American looking for a job can find one.

To learn more about today's jobs numbers, check out this page on barackobama.com.

"The Lord will make a way somehow." As we celebrate Black History Month, the words of this old hymn keep me encouraged and focused on re-electing President Obama. I was an early supporter of then-Sen. Obama because I knew that he “got it,” and I have remained steadfast. 

In 1991, I was furloughed by my employer (later the company went bankrupt). As a part of the furlough benefit package, I was told that I could use COBRA to keep my health insurance. The COBRA coverage for my son and me would cost approximately $300 a month; I would receive a modest amount of severance pay; and I would be eligible to receive approximately $149 a week in unemployment benefits. But with a mortgage, a car payment, and other expenses, I could not afford the COBRA coverage. My ex-husband put my son on his insurance, but I went without health insurance for approximately two years. 

It got so bad that my house was scheduled for foreclosure. I was able to get forbearance on my mortgage, and eventually it was reamortized. During that time, I diligently searched for work and was able to receive extended unemployment benefits while I went to school at night. I prayed that I would not get sick. When I finally secured a job, I was able to use the Earned Income Tax Credit to keep more of my earnings. The Lord did make a way for me during those two years; somehow, I made it through. I went on to law school and now have my own law practice and pay for my health insurance.

When I first heard Sen. Obama talk about health care, I knew that I had to help him. The major issue during the 2008 campaign was health insurance, but by 2009, the economy had collapsed. I am very proud that in spite of the horrible condition that the country was in, President Obama did not abandon the working poor men and women, who like me, were simply trying to make it. The President understood that health insurance is a safety net for families. He continued to demonstrate his commitment to the less fortunate when he fought to extend unemployment benefit payments. I know the difference that extension made for the families of the 7 million people that were out of work, especially women.

Many times during periods of crisis, the needs of women and children are forgotten, but President Obama did not forget us. There are still women anxiously praying that they will be able to hold on until they can get health insurance. There are working women, who may have pre-existing conditions such as high blood pressure or diabetes and are not on medication. They are waiting for insurance. Throughout 2012, I will be working to re-elect President Obama because these women cannot afford to be left behind. 

During his second term, President Obama will be able continue moving our country in the right direction and make health insurance a reality for the working poor. The Affordable Care Act will reduce persistent health disparities that have plagued African American communities that lack access to health care. The people that want to repeal the Affordable Care Act have no concern for the working women and men that need health insurance, nor do they care how chronic illness affects our community. President Obama does.  

The President’s opponents like to deride the Affordable Care Act by calling it “Obamacare.” But I believe those words actually express the reality behind the legislation—Obama cares. Passing the health care bill was tough, but its passage brought new meaning to the words “the Lord will make a way somehow.”

To get the facts about the President’s health care law, click here.

As Mitt Romney campaigns in Nevada, a state hit hard by the housing crisis, he has yet to offer a single proposal to lend a hand to America’s struggling homeowners, make it easier for them to refinance their homes, or help them avoid foreclosure. Or, as Rep. Jan Schakowsky put it in a call slamming Romney's housing policies (or lack thereof) today: "He hasn’t offered any ideas to help these families recover their piece of the American dream and the dignity that comes with having a home to raise a family in."

Instead, he believes we should let the foreclosure process "run its course and hit the bottom." In other words, Romney would let homeowners lose their homes and let the banks make a quick buck from the wreckage of American middle-class families. And he had the gall to tell underwater Florida homeowners that the banks are "feeling the same thing" they are.

If you’re a homeowner in this country trying to make ends meet, Romney has four simple words for you: You’re on your own.

Banks, on the other hand…

Today in Las Vegas, Donald Trump added his name to a list of such esteemed luminaries as Christine O'Donnell, Robert Bork, Ann Coulter, and the Kansas secretary of state in endorsing Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination.

But like so many before him, Trump hasn't always been on Team Romney. Quite the opposite: Less than a year ago, Trump couldn't resist sharing his disdain for Romney with every news outlet he could get a hold of.

Just last April, Trump mocked Romney in the New York Post as someone who "walked away with some money from a very good company that he didn't create."

He told the Washington Post that Romney has a history of "eliminating jobs rather than creating them."

And Trump believed, he told the Deseret News, that Romney "doesn't have a chance at the Republican nomination."

So what changed? How did Trump go from publicly mocking Romney to deciding he was the candidate for him?

It seems they discovered a common hobby to bond over: Firing people.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, former Nevada Gov. Bob Miller, and former Sen. Richard Bryan welcomed Mitt Romney to Nevada with an op-ed in the Las Vegas Sun. On every issue important to Nevadans—jobs, housing, immigration, and Yucca Mountain—Romney is on the wrong side.

Romney is running on his business experience and job creation record—a point he has stressed in Nevada, a state in which unemployment is a major issue. But Romney doesn't want Nevadans to know that he made millions from buying companies, closing factories, firing workers, and sending jobs overseas. And during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, the state ranked 47th out of 50 in job creation. In contrast, President Obama has emphasized his commitment to job creation and laid out a blueprint for it in his State of the Union address.

The last time Romney visited Nevada, a state with one of the highest foreclosure rates in the nation, he told homeowners he would let the foreclosure process “hit the bottom”—a stance he reinforced earlier this week. Meanwhile, President Obama visited Nevada last year and proposed new ways to help struggling homeowners keep their homes. Yesterday President Obama unveiled his new housing plan, which will create new opportunities for responsible homeowners to refinance their mortgages and save $3,000 a year.

Immigration is also a critical issue in Nevada, a state with a high population of Hispanics. Romney has proudly accepted the endorsement of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who authored the extreme anti-immigration laws in Arizona Alabama. And although 91 percent of Hispanics support the DREAM Act—which provides a pathway to citizenship for those who came to America as children through no fault of their own—Romney called it a “handout” and promised to veto it if Congress passed it. In his State of the Union address, President Obama promised to sign the DREAM Act into law if it came across his desk.

Finally, Romney sought and received the endorsement of South Carolina's Tea Party governor, Nikki Haley, who said she supports Romney largely because he wants to revive the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. The project, which is strongly opposed by Nevadans and would have led to high-level nuclear waste to be dumped within Yucca Mountain, was canceled by President Obama.

The choice for Nevadans is clear, write Reid, Miller and Bryan: "If we follow the President’s bold blueprint and create an economy built to last, we will come back stronger than ever."

Having served for more than 11 years on active duty in our Navy with deployments to the Middle East, the Pacific Rim, the Mediterranean Sea and East Africa, I’m grateful for what I learned about the importance of strong sea power and in using smart power to exert global influence.  Though the military is just one element of national power, nothing compares to the ability to project power from a sovereign U.S. Navy vessel afloat in international waters without worrying about basing or overflight rights.

Under the leadership of President Obama, the Navy is rebuilding the fleet from 288 ships to 325 by the next decade.  For this and other reasons, it is clear to me that the President remains committed to a strong Navy and a strong national defense, despite a very challenging fiscal environment that forced difficult spending decisions. 

Though a capable military is necessary, strong national power begins at home.  The President’s track record includes needed investment in our aging infrastructure and the rescue of the American auto industry.  His vision moves us even further by doubling down on his commitment to American manufacturing, reducing our reliance on foreign oil through investment in clean energy, and investing in the most precious resource we have: American workers.

There’s one group of American workers that have already benefited from such investment and will continue to benefit under a second term: Veterans.  Starting in 2001, America increased the size of the military during a decade of conflict.  During that time, thousands of men and women joined our second-to-none, all-volunteer force – sometimes against the wishes of their mothers and fathers – and were sent to places like Iraq and Afghanistan, where they served honorably. 

A grateful nation would want to provide for their orderly transition into the civilian workforce, where their skills and dedication can be put to further use.  President Obama has done just that by signing the “Returning Heroes” and “Wounded Warriors” tax credits for businesses that hire unemployed veterans, by increasing veterans’ employment in the federal government, and by launching the Veteran’s Job Bank and other Labor Department initiatives.

In 2008 I was fired up and squarely behind a bold vision for the future outlined by then Sen. Obama.  While some criticize the President for not doing more during his first term, I admire his persistence and resilience in the face of adversity.  Despite the challenges and setbacks, he remains faithful to his values and committed to his vision.  Simply put, he exhibits exactly the qualities I admire in a leader and in a Commander-in-Chief.

If you see things the way I do, I hope you’ll join me in working as hard as possible in 2012 to ensure President Obama can continue to build on the progress he has made.

In an interview yesterday, Mitt Romney said, "I'm not concerned about the very poor." Romney's attempt to explain his comment was just as bad: "It’s not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor … My focus is on middle-income Americans … You can focus on the rich. That’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That’s not my focus."

Romney is focused on the middle class? That's laughable. Romney's economic plan, which has been called "a plan for the 1%," would be devastating to the middle class—while giving enormous tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. Mitt Romney paid a 13.9 percent tax rate in 2010-- about half of what most middle class Americans paid.  

Under Romney's proposed plan, his rate would be cut in half, but people who make less than $40,000 a year would see their taxes go up— some as much as 60%. Middle class families would see a cut of about $167 dollars, while those who earn more than $1 million would get tax cuts on average of nearly $146,000. 

And what about the safety net he refers to? Romney would slash it. His plan pays for his tax cuts for the wealthy through massive tax cuts to public services and social programs the middle class depends on. Romney has also said he would support policies that would end Medicare as we know it, and gut Social Security. 

So when Romney says he's not concerned about the very poor, but instead is focusing on the middle class, it's not just his insensitivity that is important, it's the fact that he's just not telling us the truth.