• MSN
  • Hotmail
  • More
    • Autos
    • My MSN
    • Video
    • Careers & Jobs
    • Personals
    • Weather
    • Delish
    • Quotes
    • White Pages
    • Games
    • Real Estate
    • Wonderwall
    • Horoscopes
    • Shopping
    • Yellow Pages
    • Local Edition
    • Traffic
    • Feedback
    • Maps & Directions
    • Travel
    • Full MSN Index
  • Bing
  • NBCNews.com
  • TODAY
  • Nightly News
  • Rock Center
  • Meet the Press
  • Dateline
  • msnbc
  • Breaking News
  • Newsvine
  • Home
  • US
  • World
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Sports
  • Entertainment
  • Health
  • Tech
  • Science
  • Travel
  • Local
  • Weather
Advertise | AdChoices
  • Recommended: Chaos and courage as tornado wrecks elementary schools
  • Recommended: More storms on the way, tornadoes possible across swath of US
  • Recommended: More rough weather blanketed country on Tuesday
  • Recommended: Search and rescue winds down a day after deadly Oklahoma tornado

NBC News reporters bring you compelling stories from across the nation. For more US news, follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

  • ↓ About this blog
  • ↓ Archives
    • Icons Email E-mail updates
    • Icons Twitter Follow on Twitter
    • Icons Feed Subscribe to RSS
  • Updated
    25
    Mar
    2013
    1:25pm, EDT

    Chief justice's lesbian cousin will attend landmark gay-marriage argument

    NBC's Pete Williams joins The Daily Rundown for a preview of the upcoming legal battle over same-sex marriages.

    By Erin McClam, Staff Writer, NBC News

    A lesbian cousin of Chief Justice John Roberts will attend the landmark Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage and says she is confident he will see that gays deserve “dignity, respect, and equality under the law.”


    Follow @NBCNewsUS

    Jean Podrasky told the Los Angeles Times that she will sit in a section of the courtroom reserved for relatives and guests of the chief justice. She said that her partner of four years, Grace Fasano, whom she wants to marry, will attend with her.

    Podrasky, an accountant who the Times said is a first cousin of the chief justice on his mother’s side, wrote about Roberts in a column Monday for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

    “I feel confident that John is wise enough to see that society is becoming more accepting of the humanity of same-sex couples and the simple truth that we deserve to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality under the law,” she wrote.

    The court is hearing two gay-rights cases this week. On Tuesday, it will consider Proposition 8, a ban on gay marriage approved by California voters in 2008. Podrasky lives in San Francisco.

    On Wednesday, the court will take up the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which blocks federal recognition of gay marriages sanctioned by states and prevents legally married gay couples from receiving certain federal benefits.

    Roberts was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005. He generally sides with the court’s conservative wing, but last year he sided with liberals on the court in upholding President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

    Podrasky told the newspaper that she usually sees the chief justice only on family occasions and that he knows she is gay. She hopes he will meet her partner during their visit to Washington.

    Supreme Court justices can give tickets to family and other guests. The seats are to the justices’ left as they face the courtroom.

    Podrasky told the newspaper that she got the coveted courtroom seats by emailing Roberts’ sister, then going through his secretary. She said Roberts knows she is attending.

    In the weeks before the 2008 election, Podrasky carried a sign opposing Proposition 8 at a transit station and handed out fliers on a college campus, the Times reported.

    In her column, she wrote that she believes Roberts understands that ruling for gay marriage will not be “out of step with where the majority of Americans now sit,” and hopes that most of the other justices will join him.

    “I am certain that I am not the only relative that will be directly affected by their rulings,” she wrote.

    Pete Williams of NBC News contributed to this report.

    Related:

    Same-sex couple wins $100,000 dream wedding

    Gay marriage's big day in court: What's at stake?

    Timeline: Key dates in the struggle for gay rights

    This story was originally published on Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:08 AM EDT

    835 comments

    Let the debates begin! Hope it stays clean but I doubt it. Especially on this forum. Personally hope lesbian couples have the same rights given to all married couples.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: gay-marriage, supreme-court, john-roberts, updated, proposition-8
  • 28
    Jun
    2012
    5:18pm, EDT

    Health care ruling could leave poorest Americans at greatest risk

    Former Medicaid and Medicare director Donald Berwick says few states were likely to reject the Medicaid funds despite the court's decision.

    By M. Alex Johnson, msnbc.com

    Updated at 7:04 p.m. ET: Now that the Supreme Court has upheld President Barack Obama's health care initiative, will Congress have to rewrite it from scratch?

    M. Alex Johnson M. Alex Johnson is a reporter for msnbc.com. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

    It's not a paradoxical question. The court signed off on nearly all of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but it struck down one provision, and in doing so — whether it knew it or not — it may have put the poorest Americans at the greatest risk of being left without any health insurance.

    Chief Justice John Roberts said as part of the 5-4 decision that states can't be penalized for refusing to join the law's expansion of Medicaid eligibility. Health law experts said that had the practical effect of flipping an all but mandatory program into one a state can choose not to join.


    Here's the problem: The ACA creates state health insurance "exchanges," providing tax credits to eligible residents to buy affordable, state-certified health insurance. But the poorest Americans aren't in that eligible pool, because the law assumes they'll be covered by the expansion of Medicaid, which is no longer a given. 

    In states that reject the expansion, poor residents could be left without either form of coverage — as many as 15 million if all 50 states opt out, a circumstance that former Medicaid director Donald Berwick said was highly unlikely.

    The White House didn't address the issue in a long Q&A it issued on the court's decision. The statement touted every provision of the act but one: Medicaid expansion.

    Medicaid currently covers only some low-income people, primarily parents with children, pregnant women, people with severe disabilities and senior citizens. Adults without disabilities or children, in other words, aren't generally covered. That's the group the Medicaid expansion was supposed to help the most.

    Supreme Court upholds health care mandate

    Obama calls ruling victory for US; Romney vows to repeal

    After the ruling: Lots left to do on health reform

    Full ruling from the court

    If their states opt out, young working adults below the poverty line could be in a Catch-22, because "they may not get Medicaid, and they may not be eligible to purchase insurance through the exchange," said Christina S. Ho of the Rutgers University School of Law, who was a member of President Bill Clinton's Domestic Policy Council. 

    It works this way:

    The insurance tax credits are targeted at people with incomes between 100 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Congress sought to compel the states to cover everyone under the line through Medicaid.


    Follow @msnbc_us

    The federal government promised to fully cover all expenses for the expanded coverage before eventually pulling back to cover 90 percent after a few years. The states would have to pick up the extra 10 percent eventually.

    States aren't required to take part, but if they don't, the law as enacted would have turned off the flow of all Medicaid funding from Washington. 

    That enforcement mechanism is what the court invalidated Thursday, meaning there's no penalty for a state that says, "Thanks, but no thanks."

    Twitter reactions to the ruling

    Because states haven't had time to consider yet whether they will opt in or out. it's difficult to say how many people could be affected. 

    But about half of the nearly 50 million uninsured Americans have incomes below the new eligibility thresholds, according to the latest report, in October, from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. And about 6 in 10 of them are adults without dependent children — the primary beneficiaries of the program's expansion.

    If you do the math, roughly 15 million Americans could be in the newly created gray area. In 2010, when the act was passed, the Commonwealth Fund, an independent health care policy foundation, similarly calculated that the Medicaid expansion would benefit 12 million of the 15 million uninsured Americans under the poverty line. 

    Donald Berwick, former head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which administers the two programs, said few states were likely to take that risk.

    "Those people are still living in your state, They're still poor. They're going to come to your emergency room. They're going to be operated on, and they're going to have diseases that get worse, and you're going to have to pay for that. That will come from the state — free care pools and charity in the state," Berwick said in an interview on MSNBC-TV. 

    "I think what's going to happen is the states are going to be under pressure from providers of care who say: 'Why are you leaving this money on the table? Let's join in with the federal dollars.'"

    But Judy Solomon, vice president for health policy at the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, agreed with Ho that the decision means low-income adults could lose the promise of Medicaid coverage "even while people with somewhat higher incomes will be eligible for premium tax credits." 

    Writing on the center's policy blog, Solomon said: "The poorest adults — primarily parents and other adults working for low wages — will be left out in the cold."

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    • Stolen Valor Act struck down
    • Miss.'s only abortion clinic sues over new law that could shut it down
    • Brother of lesbian teen shot in head: She's 'fighting'
    • Lying about military service? These bloggers have you in their sights
    • Army veteran campaigns to adopt Diego the bomb-sniffing dog
    • Video: Teacher who slammed student in blog is fired

    Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

     

    540 comments

    Here's an idea. If the States all opt out, these poorest folks can all move to Washington DC and get on Medicaid there. What a joke.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: scotus, health-care, supreme-court, medicaid, john-roberts, featured, m-alex-johnson, katherine-hayes
  • 28
    Jun
    2012
    2:55pm, EDT

    Medicaid ruling upholds 'carrot,' overturns 'stick'; will states sign on anyway?

    Virginia Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell said that even at 90 percent federal funding, the Medicaid expansion would be a "crushing" burden on many states.

    By M. Alex Johnson, msnbc.com

    Updated at 3:20 p.m. ET: While it upheld most of President Barack Obama's health care reform program Thursday, the Supreme Court took away the stick the White House had hoped to use to force states to expand Medicaid coverage for millions of poor Americans.

    M. Alex Johnson M. Alex Johnson is a reporter for msnbc.com. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

    The court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, said states can't be penalized for refusing to join the Medicaid expansion by losing all of their federal Medicaid funds. That leaves cash-poor states in the position of deciding during an election year whether the benefits of the expansion outweigh the potential downsides — both financial and political.


    First, some background. Medicaid currently covers many families that are at or below about 63 percent of the poverty line, with some categories — such as children under age 6 — covered up to 133 percent. But most states don't cover lower-income adults.

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act sought to compel states to expand coverage to nearly everyone up to the 133 percent threshold — income of about $30,000 a year for a family of four — which would add about 17 million people to the Medicaid rolls.

    The carrot was the federal government's promise to cover all of the states' Medicaid expenses for the new enrollees through 2016, gradually dropping to 90 percent by 2019. The stick was that states that refused to sign on would lose all of their federal Medicaid funding.

    Christina S. Ho of the Rutgers University School of Law told msnbc.com that the decision could leave the poorest residents of states that decline the money in a particularly vulnerable situation.

    Another provision of the law the so-called state health insurance exchanges, extends subsidies to people between 100 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line to buy coverage. But if you're below the poverty line, you're not eligible — because the law assumes you'll get the new Medicaid benefit.

    So if a state rejects the expansion of Medicaid, "there are some people that may not be able to get coverage at all," said Ho, who was a member of President Bill Clinton's Domestic Policy Council. "They may not get Medicaid, and they may not be eligible to purchase insurance through the exchange."

    States charge plan was blackmail
    Twenty-six states filed a petition with the court arguing that the provision was unconstitutional, saying it amounted to blackmail: Either they accept the added funding for a few years, with its increased burden on state coffers in later years, or they lose all of their billions of dollars of federal Medicaid distributions.

    That would be a crippling financial blow, because states can't opt out of Medicaid itself. Currently they pay about 40 percent of those expenses; without any federal funding, they would have to come up with the remaining 60 percent themselves.

    Supreme Court upholds health care mandate

    Obama calls ruling victory for US; Romney vows to repeal

    Full ruling from the court

    Roberts upheld the constitutionality of the expansion itself, in essence saying the carrot was fine but the stick was illegal.

    "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the Affordable Care Act to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that States accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use," he wrote. "What Congress is not free to do is to penalize states that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding." 

    Twitter reactions to the ruling

    "The states claim that this threat serves no purpose other than to force unwilling states to sign up for the dramatic expansion in the health care coverage effected by the act," he added. "Given the nature of the threat and the programs at issue here, we must agree.”

    While it might be fair to say the ruling turned a virtually mandatory program into a voluntary one, few if any states are likely to reject the increased coverage for so many more of their residents, said Katherine Hayes, a lawyer who is an associate research professor for the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services.


    Follow @msnbc_us

    "I think, to the extent that they do, it will be largely for political reasons rather than financial or policy reasons," Hayes told msnbc.com. In an election year, it might be useful for some conservative lawmakers "to say you oppose quote-unquote Obamacare," she said.

    Jay Bhattacharya, a physician and economist at the Stanford University Center for Health Policy, disagreed, saying some state budgets are so stretched that state officials might "consider this option since they will ultimately be on the hook for financing at least a portion of this expansion."

    "If enough states decide to deny the Medicaid expansion, this may substantially reduce the ability of ACA to expand insurance coverage," Bhattacharya wrote on the center's health policy blog.

    Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell predicted that would happen, saying that once the federal contribution begins dropping, states will still be left with a large "unfunded mandate" — $2.2 billion over 10 years in his state, he said.

    "We've already had Medicaid grow from 5 percent to 21 percent of our budget in the last 30 years, and for every governor, these mandates are crushing expenditures to endure," McDonnell, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, said in an interview on MSNBC-TV. "So this is a real hardship."

    But Hayes said that in practical terms, the incentives for states to sign on are too big to turn down: They can provide hundreds of thousands of residents with health care coverage at no cost for a few years, and even in the outlying years (when the federal government will pick up only 90 percent of the bill), they can work on strategies to mitigate the reduction, such as seeking waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services.

    "I don't know what more the federal government or (Health and Human Services) could do" to bring reluctant states on board, she said.

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    • Stolen Valor Act struck down
    • 7-year-old girl, Heaven, shot dead in Chicago
    • Lying about military service? These bloggers have you in their sights
    • Army veteran campaigns to adopt Diego the bomb-sniffing dog
    • Video: Teacher who slammed student in blog is fired
    • Forecasters warn of 'life-threatening' heat across much of US

    Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

    165 comments

    "We've already had Medicaid grow from 5 percent to 21 percent of our budget in the last 30 years, and for every governor, these mandates are crushing expenditures to endure," McDonnell, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, said in an interview on MSNBC-TV. "So this is a real hardship."  …

    Show more
    Explore related topics: scotus, health-care, supreme-court, medicaid, john-roberts, featured, m-alex-johnson, katherine-hayes
  • 27
    Jun
    2012
    2:14pm, EDT

    After health care ruling, what happens to the money?

    With the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act expected Thursday, NBC's Tom Costello explains the benefits of the law and the costs to small business to insure their employees.

    By M. Alex Johnson, msnbc.com

    Doctors, patients, politicians and legal scholars are eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's decision on President Barack Obama's health care program on Thursday. But there's one group that is really on pins and needles: accountants and other number crunchers.

    Brian Mooar of NBC News contributed to this report by M. Alex Johnson of msnbc.com. Follow M. Alex Johnson on Twitter and Facebook.

    If the court overturns the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, they're the ones who'll have to figure out what's going to happen to the $1 billion the federal government has already handed out to states and territories to establish state-regulated health care plans to help find public or private insurance for Americans eligible for federal subsidies.


    The court has three main options — it can uphold the entire law, strike down the entire law or strike down parts of it.

    Insurance exchange grants

    The federal government has already disbursed more than $1 billion to all but one state and three territories to start setting up health insurance exchanges:

    Alabama: $9,709,451
    Alaska: Did not apply
    Arizona: $30,877,097
    Arkansas: $8,866,411
    California: $40,421,383
    Colorado: $19,198,599
    Connecticut: $7,684,783
    Delaware: $4,400,096
    D.C.: $9,200,716
    * Florida: $1,000,000
    * Georgia: $1,000,000
    Hawaii: $15,440,144
    Idaho: $21,376,556
    Illinois: $38,917,831
    Indiana: $7,895,126
    Iowa: $8,753,662
    * Kansas: $1,000,000
    Kentucky: $66,567,613
    * Louisiana: $998,416
    Maine: $6,877,676
    Maryland: $34,413,430
    Massachusetts: $21,539,967
    Michigan: $10,849,077
    Minnesota: $27,148,929
    Mississippi: $21,143,618
    Missouri: $21,865,716
    * Montana: $1,000,000
    Nebraska: $6,481,838
    Nevada: $24,738,273
    * New Hampshire: $1,000,000
    New Jersey: $8,897,316
    New Mexico: $35,279,483
    New York: $87,681,149
    North Carolina: $13,396,019
    * North Dakota: $1,000,000
    * Ohio: $1,000,000
    * Oklahoma: $1,000,000
    Oregon: $16,652,301
    Pennsylvania: $34,832,212
    Rhode Island: $64,756,539
    * South Carolina: $1,000,000
    South Dakota: $6,879,569
    Tennessee: $9,110,165
    * Texas: $1,000,000
    * Utah: $1,000,000
    Vermont: $19,090,369
    * Virginia: $1,000,000
    Washington: $151,791,012
    West Virginia: $10,667,694
    Wisconsin: $38,757,139
    * Wyoming: $800,000
    American Samoa: $1,000,000
    Federated States of Micronesia: Did not apply
    Guam: $1,000,000
    Marshall Islands: Did not apply
    Northern Mariana Islands: Did not apply
    Palau: Did not apply
    Puerto Rico: $917,205
    U.S. Virgin Islands: $1,000,000
    Multistate Grant
    University of Massachusetts Medical School: $35,591,333

    Total: $1,015,465,913

    * Planning grant only

    Source: Msnbc.com research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

    Some justices appeared to signal during arguments in March that they were skeptical of the law, especially the so-called individual mandate, the provision requiring people to buy insurance or pay a fine. Because of the mandate, the Obama administration insisted on provisions directing the states to set up the insurance plans, called health insurance exchanges, to find discounted coverage for uninsured or hard-to-insure people.

    Among them was Chief Justice John Roberts, who questioned whether the government can compel people to buy any product.

    "Can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services?" he asked.

    Justice Antonin Scalia drew a similar analogy.

    "Everybody has to buy food sooner or later. So you define the market as food, therefore everybody is in the market," he said during the March arguments. "Therefore, you can make people buy broccoli."

    Conservative justices expressed skepticism about the health care law during Supreme Court arguments. NBC News' Brian Mooar reports.

    What's worrying for supporters of the law is that it appears likely that Roberts will personally craft the ruling, said Tom Goldstein, the publisher of SCOTUSblog— SCOTUS is shorthand for Supreme Court of the United States.

    "John Roberts hasn't done anything, really, in major cases in March and April, at the end of the term, which means it's very likely that he assigned that decision to himself," Goldstein told NBC News.

    If that part of the law is upheld, the insurance plans must be in operation by 2014. But what if it isn't?

    No one really knows.

    That includes the White House, which has consistently said it expects the law to be upheld and is moving ahead accordingly.

    "Once that decision is rendered, we will make decisions about what to say about it," press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday.


    Follow @msnbc_us

    If the law is overturned, there's nothing to stop the federal government from trying to recoup the money it has already distributed for the exchanges — a total of $1.015 billion to 49 states and a multistate planning project, according to an msnbc.com analysis of state disbursement figures provided by the Department of Health and Human Services.

    "If the whole thing really is unconstitutional, that has to mean that it is illegal to spend the money that way under current law," Joseph Antos, a health care analyst with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington policy institute, told Kaiser Health News.

    Kaiser adds:

    Retrieving unspent funds might be possible, but collecting money that's already been spent could prove problematic, especially for cash-strapped states still dealing with a weak economy.

    "My sense would be they would not recover the money. How do you recover the money? If it's spent, what do you do?" said Steven Lieberman, the president of Lieberman Consulting Inc. and the former deputy executive director for policy at the National Governors Association.

    Nor is it clear what the states would do. Nineteen states have put their plans on hold pending the Supreme Court ruling, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities(.pdf), but others — among them New York, Massachusetts and California — have signaled that they'll try to implement exchanges anyway.

    Another is Utah, where 30 percent of the people getting insurance under the exchange are doing so for the first time, said Patty Conner, director of the insurance exchange in Utah.

    That makes the plan "a good value to the state," Conner said, as reported by the Deseret News of Salt Lake City.

    And private insurers have indicated that they'll also go ahead with some of the law's provisions if it's struck down.

    Three of the nation's largest carriers — United Healthcare, Aetna and Humana — said this month that they would continue to let parents keep their children on their policies up to age 26, one of the most popular provisions of the entire plan, and would continue offering preventive services without copayments.

    United Healthcare and Humana (but not Aetna) also promised not to reinstate lifetime limits on coverage or cancel policies retroactively, two other provisions widely welcomed by analysts and patients' advocates.

    Even so, the picture is complicated by the fact that there's nothing to stop lawmakers from trying again to reform the health-care system if the law falls.

    "If this goes away, we still have to start dealing with the problem," Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., a member of the Ways and Means Committee, said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    • In Montana, small changes spur nation's biggest jump in college graduates
    • Company accused of deception turns GIBill.com over to Veterans Affairs
    • Texas Rangers investigate shooting of teen lesbian couple
    • Report: Stowaways in container on ship in New Jersey port
    • Chicago police to partner with anti-violence group CeaseFire to curb shootings
    • Video: Home from jail, alleged ‘soccer mom madam’ speaks

    Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

    536 comments

    State government shouldn't spend money given to them for programs unless they programs are ready to go. You don't buy a car unless you plan on driving. Make them give it all back. Eph Maobama and his political bullcrap tactics.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: scotus, health-care, supreme-court, barack-obama, john-roberts, antonin-scalia, featured, individual-mandate, m-alex-johnson

Browse

  • featured,
  • crime,
  • military,
  • weather,
  • california,
  • updated,
  • florida,
  • environment,
  • us-news,
  • new-york,
  • shooting,
  • texas,
  • education,
  • chicago,
  • police,
  • gulf-oil-spill,
  • kari-huus,
  • nbcnewyork,
  • los-angeles,
  • murder,
  • new-jersey,
  • guns,
  • obama,
  • afghanistan,
  • colorado,
  • sandy,
  • nbclosangeles,
  • trayvon-martin,
  • barack-obama,
  • crime-and-courts,
  • politics,
  • gay,
  • veterans,
  • connecticut,
  • fire,
  • arizona,
  • crime-courts,
  • religion,
  • boston-marathon-tragedy
Also
Advertise | AdChoices

Erin McClam, Staff Writer, NBC News

Archives

  • 2013
    • May (322)
    • April (608)
    • March (548)
    • February (510)
    • January (563)
  • 2012
    • December (457)
    • November (460)
    • October (477)
    • September (432)
    • August (525)
    • July (519)
    • June (508)
    • May (566)
    • April (538)
    • March (576)
    • February (471)
    • January (417)
  • 2011
    • December (455)
    • November (190)
    • October (9)
    • September (3)
    • August (51)
    • July (8)
    • June (3)
    • May (12)
    • April (5)
    • March (3)
    • February (1)
    • January (8)
  • 2010
    • December (5)
    • November (1)
    • October (2)
    • September (28)
    • August (40)
    • July (35)
    • June (177)
    • May (50)
    • April (9)
    • March (2)
    • February (2)
    • January (4)
  • 2009
    • December (5)
    • November (5)
    • October (2)
    • September (11)
    • August (4)
    • July (12)
    • June (1)
    • May (1)
    • April (1)
    • March (3)
    • February (3)
    • January (2)
  • 2008
    • December (3)
    • November (2)
    • October (6)
    • September (30)
    • August (26)
    • July (10)
    • June (4)
    • May (8)
    • April (13)
    • March (9)
    • February (7)
    • January (6)
  • 2007
    • December (10)
    • November (6)
    • October (22)
    • September (11)

Most Commented

  • Obama calls IRS flap 'inexcusable,' announces resignation of acting IRS chief (3714)
  • Benghazi, IRS, AP: A guide to the 3 storms confronting the White House (2544)
  • Majority of Colorado sheriffs file suit against new gun laws (1949)
  • At least 51 killed, including 20 children, as tornado tears through Oklahoma (1805)
  • Judge blocks Arkansas' tough new abortion law (1879)
  • Search and rescue winds down a day after deadly Oklahoma tornado (1569)
  • AP CEO calls records seizure unconstitutional (1002)

Other blogs

  • The Body Odd
  • Cosmic Log
  • Red Tape Chronicles
  • PhotoBlog
  • Open Channel

NBCNews.com top stories

3147,10
© 2013 NBCNews.com
  • US news on NBCNews.com
  • About us
  • Contact
  • Help
  • Site map
  • Careers
  • Closed captioning
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy policy
  • Advertise