Even though President Obama signed into law the Food Safety Modernization Act — giving the Food and Drug Administration wider power to stop foodborne illness outbreaks before they start — the number of Americans who become sick or die because of contaminated food has increased 44 percent over the last two years, according to a new report from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

This adds up to about 48 million people getting sick. But Republicans have threatened to defund the law that helps curb salmonella outbreaks. Meanwhile, the FDA remains unable to implement the reforms because of underfunding:

But while some parts of the law have been enacted, the vast majority of the law’s regulatory framework remains in limbo, sitting in the White House Office of Management and Budget, with no clear timetable for implementation.

“In February, the president’s budget requested $4.5 billion for the Food and Drug Administration. But budget proposals in both the Senate and the House fall below this target, coming in $600 (million)-$700 million below full funding, which the Office of Management and Budget has called ‘harmful’ to food safety regulations,” the Public Interest Research Group says. [...]

Instead of improving, the problem of foodborne outbreaks is getting worse, the report says.

“When comparing 2010 infection incidences with national health objective targets … the only incidence rate that meets the target goal was the incidence of infection with E. coli O157,” the report says. “The incidence of salmonella was three times the 2010 national health objective target, which is especially alarming, as salmonella causes the majority of hospitalizations and deaths from foodborne disease.”

The problem is not limited to U.S. food suppliers, and in its report, the Public Interest Research Group adds that the FDA can’t keep up with demand. About two-thirds of the fruits and vegetables that Americans eat come from foreign food suppliers, but the FDA only inspected 153 of the 189,000 registered foreign food facilities.

As the regulations to inspect food suppliers remain underfunded, the federal government has outsourced much of its food inspection to responsibilities to third-party companies that aren’t transparent, have no oversight, and have approved food that sickened thousands of people. Consequently, more Americans will continue to get sick from tainted foods like peanut butter, meat, and cantaloupe.

A Pennsylvania House bill seeks to limit the amount of TANF assistance that low-income women receive based on the amount of children they give birth to while covered under the program.

Despite the fact that low-income women who give birth to children would logically need increased assistance to care for their larger family, Pennsylvania lawmakers — State Reps. RoseMarie Swanger (R), Tom Caltagirone (D), Mark Gillen (R), Keith Gillespie (R), Adam Harris (R), and Mike Tobash (R) — don’t want their state’s welfare program to provide additional benefits for that newborn. If a woman gives birth to a child who was conceived from rape, she may seek an exception to this rule so that her welfare benefits aren’t slashed, but only if she can provide proof that she reported her sexual assault and her abuser’s identity to the police:

In determining the amount of assistance payments to a recipient family of benefits under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Program, the department shall revise the schedule of benefits to be paid to the recipient family by eliminating the increment in benefits under the program for which that family would otherwise be eligible as a result of the birth of a child conceived during the period in which the family is eligible for benefits under the TANF Program. [...]

Elimination of benefits under subsection (d) shall not apply to any child conceived as a result of rape or incest if the department: (1) receives a non-notarized, signed statement from the pregnant woman stating that she was a victim of rape or incest, as the case may be, and that she reported the crime, including the identity of the offender, if known, to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction or, in the case of incest where a pregnant minor is the victim, to the county child protective service agency and stating the name of the law enforcement agency or child protective service agency to which the report was made and the date such report was made.

The language of the bill goes on to note that a sexual assault victim applying for an exemption will be required to sign a statement affirming she understands that “false reports to law enforcement authorities are punishable by law,” and stipulates that Pennsylvania will report any “evidence of false statements or fraud” to the correct department, all the way up to the Attorney General’s office.

Aside from punishing women who have children — particularly low-income women who may not have reliable access to affordable contraception — the proposed bill perpetrates a dangerous attitude toward survivors of sexual assault. Forcing women to prove the legitimacy of their sexual assault, and warning them about the serious consequences of “crying rape” to cheat the system, puts forth the misguided assumption that victims of sexual violence are not to be believed. Furthermore, countless women choose not to report their rapists to the police because they fear repercussions from their abusers, who could threaten their lives. An estimated 54 percent of sexual assaults are not reported to the authorities.

This is not the first type of legislation of its kind. Last month, New Mexico proposed a bill that would have required women seeking childcare assistance to prove they were “forcibly raped,” although Gov. Susana Martinez (R) has requested to remove that language.

(HT: Donnie Johnson)

On Tuesday night, during a debate with challenger Joe Donnelly (D-IN), State Treasurer Richard Mourdock (R) said that women who had been raped should not have access to abortion services, explaining that pregnancies resulting from the violent act are a “gift from God.”

“The only exception I have for to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother,” Mourdock claimed. “I struggled with myself for a long time but I came to realize life is that gift from God, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape. It is something that God intended to happen. “

Sadly, Mourdock — who Mitt Romney endorsed just days ago — is one of a growing number of (mostly) male Republicans who are seeking to roll back women’s access to legal abortion services, particularly in cases of rape:

– REP. TODD AKIN (R-MO): “It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

– REP. STEVE KING (R-IA): In an interview with Iowa’s KMEG-TV, King denied ever hearing about anyone getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest, saying: “Well I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way, and I’d be open to discussion about that subject matter.”

– REP. ROSCOE BARTLETT (R-MD): At a town hall, Bartlett responded to a question about abortion by reiterating his longstanding opposition to the procedure in every case except for rape, incest, and if the life of the woman is in danger. But when an audience member pressed Bartlett on the rape exception, he suggested that few pregnancies result from rape.

– LINDA MCMAHON: the Connecticut senate hopeful told a local newspaper that Catholic hospitals should not be required to provide emergency contraception to victims of rape. “I mean it’s a separation of church and state in my view, and I think that a religious institution has the right to decide what its policies would be in that, in that case,” she claimed. She later reversed herself.

– TOM SMITH: the Republican challenging Sen. Bob Casey’s (D-PA) seat, suggested that having a child out of wedlock was analogous to rape during an interview with a reporter at a press club this afternoon, claiming that it would have a “similar” effect on a father.

– STATE REP. ROGER RIVARD (R-WI): the state lawmakers, who also won Paul Ryan’s backing, claimed that some girls “rape easy” and sometimes portray a sexual encounter as rape if they become pregnant.

– STATE REP. JIM BUCHY (R-OH): admitted that never thought about why a woman would want an abortion. After an Al Jazeera reporter asked Buchy why he thinks some women may want to have an abortion, he fumbled for an appropriate response before admitting he had never thought about that question before.

Indeed, the radical attitude about abortion — and particularly the dangerous move to narrow the definition of sexual assault and qualify the types of violent sexual crimes that are “legitimate” enough to warrant an abortion — extends throughout the Republican Party and its presidential ticket.

The 2012 GOP platform calls for a ban on all abortions without even the narrowest of exceptions, such as in cases of rape and incest. Romney claims that the procedure should remain legal if the life of the woman is in danger or if she had been raped or a victim of incest, though he has previously lent his support to a state personhood amendment that would endow fertilized eggs with the rights of humans and restrict abortion in all cases. During a 2007 GOP primary debate, Romney also said he would be “delighted” to sign a bill outlawing all abortions.

Ryan too has backed a federal personhood measure and supported legislation (along with at least 68 House Republicans) seeking to prevent Medicaid recipients who are raped from obtaining an abortion unless they can prove they are victims of “forcible rape.” Since his first House campaign in 1998, Ryan also claimed that abortion should be illegal except for “cases in which a doctor deems an abortion necessary to save the mother’s life.”