 |
|
|
|
 GOP nominee Mitt Romney makes a statement soon after the Supreme Court's ruling on Obamacare.
October 8th, 2012
01:36 PM ET
Your thoughts: Vote for the issues, not partiesEditor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community. Some Republicans are torn between party loyalty and the benefits they receive from Obamacare, as Elizabeth Cohen reports in her latest story. The piece on voting for/against the Affordable Care Act prompted many comments on party ideology in the United States and whether health care is really the only issue up for debate among conservatives. The most popular comment on the story as of Monday morning was from reader Rawpups:
 Our genetic makeup may play a role in our political behavior, according to researchers.
August 28th, 2012
11:52 AM ET
How you vote may be in your genesEver wonder why we vote the way we do? Is it the influence of family? Or is it because of our culture or where we grew up? Could be, but now researchers are saying it might be in our genes. Scientists have always wondered what drives our political behavior, and why some of us are passionate over some issues and not others. Now investigators have found it could be something deeper than the "I Like Ike" button your grandfather wore. Traditionally, social scientists have felt that our political preferences were influenced by environmental factors as well as how and where we grew up. But recently, studies are finding it could be biological and that our genes also influence our political tastes. In a review out of the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, data showed that genetic makeup has some influence on why people differ on such issues as unemployment, abortion, even the death penalty. By pinpointing certain genes in the human body, scientists can predict parts of a person's political ideology. FULL POST 
January 3rd, 2012
07:15 AM ET
Santorum takes on EPA over mercury limits ruleSpeaking to voters in Iowa Monday, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania ripped the Environmental Protection Agency's new rule placing first-ever limits on the amount of mercury that coal-fired power plants can emit into the air. The GOP presidential contender claimed the new regulations would shut down 60 coal fired power plants in America, and he charged the EPA with basing its study on a philosophy of: "We hate carbon, we hate fossil fuels, we hate blue-collar Americans who work in those areas." He specifically took issue with the agency's cost-benefit analysis, calling it "absolutely ridiculous" and "not based on any kind of science." But the EPA's cost-benefit analysis cites peer-reviewed studies extensively in its 510-page "Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards," which has been two decades in the making. |
  About this blog
Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.
 |
|
|
|
