President Barack Obama said that he was “comfortable” with new federal regulations making emergency contraception available to women and girls over the age of 15, but said more study was needed to see whether it was safe to allow access to the "morning after" pill for girls younger than that.

Following news on Wednesday that the Justice Department would appeal a federal judge’s ruling requiring pharmacies to make emergency contraceptives available without a prescription to women of all ages, the president deferred to his Justice Department’s decision to appeal the law.

“The rule that’s been put forward by the FDA, Secretary Sebelius has reviewed. She’s comfortable with it; I’m comfortable with it,” he said.

On Wednesday, the FDA agreed to lower the age limit to 15 for sales of "Plan B One-Step," and to make the emergency contraceptive available in the general aisles of stores instead of behind the pharmacy counter.

“My suspicion is that the FDA may now be called upon to make further decisions about whether there’s sufficient scientific evidence for girls younger than 15,” Obama explained at a press conference during a trip to Mexico. “That’s the FDA’s decision to make. That’s Secretary Sebelius’s decision to review.”

But the president strongly backed the current rule, too.

“I’m very comfortable with the decisions they've made right now, based on solid scientific evidence, for girls 15 and older,” he said. 

This story was originally published on Thu May 2, 2013 6:27 PM EDT

TODAY: Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republican Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania are expected to announce a deal on gun control and background checks in just a few hours. NBC's Kristen Welker reports.

DAILY RUNDOWN: After it seemed like gun legislation would stall this week, and a Republican filibuster might gain some traction – momentum in the gun debate has swung. The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd reports.

With between a 5 percent and 8 percent cut in non-entitlement federal spending in effect since March 1, Americans might wonder whether the spending limits, known as the sequester, are jeopardizing their safety when it comes to the risks of nuclear power plants, federal inmates, and other dangers that the federal government is responsible for warding off.

One month in, it appears to be a mixed picture – in some agencies, there doesn’t appear to be any increase in risk right now. But in others – such as the federal courts – there may be.

Here is a look at the spending cuts’ effects on just a few federal departments and agencies that deal with issues of public safety.

Trucks and buses
Let’s start with the safety of the highways on which you drive to work or visit your family. An unsafe big rig or bus could prematurely end your journey. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which has 1,100 employees and is part of the Department of Transportation, has the job of making sure that large trucks and buses operate safely.

Just last week, for example, the FMCSA ordered Boston-based Fung Wah Bus Transportation, to cease all passenger operations. According to the agency, Fung Wah failed to repair its vehicles, falsified inspection records and failed to ensure its drivers were qualified and complied with hours-of-service regulations.

Department of Transportation spokesman Justin Nisly said that FMCSA is primarily funded by the Highway Trust Fund, which collects its money from taxes on gasoline and other fuels, so only about $1 million of the agency’s $570 million budget is subject to sequestration. 

The FMCSA, he said, is “confident that normal workflow of services, functions and daily activities will not be disrupted. FMCSA continues to work aggressively to keep unsafe companies, vehicles and drivers off the road.”

No FMCSA employees will be furloughed because of the sequester and the FMCSA has not implemented a hiring freeze.

The lesson here is that agencies such as FMCSA which are not funded by annual congressional appropriations but have other sources of funding will carry on despite the sequester. Another example is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is funded through the earnings of the Federal Reserve and not subject to congressional appropriations.

Nuclear power plants
The 3,800 employees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are the ones who inspect America’s nuclear power plants and ensure they pose no threat to the surrounding communities. The nuclear regulator is managing to keep doing its job and will even be hiring new employees, despite the spending cuts. There are 103 licensed nuclear power reactors at 64 sites in the United States.

“NRC safety and security inspections of licensed facilities are not impacted by the FY 2013 planned budget reductions,” said Holly Harrington, a senior adviser at the NRC’s Office of Public Affairs. “The NRC will continue to accomplish its core safety and security mission for all existing licensees as its highest priority. This includes reactors, materials users, fuel facilities, uranium recovery operations and waste facility licensees.”

NRC Executive Director for Operations Bill Borchardt told the NRC’s March 13 Regulatory Information Conference that a 5 percent spending cut had gone into effect on March 1, resulting in a reduction of $52 million in the NRC’s funding for the rest of FY 2013. He said the effects of the cuts will include elimination of an NRC program that gives grants to universities and minority-serving institutions, reductions in several NRC long-term research activities, and delays in staff training. 

But the agency will “be able to continue its safety and security mission for existing licensees, including new reactor and fuel-cycle facility construction activities.”

He said, “We do not plan on initiating any employee furlough actions due to the sequestration.” NRC staffing peaked in 2011 with just over 4,000 employees, he said, and the agency began this year with about 3,800. “Even with the tight fiscal constraints, just to make up for attrition, we expect to hire approximately 2,200 new employees,” Borchardt said. 

Harrington said that as part of its strategy for mitigating the impacts of the reduced budget, the NRC will ask Congress if it can “reprogram” funds, allowing it to use $38 million in unobligated prior-year funds for FY 2013 purposes.  The $38 million in funds “were recovered from completed contracts issued in previous years.”

Another lesson here for sequester budgeting: some agencies have unexpended money in their accounts and can better weather the sequester than agencies which don’t.

Courts and prisoners
In a March 22 letter to Justice Department employees, which was obtained by NBC News, Attorney General Eric Holder said that despite the $1.6 billion spending cut imposed on the bureau, “our actions must not threaten the life and safety-related operations of the department.”

Holder said he was using his authority to transfer funds so he could provide $150 million to the Bureau of Prisons to avoid furloughs of workers at the 119 federal prison facilities around the country. If he had not done this, Holder said, “We faced the need to furlough 3,570 staff each day from the federal prisons around the country.”

Meanwhile in the federal courts, federal appeals court Judge Julia Gibbons, chair of the budget committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, told a House subcommittee on March 20 that “sequestration will impact public safety because there will be fewer probation officers to supervise criminal offenders released in our communities, and funding for drug testing and mental health treatment will be cut 20 percent.”

She said there will be a 30 percent cut in funding for court security equipment and security officers will be required to work reduced hours “thus creating security vulnerabilities throughout the federal court system.”

Around the country federal trial courts have begun not scheduling criminal trials and hearings on Fridays.

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 2, 2013 3:31 PM EDT

DAILY RUNDOWN: NBC's Pete Williams reports on the main argument in Tuesday's Supreme Court case, "Is Proposition 8 constitutional?" 

TODAY: The Supreme Court will hear arguments today as they consider whether or not California's same-sex marriage ban is constitutional. If the court strikes down Proposition 8, same-sex marriage would resume in California. NBC's Pete Williams reports and legal analyst Lisa Bloom discusses the case.

NIGHTLY NEWS: As public opinion on gay marriage continues to shift, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether the federal government can refuse to recognize it, and whether the states can ban it in the first place. NBC's Pete Williams reports. 

DAILY RUNDOWN: President Barack Obama was greeted by a crowd in Ramallah Thursday, as only the third sitting president to visit Palestinian territories. The Daily Rundown's guest host Chris Cillizza reports.

TODAY: Just 24 hours after President Obama met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian National Authority, welcomed the president to Ramallah, in their first meeting in over a year. NBC's Chuck Todd reports.

MITCHELL REPORTS: Meet the Press moderator David Gregory and Dana Weiss, host of Israel's Meet the Press, explain whether President Barack Obama's speech showed a new approach to talking about the peace process. 

NIGHTLY NEWS:During a press conference Wednesday in Israel only two questions were permitted from American journalists, prompting the President to call out correspondent Chuck Todd on his multi-part question. NBC's Brian Williams reports. 

So much for that charm offensive, at least for now… Yesterday was marked by tons of partisanship, obstruction, and dysfunction… Obama visits with House Republicans at 1:30 pm ET… Senate to unveil their budget today… Do balanced budgets really matter?... Obama speaks to Organizing for Action… A compromise on background checks?... 2012’s highest (and lowest) turnout… And Bolling Alone: Bill Bolling won’t run as indie VA GOV candidate, which is probably good news for both Cuccinelli and McAuliffe.

*** So much for that charm offensive -- at least for now: President Obama’s so-called charm offensive continues today, as he meets on Capitol Hill with House Republicans at 1:30 pm ET. But after the president’s events over the past week (dinner with GOP senators, lunch with Paul Ryan, meetings on the Hill with Democrats and Republicans), it’s important to note that being nice and cordial doesn’t immediately fix the gridlock and partisanship in Washington. Just consider what happened yesterday: GOP Sens. John McCain and Tom Coburn -- both of whom dined with Obama last week -- stalled the Senate legislation to keep the government operating past March 27; House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan -- who lunched with the president last week -- introduced his budget, which calls for the repeal of Obamacare and transform Medicare into a voucher/premium support system; Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee indicated they have no intention of confirming Richard Cordray to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; and the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a universal background check legislation on guns by a straight party-line vote. Yes, folks are being nicer to each other. And yes, the charm offensive and outreach could pay dividends in the future. But it isn’t paying dividends right now. The reason: This is simply what happens when you have divided government.  

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

President Barack Obama departs the Capitol after meeting with Senate Democrats in Washington March 12, 2013.

*** Senate Dems unveil their budget: A day after Ryan unveiled his House GOP budget blueprint, Senate Democrats will do the same – and their budget is completely different. USA Today: “Senate Democrats plan to release a competing budget Wednesday that includes about $1 trillion in new revenues from closing tax loopholes for corporations and the rich, despite widespread GOP opposition to any new taxes after the January deal that raised $620 billion from wealthy Americans… “[T]heir plan also includes about $1 trillion in spending cuts, which is far below the threshold Republicans are seeking for deficit reduction It also proposes a $100 billion stimulus plan for new spending on the nation's infrastructure and no structural changes to Medicare.” It’s truly amazing how far apart the House GOP and Senate Dems are on these budget offers. It’s as if NOTHING happened since the debt-ceiling debacle of July 2011. Neither budget seems to reflect the reality of where things are in DC. It appears these budgets were created for interest groups who keep score to decide who is a “real” Democrat and who is a “real” Republican.

*** Do balanced budgets really matter? Yet here’s the biggest difference between the two plans: Ryan’s balances the budget in 10 years, while the Senate Dems’ doesn’t, although it does reduce the deficit. Given this difference, the New York Times asks a good question: Does balancing the budget really matter? The answer: Not really, at least in the short and medium term. “While economists generally agree that narrowing the government’s deficit and limiting the size of the debt are necessary in the long run, most argue that balancing the budget would not restore the nation’s still-weak economy to health in the near term. Indeed, rushing to do so with unemployment still elevated and the economy growing at only a sluggish pace could even set back the effort to reduce the deficit.” Obama weighed into this debate, with this answer on ABC: “My goal is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance. My goal is how do we grow the economy, put people back to work, and if we do that we are going to be bringing in more revenue.” Here’s the simple truth when it comes to the politics of deficits: They REALLY matter when you’re the party out of power, and they don’t as much when you are in power. Remember what Dick Cheney said about deficits when the GOP controlled the White House? Parties out of power push the “balanced budget” idea because it polls well (who is against a balanced budget?), and it’s a way to be against the governing party without having to say SPECIFICALLY what you are against, per se.

*** Obama speaks to Organizing for Action: In addition to Obama meeting with House Republicans at 1:30 pm ET, he delivers remarks at 6:30 pm ET to the initial Organizing for Action summit. So earlier in the day he’s trying to schmooze with the opposition; and later in the day he’s meeting with his political arm. As we’ve mentioned before, Organization for Action -- registered as a social-welfare 501c4 organization -- has received plenty of criticism because it raising big bucks from contributors, who might get access to the president (like at today’s speech). Organizing for Action has promised to disclose its donors, and to bar lobbyists and corporations from giving money. But think about the larger message the president is sending today: On the one hand, he wants to reach out and show Congress he’s ready to talk; on the other, he’s gearing up for a potential ideological war.

*** A compromise on background checks? As we mentioned above, the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday passed -- by a 10-8 party-line vote -- Sen. Chuck Schumer’s legislation that would institute universal background checks for all gun purchasers. Given that party-line vote and given Schumer’s inability so far to find a Republican to co-sponsor that legislation, it’s more than likely that Republicans would be able to successfully filibuster the measure. So where do we go forward? NBC’s Kasie Hunt reports that senators from both parties are privately expecting the National Rifle Association not to fight any compromise background-check legislation as long as it doesn’t require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks. Now there’s a difference between the NRA supporting something, opposing it, and not saying a word. And, per our understanding, the NRA simply won’t say a word if this record-keeping is excluded, which would give some Republicans (read: Tom Coburn) the cover to back the background-check legislation. But as Hunt notes, gun-control advocates believe that leaving out the record keeping would render the law toothless.

*** The highest (and lowest) turnout from 2012: This is a fun recap from the 2012 election. Which state had the top turnout? Politico, per a new report released by Nonprofit VOTE: “Minnesota topped the turnout list for the eighth time in the last nine presidential and midterm elections, with 76.1 percent turnout. Hawaii came in last, with turnout at a mere 44.1 percent. Overall turnout was down from 62 percent in 2008, when the possibility of the nation’s first black president caused a surge at the polls, to 59 percent in 2012. Low turnout in the nation’s three most populous states — Texas, New York and California — contributed to the drop. All saw declines of nine percent or higher.” None of it is that surprising: Treat a state LIKE a battleground, and voters become more engaged and they show up to vote… Go Figure!

*** Bolling Alone: Virginia Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling’s (R) announcement yesterday that he WILL NOT mount an independent bid in this year’s gubernatorial contest is good news for the GOP and its candidate, state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R). But it’s also good news for Terry McAuliffe (D), because a Bolling indie candidacy could have hurt him, too (the reason: Bolling could have occupied the middle ground, potentially taking those votes away from the Macker). So we’re left with the two-way slugfest between Cuccinelli and McAuliffe – two very, very flawed candidates. This campaign will probably be defined by the candidate that makes the least amount of gaffes that play into their pre-conceived stereotypes that the other side is trying to create. Today, McAuliffe steps in it when he refuses to answer a question from a Norfolk reporter about whether he can name all the Cabinet posts in the administration.

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

MORNING JOE: Top Talkers: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has criticized Washington's inability to avert the sequester cuts, and the Morning Joe panel -- including GOP strategist Steve Schmidt and Time's Mark Halperin -- discusses why Christie is in the right and why he's well-positioned if he chooses to run in 2016.

DAILY RUNDOWN: Politico's Maggie Haberman, Alex Wagner, the Host of MSNBC's Now with Alex Wagner, and Editor at Large for Time Magazine Nancy Gibbs join The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd to talk about the 2016 presidential election and whether Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton will possibly run.

NIGHTLY NEWS: As he starts a tour to publicize his new book about immigration reform, former Florida governor Jeb Bush is initiating a tough conversation about his party's inability to reach minority voters. NBC's Chuck Todd reports. 

In an apparent reversal from his past statements, former Florida Republican Gov. Jeb Bush said Monday that his immigration reform plan would "fall short" of offering a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants living in the United States -- a key provision being put forward by the bipartisan group leading reform efforts on Capitol Hill.

“Our proposal is a proposal that looks forward, and if we want to create an immigration policy that's going to work, we can't continue to make illegal immigration an easier path than legal immigration,” Bush said on NBC’s TODAY Show.

Bush -- an outspoken proponent of GOP outreach to Latinos who has previously embraced a path to citizenship -- said that he backs measures to allow illegal immigrants to become residents of the United States if they meet certain criteria. But he argued that the possibility of full citizenship would merely encourage more illegal immigrants to make their way inside the nation’s borders.

“There has to be some difference between people who come here legally and illegally,” he said. “It's just a matter of common sense and a matter of the rule of law. If we're not going to apply the law fairly and consistently, then we're going to have another wave of illegal immigrants coming into the country.”

Related: Jeb Bush: I won't rule out 2016 White House run 'but I won't declare today'

Bush’s rejection of that goal appears to be a turnaround for the possible presidential prospect. In a June 2012 interview with Charlie Rose, he acknowledged that his support for a path to citizenship placed him at odds with many in his party.

“You have to deal with this issue. You can’t ignore it,” he said during that interview. “And so, either a path to citizenship -- which I would support and that does put me probably out of the mainstream of most conservatives -- or a path to legalization, a path to residency of some kind.”

In a January op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Bush and Clint Bolick, his co-author on a new book about immigration, wrote that opportunities for citizenship strengthen America. 

"America's immigration system should provide opportunities for people who share the country's core values to become citizens, thereby strengthening the nation as have countless immigrants have before them," he said. (In the same op-ed, the pair also wrote that "amnesty promotes illegal immigration.")

Bush's voiced opposition to full citizenship rights also puts the former governor – and brother of former President George W. Bush – to the right of Republican senators like John McCain, Marco Rubio and Jeff Flake, all members of the Senate’s bipartisan “Gang of Eight” currently tackling immigration reform legislation.

That group’s proposal would offer “probationary legal status” for illegal immigrants who register with the federal government, pass a background check and pay back taxes and fines.  After certain border security criteria are met, those individuals would become eligible to apply for green cards and – eventually – the ability to seek full citizenship.

Bush appeared on the TODAY show to promote his book “Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution,” which hits shelves tomorrow. 

NBC's Mark Murray contributed to this report. 

This story was originally published on Mon Mar 4, 2013 1:18 PM EST

TODAY: President Obama signed an order allowing deep automatic budget cuts to become law, as he and House Speaker John Boehner pass the blame for doing nothing to stop the measures. NBC's Chuck Todd reports.

NIGHTLY NEWS:CNBC's John Harwood joins Lester Holt for more on the sequester. 

MORNING JOE: Top Talkers: As expected, the $85B in spending cuts kicked in on Friday, March 1, 2013. The totality of the impact will be felt slowly, and several members of both sides of the aisle are discussing the cuts and what they mean for the country. The Morning Joe panel -- including Mike Barnicle and former senior advisor for the McCain–Palin campaign Nicolle Wallace -- discusses.

TODAY: The president hits the road today, heading to a Naval shipyard in Virginia in an attempt to build public support against a slew of spending cuts set to go into effect on Friday. NBC's Chuck Todd reports.

MORNING JOE: Must-Read Op-Eds: Before discussing Steve Rattner's charts on the potential effects of the sequester, Mika Brzezinski reads from a David Brooks NYT opinion column on why great presidents "...see situations differently" and why "[h]istory pivots around their terms."

DAILY RUNDOWN: Gov. Bob McDonnell, R-Va.,  joins The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd to discuss sequester and how it will affect the state of Virginia as well as the state's comprehensive transportation bill. McDonnell also talks state politics showing his support for Ken Cuccinelli.

NIGHTLY NEWS: Lawmakers are emphasizing the urgency of preventing the large federal budget cuts from going into effect, so why wasn't there any progress all weekend? NBC's Peter Alexander reports. 

TODAY: As the clock ticks down with no signs of progress in Congress, President Obama is issuing warnings about the consequences of a sequester, including fewer FBI agents on the job, longer airport security lines, and more. NBC's Peter Alexander reports.

DAILY RUNDOWN: With less than 100 hours until the budget ax falls on Friday, President Barack Obama will meet with the nation's governors on Monday and later take his campaigning to Virginia. The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd reports. 

MORNING JOE: Top Talkers: On Friday, March 1, 2013, $85B in spending cuts are set to kick in unless Democrats and Republicans can work out a deal to avoid the sequester. The Morning Joe panel – including the Council on Foreign Relations' Richard Haass and Mike Barnicle – discusses.

TODAY: For the first time, the Obama administration is sharing a classified Justice Department document that lays out the legal basis for drone strikes with members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee. NBC's Michael Isikoff reports and Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon says "the lines are blurred" between the military and CIA. 

MORNING JOE: Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and he joins Morning Joe to discuss the recently uncovered memo regarding drone strikes on U.S. citizens. Wyden says it's time for more congressional oversight on the drone program and that he plans to push for more declassification on drone programs.

DAILY RUNDOWN: After years of secrecy, President Barack Obama has ordered the Justice Department to release the two Congressional Intelligence Committees classified documents discussing the legal justification for killing, by drone strikes and other means, American citizens abroad considered terrorists. The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd reports.