Individuals can begin enrolling in health care exchanges on October 1st, and as Politico’s Jennifer Haberkorn explains, ensuring the pool is not dominated by people who are older or very sick is crucial to the program’s success.

In the meantime, other nonprofits are filling in the gaps. Joy Reid, who sat in for Alex Wagner Wednesday on NOW, spoke with the medical director of an upcoming free health clinic in New Orleans. Dr. Whitfield told Joy that the first time he organized a clinic in New Orleans, he saw patients “who hadn’t seen a doctor in over five years.”

The National Association of Free and Charitable Clinics is teaming up with with MSNBC’s Reverend Al Sharpton to host the clinic on July 3rd.

Watch Joy’s full conversation with Dr. Whitfield and the NOW panel above.

Celebrity chef Paula Deen in 2012. (Photo by Carlo Allegri/AP)

Celebrity chef Paula Deen has a mess she needs to clean up. A deposition was obtained Wednesday in which she admits to using a racial slur. The National Enquirer first reported Deen’s deposition, in which she responds to recent allegations of racism in the workplace–and admits to using the N-word and expressing a wish for a wedding served by waiters dressed as slaves.

The legal deposition was held on May 17 after one of Deen’s former restaurant managers, Lisa Jackson, sued the TV chef and her brother Earl “Bubba” Hiers for sexual and racial workplace discrimination in a $1.2 million lawsuit. During the three-hour-long questioning, Jackson’s lawyer asked Deen if she had ever used the N-word.

Deen responded, “Yes, of course,” and detailed the instances in which she had used the racial slur. Below are Deen’s responses, as recorded in the deposition.

Lawyer: Have you ever used the N-word yourself?
Deen: Yes, of course.

Lawyer: Okay. In what context?
Deen: Well, it was probably when a black man burst into the bank that I was working at and put a gun to my head.

Lawyer: Okay. And what did you say?
Deen: Well, I don’t remember, but the gun was dancing all around my temple … I didn’t — I didn’t feel real favorable towards him.

Lawyer: Okay. Well, did you use the N-word to him as he pointed a gun in your head at your face?
Deen: Absolutely not.

Lawyer: Well, then, when did you use it?
Deen: Probably in telling my husband.

Lawyer: Okay. Have you used it since then?
Deen: I’m sure I have, but it’s been a very long time.

Lawyer: Can you remember the context in which you have used the N-word?
Deen: No.

Lawyer: Has it occurred with sufficient frequency that you cannot recall all of the various context in which you’ve used it?
Deen: No, no.

Lawyer: Well, then tell me the other context in which you’ve used the N-word?
Deen: I don’t know, maybe in repeating something that was said to me.

Lawyer: Like a joke?
Deen: No, probably a conversation between blacks. I don’t–I don’t know. But that’s just not a word that we use as time has gone on. Things have changed since the ’60s in the south. And my children and my brother object to that word being used in any cruel or mean behavior. As well as I do.

A transcript of the deposition describes an instance when Jackson witnessed Deen’s racial views. Jackson was placed in charge of food and serving arrangements for Bubba Hiers’ wedding in February 2007, and asked Deen what kind of wedding reception it would be. “I want a true southern plantation-style wedding,” Deen replied.

Jackson subsequently asked Deen what type of uniforms she preferred the servers to wear.

“Well what I would really like is a bunch of little n—–s to wear long-sleeve white shirts, black shorts and black bow ties, you know in the Shirley Temple days, they used to tap dance around.” Paula Deen laughed and said “Now that would be a true southern wedding, wouldn’t it? But we can’t do that because the media would be on me about that.”

Deen responded to Jackson’s allegations.

“I remember telling them about a restaurant that my husband and I had recently visited. And I’m wanting to think it was in Tennessee or North Carolina or somewhere, and it was so impressive. The whole entire wait staff was middle-aged black men, and they had on beautiful white jackets with a black bow tie. I mean, it was really impressive. And I remember saying I would love to have servers like that, I said, but I would be afraid somebody would misinterpret.”

“That restaurant represented a certain era in America,” Deen said. The servers in that era “were slaves,” she conceded. “But I did not mean anything derogatory by saying that I loved their look.” She denied having used the N-word to describe the restaurant’s wait-staff “because that’s not what these men were. They were professional black men doing a fabulous job.”

The celebrity chef also said she didn’t know what kinds of jokes minority groups might find offensive.

Lawyer: Would you consider those to be using the N-word in a mean way?

Deen: That’s–that’s kind of hard. Most–most jokes are about Jewish people, rednecks, black folks. Most jokes target–I don’t know. I didn’t make up the jokes, I don’t know. I can’t–I don’t know.

Lawyer: Okay.
Deen: They usually target, though, a group. Gays or straights, black, redneck, you know, I just don’t know. I can’t, myself, determine what offends another person.

Deen’s lawyer released a brief statement Wednesday, defending his client and refuting the tabloid’s claims. ”Contrary to media reports, Ms. Deen does not condone or find the use of racial epithets acceptable,” Bill Franklin of the Savannah law firm Oliver Maner wrote. “She is looking forward to her day in court.”

A spokeswoman for the Food Network also issued a statement. ”Food Network does not tolerate any form of discrimination and is a strong proponent of diversity and inclusion. We will continue to monitor the situation,” the statement read.

(This is not the first time the Food Network star has been the center of controversy. Deen has been criticized for promoting unhealthy food on her show, and it was disclosed last year that she suffers from Type 2 diabetes.)

After the news broke of Deen’s legal troubles, Twitter users lambasted the chef with the trending topic #PaulasBestDishes.

Hash Browns vs. Board of Education #PaulasBestDishes

— rookie mistake (@maggieserota) June 19, 2013

3/5ths of a flan #PaulasBestDishes

— Louis Fairandblonde (@blunted215) June 19, 2013

We Shall Over-Crumb Cake #PaulasBestDishes

— Ashley Carter (@ashcar) June 19, 2013

Congress voted Tuesday, 228-196, to pass the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” which would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, citing a widely-discredited study. The bill makes exceptions in cases of rape and incest if the woman reports the crime to authorities. President Obama has stated that he plans to veto the bill if it made to his desk.

The vote Tuesday passed largely along party lines, with only six Democrats voting in favor of the ban, and six Republicans opposed. “This bill is going nowhere,” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee said on MSNBC Tuesday night after the vote. “But more importantly, it criminalizes, it endangers women, it endangers the relationship between a physician and a woman.”

Democrats also responded with frustration over the amount of time dedicated to a bill that will never become a law. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi tweeted on Tuesday: “[Zero] jobs bills, more attacks on a woman’s right to make health decisions…”

Jackson Lee added that the bill will take up hours in judiciary committee hearings, hours of mark up, hours in the rules committee, hours taken away from committee time, all to debate “a bill that is patently unconstitutional.”

On the other side of the aisle, the women of the Republican Party are cheering the bill on. (The six Republicans who voted against the bill were all men.) Rep. Marsha Blackburn, one of the women at the forefront of the pro-life effort, tweeted on Tuesday that the passage of the bill in the House was a “[h]istoric moment for the #prolife movement.”

The bill challenges the Supreme Court’s ruling of Roe v. Wade—a ruling that 70% of Americans have said they do not wish to be overturned, according to a 2013 NBC/WSJ poll.

Over 10 states have already implemented similar anti-abortion laws.

Among the cast of characters who spoke: Steve King of Iowa, who has called illegal immigration a “slow motion terrorist attack” and comparing border crossers to cattle. Louie Gohmert of Texas, who recently claimed Islamic terrorists are training members to “act like Hispanic [sic]“ and cross the border. Robert Rector, the co-author of a widely criticized Heritage Institute study claiming reform would cost trillions of dollars (the other co-author resigned his position after calling for restrictions on Hispanic immigration based on their IQs). And, of course, Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who said Rector’s study shows “amnesty costs a fortune.”

“Amnesty also costs something more than just money: it can cost a nation,” she added, warning it would expand entitlement spending by “bringing in tens of millions of new people.”

Her comments were a rebuttal to a report this week by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which estimated the Senate’s bipartisan reform bill would save $197 billion over the next decade and $700 billion in the decade after that, mostly through economic benefits associated with Bachmann’s dreaded population increase.

There were no surprises among the speakers at Wednesday’s press conference, all of whom are well documented hardliners on immigration. Nor are they likely to derail the bipartisan “Gang of Eight’s” Senate bill, which even Senator Ted Cruz, one of the event’s speakers, has conceded is likely to pass. What they’re hoping to do is rally conservative activists to convince House Republicans, most of whom reside in solid red districts, that they’ll face a primary challenge if they back anything resembling immigration reform.

“There is nothing more powerful in politics than grassroots conservatives,” Cruz said Wednesday.

Widespread grassroots opposition on the right helped sink similar comprehensive immigration reform efforts from 2005-2007. It also created an even bigger backlash among Latino voters, leading many national Republicans to reconsider their opposition after the 2012 election.

Pro-reform Republicans have braced themselves for a revolt on the populist right this time around. Conservative big money group Crossroads GPS, tied to Karl Rove, is launching new ads urging conservatives to back reform to stop President Obama’s “de facto amnesty.” Evangelical leaders are running a nationwide campaign to convince social conservatives that there’s a Biblical case for immigration reform. And anti-tax conservatives like Grover Norquist are working hard to persuade skeptics that immigration reform will boost the economy and reduce the deficit.

For the most part, the Tea Party crowd has been relatively quiet. But that could be changing: Republican Senator John Thune complained to Politico Tuesday that he’s facing a “bombardment” of phone calls against the bill. Rand Paul, considered a swing vote on immigration, said he’s yet to see a “groundswell” of support from the GOP for reform. A number of prominent conservative commentators, including Michelle Malkin and Erick Erickson, have organized a campaign to kill the Senate bill.

Some reformers are concerned that recent movement among House Republicans towards the right on the issue may reflect grassroots anger starting to bubble up. In another worrisome development, Sean Hannity, a reliable bellwether for conservative opinion who joined the pro-reform side after the 2012 election, is now once again signaling his opposition to the Senate’s legislation.

The “Gang of Eight” point man on containing these kinds of blowups is Marco Rubio of Florida, who has made dozens of appearances on conservative news shows to defend the plan. He’s been effective; even strong opponents of reform, like Rush Limbaugh, have given him a respectful airing and tried to keep him out of the line of fire in their attacks. But Rubio’s been sounding the alarm lately that Democrats need to offer more concessions on border security or lose conservatives, perhaps reflecting increased heat from his base.

The best news for immigration reform is that surveys still show strong support for comprehensive reform and its individual policies–a path to citizenship, increased border security, a crackdown on illegal hiring–even among Republicans. A Gallup poll released Wednesday found 87% of respondents favored allowing undocumented immigrants to earn citizenship over time if they meet certain requirements first. Another poll from the National Journal the same day found a plurality of Republicans, 38%, favored a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants while another 21% favored granting lesser legal status. These numbers come on the heels of a Fox News poll last week finding strong majorities not only favor the Senate bill’s core provisions, but consider immigration legislation an important priority.

But if the debate over background checks on gun sales is any indication, it takes only a small and loud minority of conservative activists to make lawmakers think twice about voting for even an extremely popular bill. There’s still plenty of time for that group to emerge.

The congressman was one of just six GOP “no” votes on the measure, but only Broun and his home state colleague Rob Woodall said they opposed the measure because it was amended to include exceptions for rape and incest.

While the National Right to Life Committee strongly endorsed the Republican bill passed on Tuesday, Georgia Right to Life opposed the legislation, with the group supporting abortion exceptions only for the life of the mother.

As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted, the move by Broun could help him get the GRTL endorsement in the growing primary to succeed retiring Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss. But his vote will cost him with the group’s national arm, the NRLC, which said in a statement they were “extremely disappointed” in Broun and Woodall’s votes against the bill.

Tuesday’s vote could provide a stark contrast if the groups wade into the primary–with GRTL refusing to endorse legislators who back exceptions for rape and incest, while the NRLC said this vote will be key as they make political decisions.

Broun faces Reps. Phil Gingrey and Jack Kingston, who both voted for the bill, in the primary, along with former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel; others are still looking at the race.

In a statement, NRLC legislative director Douglas Johnson praised the seven members from Georgia who voted for the bill, but said the group was “extremely disappointed” in Broun and Woodall’s votes against it.

And in a letter sent to all members of Congress, the NRLC noted that they “will regard a vote against this legislation, no matter what justification is offered, as a vote to allow unlimited abortion in the sixth month or later–and that is the way it will be reported in our scorecard of key right-to-life roll calls of the 113th Congress, and in subsequent communications from National Right to Life to grassroots pro-life citizens in every state.”

Broun, a physician, was originally a co-sponsor of the bill, but asked on the House floor to be removed as a supporter after Republicans added in the rape and incest exceptions.

“As a medical doctor, I believe it is my duty to protect children at all stages of life,” Broun said in a statement. “I am extremely disappointed that House Republican leadership chose to include language to subject some unborn children to needless pain and suffering. I will not support legislation that harms innocent children, and I will continue in my efforts to protect all unborn children by making abortion illegal at all stages of pregnancy.”

The Georgia chapter of the anti-abortion group praised both Broun and Woodall, and GRTL President Daniel Becker praised the two on the group’s website. Becker was already soliciting support for Broun, calling his vote a “courageous move on his part and worthy of praise.”

“This to me is a statesman that will defend our lives, our liberties and our constitution,” Becker wrote of Broun. “He is worthy of your financial and volunteer support. Let’s elect him our new US Senator!”

Becker criticized Gingrey and other members of the state’s delegation who supported the bill as “men who wittingly chose not to stand against the pressure being applied by a morally vacant pro-life lobby.

GRTL has been a critic of Handel’s in the past, too. The group refused to endorse in her 2010 gubernatorial campaign because of the abortion exceptions she supported and criticized former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Handel. After she lost the governor’s race, Handel joined the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation as a vice president, but stepped down last year in a public spat after the group reversed its decision to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood.

Other conservatives say the GRTL has gone too far, though. Conservative commentator Erick Erickson wrote on “Red State” that the “ decision by Georgia pro-life activists is unfortunate.”

Georgia Republican consultant Joel McElhannon said the support Broun could get from the state-based group for his “no” vote could be negligible, but that Broun was clearly trying to position himself as the most conservative in the field–a move that privately worries many Republican strategists,  fearing his extremist comments could put what should be a safe seat in danger. Democrats, well aware of the potential opportunity given a daunting map, are hoping to compete in the Peach State, especially if a controversial GOP nominee emerges.

“Broun continues with trying to brand himself as the absolutist and purist conservative candidate in the field,” said McElhannon. “Georgia Right to Life has marginalized themselves somewhat in the state because of their confrontational, overly aggressive style. They’ve lost a lot of credibility in Georgia.”

The House voted Tuesday, 228-196, to pass the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” which bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

While Republicans like Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn refer to gruesome examples like Doctor Kermit Gosnell and the dangers of unregulated abortions, Democratic senators like Barbara Boxer call House Republicans’ actions a continuation of the war on women.

Boxer told Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday that the 20-week abortion ban “is about hurting women. And what’s interesting,” she continued, “is they put their rightwing women members of Congress in the front of the line to face this. That’s just changing the messenger; it’s not changing the message–and the message to women is, you don’t really count. And the message to everyone in the country is we’re willing, this is them speaking, to overturn forty years of settled law just to appeal to our right wing base while they ignore the issues confronting the nation.”

“What I know we’re going to have to work on, even if we’re successful in our pursuit of marriage equality, is continuing to help the country understand how much Sandy and I are like other couples, and how much our family is like other families,” said Perry on Wednesday in the third of an MSNBC series of Google+ Hangouts On Air.

“Even though we know that this court ruling can do a lot to clear a path to make it possible for people to see us as equal, it will still take many, many, many years to unwind some of the negative messages and beliefs that people still hold about gay people.”

Perry and Stier, along with Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, are the plaintiffs in a high profile Supreme Court case challenging Proposition 8. The proposal changed the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a women and received 52% of the vote in 2008. Federal courts invalidated the initiative last year, but the ruling was appealed by the amendment’s proponents. California is one of seven states to have statutory language in its constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage.

That could all change in a matter of days when the Supreme Court rules on two cases dealing with marriage equality in the country—a 1996 law the prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, and another with Prop 8.

If the high court rules the way Perry and Stier are hoping, all same-sex couples will have the constitutional right to marry.

“In our perfect world, what would be amazing is to have a ruling that in fact does impact the entire country,” said Stier on Wednesday. “Because it’s not just about our rights; it’s about the rights of everybody.”

Experts predict that such a scenario is unlikely, however. Even David Boies, one of the lawyers challenging Prop 8, said Tuesday that the proponents of the ban likely lack standing to appeal the lower court’s ruling—which would be grounds for dismissing the case, and letting the lower court ruling stand. While this outcome would allow Perry and Stier to marry, couples in other states would be unaffected.

Still, finally getting the chance to marry would be reason enough to celebrate for Perry and Stier, who have been fighting for that right for last ten years. “We had no idea that this would turn out to be such a historic adventure,” said Perry. “We wanted to be married just like everybody else.”

Perry and Stier have been together since 1997, and are the parents of four boys. Perry asked Stier to marry her in 2003, even though the couple knew it would have to be symbolic. But a year later, they were able to marry legally after the City of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Six months after that, California’s Supreme Court invalidated same-sex unions.

“It was a thrill to have the opportunity to be married,” said Perry, “even though it was very brief.”

In 2008, the same state court that struck down their marriage overturned California’s ban on same-sex unions, only to have voters approve Prop 8 that November. That’s when the couple filed suit.

“When Kris and I made the decision to marry back in 2004, it was decision based purely on love and commitment,” said Stier. “The decision to be involved in the case was a very deliberate one, where we felt like the ballot box was the wrong place for the issue of equality to be decided.”

The expected Supreme Court decisions come at an already historic time for the gay rights movement. Twelve states and the District of Columbia now allow same-sex couples to marry. And three sitting GOP senators have publicly declared their support for marriage equality—a trend Republican strategist Steve Schmidt expects to continue.

“I think that you will see over time more and more Republicans drop their opposition to gay marriage,” said Schmidt. “We don’t want to see any American disenfranchised from an institution that brings so much profound happiness to so many people…It’s a good day for this movement.”

To find a different, more sustainable definition of success, Couric, Wentworh, and Essman shared insights from their professional and personal lives. The conversation took place at “The Third Metric: Redefining Success Beyond Money & Power,” a women’s conference hosted by Brzezinski and Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington earlier this month. In between panel discussions, the women jumped into Huffington’s bed for a on-camera chat.

“We’re all so busy, stressed, anxiety-ridden on this hamster wheel of life,” said Couric, a journalist and talk show host. “There’s got to be a way to incorporate some of the things from a well lived life, a more purposeful life, a more connected life, a more present and mindful life, along with also wanting to find fulfilling work and contribute to the greater good.”

For actress and author Ali Wentworth, her secret to achieving that Third Metric is good night’s sleep. “I think when I’m well rested I do better work, I don’t make mistakes,” Wentworth said. “I think I’m a better wife, a better mom. I think across the board I’m a better person.”

Along with their own well-being, the women hoped to redefine success for the benefit of their daughters and generations of women to come.

“There’s something my daughters have seen that I hope they don’t experience, which is their mother always scrambling, barely making it across the finish line,” said Brzezinski.

And to make matters worse for young girls, society constantly bombards them “about being pretty or too thin,” added Wentworth. To avoid adding to society’s pressures, Wentworth said she is sensitive about discussing body image with her daughters.

Additionally, part of making the Third Metric a reality for young women is to “support and help other people have a healthy perspective and a balance,” Couric said. “It’s really about how we relate to each other and look at ourselves.”

Curb Your Enthusiasm actor Susie Essman brought some laughter to the Third Metric.

“What is a metric? Is it because [Arianna Huffington] is European and does the metric system?” joked Essman.

“I would hope that, as a consequence of our meeting, that he will understand that the House needs to work its will,” Grijalva said.

Grijalva thinks the Gang of Eight bill being debated in the Senate right now has a good chance of passing the House. But, it’s not clear that it will ever get the chance for a vote.

“I don’t see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn’t have a majority support of Republicans,” Boehner said during a news conference Tuesday.

Boehner promised his caucus in a closed door meeting that he would not support an immigration plan that violated the Hastert rule, Politico reported. And at least one member, Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California has threatened Boehner’s speakership over the whole thing.

Gang of Eight members and the White House remained hopeful that a new CBO report showing the immigration bill would cut the deficit by $197 billion dollars would satisfy deficit hawks.

“I would hope that those that have harped the loudest about the cost and about the expense to the American taxpayer will now realize that their argument has no standing. It is baseless, and it’s not true. And in that sense, hopefully that will tone down the rhetoric,” Grijalva said.

• The abortion bill passed largely along party lines, 228 to 196. (Mother Jones)
• And while House Republicans like to frame it as victory, the only meaningful thing the bill did was introduce us to the next Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock: Rep. Michael Burgess, he of the masturbating fetuses.
• Still, this is an abortion vote after a disastrous 2012 campaign season where the RNC’s own report found the party to be “scary” and “out of touch” — in no small part to Misters Akin and Mourdock. (Politico)
• So what’s the best response to that? Double-down on the party’s fight against rape/incest exceptions. (Mother Jones)
• The original bill had none — and Republicans only begrudgingly added one after the bill’s author opined on the rarity of pregnancies resulting from rape. (Tuscon Sentinel)
• And yet the last-minute rape/incest provision is still insulting because it allows an exemption from the 20-week rule “ if the rape or incest has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to appropriate enforcement authorities.” (House of Rep. Cmte on Rules)
• In other words, after 20 weeks, the first person you need to see for an abortion isn’t a doctor: It’s a local police officer. (And here I was thinking Republicans hated red tape.) (The Washington Post)
• Here’s the catch: Statistics show that while incidents of rape are declining – so, too, are the percentage of reports to police, to 35% in 2010 from 56% in 2003. (Dept. of Justice)
• And just so we’re clear, the rate of pregnancy — consensual or no — is about the same. (Fact Checker)
• This vote, then, was a “vote of confidence” by Republicans in its pre-2012 abortion plank. (Rep. Trent Franks)
• Take, for instance, conservative Rep. Phil Broun, R-Georgia. He voted against the bill. But not why you think. He’s eyeing a Senate bid in 2014 and voted against the bill because it included the rape/incest provision. Why? Well, what more absolutist way to secure the Georgia Right to Life endorsement? (Jim Galloway)
• It’s not that Republicans are wrong to think that most Americans believe some restrictions are appropriate. Most polls show that while a quarter believe it should be legal under all circumstances, just over half believe it should be legal under certain circumstances. (Gallup)
• Still, if all Republicans believe like this GOP congressman — that “there’s been a misleading thought as to what happened after the last election cycle” or that (to change the subject) “most Americans do not support amnesty, especially without securing the borders” — then the party is doomed to more “votes of confidence.” (The Associated Press)