Sam I Am to Barry Soetoro

I do not like this Barry Soetoro, I do not like his health care scam.
I do not like these dirty crooks, or how they lie and cook the books.
They call us names when we speak out
The Czars use all their DC clout
The media backs the white house lies
it doesn't matter how hard we try
To show the world what he's about
that he's a dictator there is no doubt
I do not like when Congress steals,
I do not like their secret deals.
I do not like this skinny man
I do not like this 'YES WE CAN'.
It seems to me we've lost our way
I long for times like yesterday
when Ronny spoke and we had pride
Now they force us on Barak's freeride
I do not like his spending spree,
I'm smart, I know that nothing's free,
I do not like the smug replies, when I complain about your lies.
I do not like his kind of hope.
I don't like being called a dope
I've always lived in peace with pride
now he tells us "Pay for the ride"
The ride is for those who never pay
or worked hard, not one single day
I think that we would all do well
to tell Barry Soetoro to go to HELL!

by Anonymous Sam I am!

Just for the record.

I normally do not present what has been posted by others who attack me, but this needed to be seen, and my reply :[QUOTE who="What Nonsense"]You're still in the throes of your delusions. You seem to think that this is a "Catholic" website, when all it is is a forum for discussion of newspaper articles. You continue to lash out and attack others by calling them names. You continue to post irrelevant and off-topic words and thoughts of others. You are apparently looking for an audience and will do anything to try and get it. How sad.
Please do get some help. There are many good mental health professionals in the area.

[QUOTE who="What Nonsense"]You're still in the throes of your delusions. You seem to think that this is a "Catholic" website, when all it is is a forum for discussion of newspaper articles. You continue to lash out and attack others by calling them names. You continue to post irrelevant and off-topic words and thoughts of others. You are apparently looking for an audience and will do anything to try and get it. How sad.
Please do get some help. There are many good mental health professionals in the area.[/QUOTE]


You are such a fool, as to think you can take both sides of the argument and win. It has been you that tries to stop my postings by stating that I was off topic, and now you claim that it is a forum for newspaper articles.
IT WAS I, WHO POSTED THE QUESTION,Is it right for a new Pastor to attack his parish?, on the Elmont site, Not you or any of the other vitriolic, ranters. You and your Modernistic Msgr(I doubt if you are a parishioner of OLLMP) are the people(and I use that term loosely)
who have destroyed the parish. I was part of the 450 people that met with the Bishops Committee, including the weak Bishop Dunn, who allowed the people(The majority who wanted a conservative replacement for Fr Mason) to have their say, and already had made their minds up. Nice show for the public. Bishop Murphy, and Lisante are to blame for the destruction of Our Lady of Lourdes parish. They both are suppose to be SHEPHERDS, of the Faith, and protectors of the flock, not destroyers of the flock. When it comes to calumny, the leaders of the Church, are also the leaders of Calumny, and modernistic appeal. The faith and heart of OLLMP has been slowly destroyed, and replaced with, the tickling of ears,
instead of building up the faith. God have mercy on all of you poor sheep that have followed this route, it is not the route to salvation, but the wide path to eternal damnation.

If there are any of you good Catholics that still read this blog,
you now know that what had been indicated by other posters, like
the poster, "The modern Priest Blogspot.com", and Laticia, and
Adrienne's Corner.....etc were 100% correct in their prognosis
of what the modernistic change would bring. WE ARE CATHOLICS, NOT PROTESTANT, WHICH SPLINTERED OFF FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. The Apostasy which has engulfed the parish of OLLMP, is the worm, that destroys from within. What a shame, and so unnecessary.

I am sorry if I have no use for the likes of What Nonsense, and even less for PuffinLady(Ilona) who is a heretic, and Wicca follower and hater of the Catholic faith, though she will deny that,yet her doubting that Jesus, and even GOD ever existed had been posted on the Elmont site.
I have been and will remain the opposing voice against the Progressives, Liberals, Modernists, that have created the Apostasy that is now entrenched in OLLMP.

Why Lisante's dogma of Modernism is wrong

The Methods of Modernists

18. This becomes still clearer to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In the writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they write history they pay no heed to the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechise the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between theological and pastoral exegesis and scientific and historical exegesis. So, too, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, when they treat of philosophy, history, criticism, feeling no horror at treading in the footsteps of Luther, they are wont to display a certain contempt for Catholic doctrines, or the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be rebuked for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, guided by the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly criticise the Church because of her sheer obstinacy in refusing to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, after having blotted out the old theology, endeavour to introduce a new theology which shall follow the vagaries of their philosophers.

The Modernist as Theologian:
His Principles, Immanence and Symbolism

19. And thus, Venerable Brethren, the road is open for us to study the Modernists in the theological arena - a difficult task, yet one that may be disposed of briefly. The end to be attained is the conciliation of faith with science, always, however, saving the primacy of science over faith. In this branch the Modernist theologian avails himself of exactly the same principles which we have seen employed by the Modernist philosopher, and applies them to the believer: the principles of immanence and symbolism. The process is an extremely simple one. The philosopher has declared: The principle of faith is immanent; the believer has added: This principle is God; and the theologian draws the conclusion: God is immanent in man. Thus we have theological immanence. So too, the philosopher regards as certain that the representations of the object of faith are merely symbolical; the believer has affirmed that the object of faith is God in Himself; and the theologian proceeds to affirm that: The representations of the divine reality are symbolical. And thus we have theological symbolism. Truly enormous errors both, the pernicious character of which will be seen clearly from an examination of their consequences. For, to begin with symbolism, since symbols are but symbols in regard to their objects and only instruments in regard to the believer, it is necessary first of all, according to the teachings of the Modernists, that the believer do not lay too much stress on the formula, but avail himself of it only with the scope of uniting himself to the absolute truth which the formula at once reveals and conceals, that is to say, endeavours to express but without succeeding in doing so. They would also have the believer avail himself of the formulas only in as far as they are useful to him, for they are given to be a help and not a hindrance; with proper regard, however, for the social respect due to formulas which the public magisterium has deemed suitable for expressing the common consciousness until such time as the same magisterium provide otherwise. Concerning immanence it is not easy to determine what Modernists mean by it, for their own opinions on the subject vary. Some understand it in the sense that God working in man is more intimately present in him than man is in even himself, and this conception, if properly understood, is free from reproach. Others hold that the divine action is one with the action of nature, as the action of the first cause is one with the action of the secondary cause, and this would destroy the supernatural order. Others, finally, explain it in a way which savours of pantheism and this, in truth, is the sense which tallies best with the rest of their doctrines.

20. With this principle of immanence is connected another which may be called the principle of divine permanence. It differs from the first in much the same way as the private experience differs from the experience transmitted by tradition. An example will illustrate what is meant, and this example is offered by the Church and the Sacraments. The Church and the Sacraments, they say, are not to be regarded as having been instituted by Christ Himself. This is forbidden by agnosticism, which sees in Christ nothing more than a man whose religious consciousness has been, like that of all men, formed by degrees; it is also forbidden by the law of immanence which rejects what they call external application; it is further forbidden by the law of evolution which requires for the development of the germs a certain time and a certain series of circumstances; it is, finally, forbidden by history, which shows that such in fact has been the course of things. Still it is to be held that both Church and Sacraments have been founded mediately by Christ. But how? In this way: All Christian consciences were, they affirm, in a manner virtually included in the conscience of Christ as the plant is included in the seed. But as the shoots live the life of the seed, so, too, all Christians are to be said to live the life of Christ. But the life of Christ is according to faith, and so, too, is the life of Christians. And since this life produced, in the courses of ages, both the Church and the Sacraments, it is quite right to say that their origin is from Christ and is divine. In the same way they prove that the Scriptures and the dogmas are divine. And thus the Modernistic theology may be said to be complete. No great thing, in truth, but more than enough for the theologian who professes that the conclusions of science must always, and in all things, be respected. The application of these theories to the other points We shall proceed to expound, anybody may easily make for himself.

Dogma and the Sacraments

21. Thus far We have spoken of the origin and nature of faith. But as faith has many shoots, and chief among them the Church, dogma, worship, the Books which we call "Sacred," of these also we must know what is taught by the Modernists. To begin with dogma, we have already indicated its origin and nature. Dogma is born of the species of impulse or necessity by virtue of which the believer is constrained to elaborate his religious thought so as to render it clearer for himself and others. This elaboration consists entirely in the process of penetrating and refining the primitive formula, not indeed in itself and according to logical development, but as required by circumstances, or vitally as the Modernists more abstrusely put it. Hence it happens that around the primitive formula secondary formulas gradually continue to be formed, and these subsequently grouped into bodies of doctrine, or into doctrinal constructions as they prefer to call them, and further sanctioned by the public magisterium as responding to the common consciousness, are called dogma. Dogma is to be carefully distinguished from the speculations of theologians which, although not alive with the life of dogma, are not without their utility as serving to harmonise religion with science and remove opposition between the two, in such a way as to throw light from without on religion, and it may be even to prepare the matter for future dogma. Concerning worship there would not be much to be said, were it not that under this head are comprised the Sacraments, concerning which the Modernists fall into the gravest errors. For them the Sacraments are the resultant of a double need - for, as we have seen, everything in their system is explained by inner impulses or necessities. In the present case, the first need is that of giving some sensible manifestation to religion; the second is that of propagating it, which could not be done without some sensible form and consecrating acts, and these are called sacraments. But for the Modernists the Sacraments are mere symbols or signs, though not devoid of a certain efficacy - an efficacy, they tell us, like that of certain phrases vulgarly described as having "caught on," inasmuch as they have become the vehicle for the diffusion of certain great ideas which strike the public mind. What the phrases are to the ideas, that the Sacraments are to the religious sentiment - that and nothing more. The Modernists would be speaking more clearly were they to affirm that the Sacraments are instituted solely to foster the faith - but this is condemned by the Council of Trent: If anyone say that these sacraments are instituted solely to foster the faith, let him be anathema.

The Holy Scriptures

22. We have already touched upon the nature and origin of the Sacred Books. According to the principles of the Modernists they may be rightly described as a collection of experiences, not indeed of the kind that may come to anybody, but those extraordinary and striking ones which have happened in any religion. And this is precisely what they teach about our books of the Old and New Testament. But to suit their own theories they note with remarkable ingenuity that, although experience is something belonging to the present, still it may derive its material from the past and the future alike, inasmuch as the believer by memory lives the past over again after the manner of the present, and lives the future already by anticipation. This explains how it is that the historical and apocalyptical books are included among the Sacred Writings. God does indeed speak in these books - through the medium of the believer, but only, according to Modernistic theology, by vital immanence and permanence. Do we inquire concerning inspiration? Inspiration, they reply, is distinguished only by its vehemence from that impulse which stimulates the believer to reveal the faith that is in him by words or writing. It is something like what happens in poetical inspiration, of which it has been said: There is God in us, and when he stirreth he sets us afire. And it is precisely in this sense that God is said to be the origin of the inspiration of the Sacred Books. The Modernists affirm, too, that there is nothing in these books which is not inspired. In this respect some might be disposed to consider them as more orthodox than certain other moderns who somewhat restrict inspiration, as, for instance, in what have been put forward as tacit citations. But it is all mere juggling of words. For if we take the Bible, according to the tenets of agnosticism, to be a human work, made by men for men, but allowing the theologian to proclaim that it is divine by immanence, what room is there left in it for inspiration? General inspiration in the Modernist sense it is easy to find, but of inspiration in the Catholic sense there is not a trace.

And he was suppose to end Racism? And bring Unity?

Obama beer summit, Eric Holder, Black Panthers, Journolist

Our “Post-Racial” or “Most-Racist” President?
By Jayme Evans Sunday, July 25, 2010


For years now, Barack Obama’s media lapdogs have been repeating the lie that Obama was America’s first, “post-racial president”, whatever that means. Well, it didn’t take long for America’s first Beer Summit to shatter that myth.


Although his supporters in the media believed that he would somehow unite the civilized world under the banner of racial harmony, their attacks and his continued silence -considering the racially-charged actions of his Justice Department- show the direction that race relations have taken in the age of Obama. Remember, these attacks didn’t begin with the Shirley Sherrod controversy, they began during the Obama campaign.

Remember when John Murtha disparaged an entire Pennsylvania demographic as too old and mired in ignorance to vote for a black person? Remember when Obama himself stereotyped Pennsylvanians as clinging to their bibles and guns out of fear?

Remember back in February 2009, when America was lambasted by America’s first black Attorney General, Eric holder, as a nation of cowards on matters of race?

Obama-sponsored, face-saving, Beer Summit?
Remember Obama’s next racial gaffe, when he took to the podium in July of 2009, wading chest-deep into a local law-enforcement issue he knew nothing about and chastising the Cambridge Police for “Acting stupidly” before he knew all the facts? Remember the Obama-sponsored, face-saving, Beer Summit?

Remember the ineffective attacks on the Tea Party during the August, 2009 congressional recess and the heated town hall meetings, which was the birth of that movement?

Remember the spectacle that accompanied the signing of ObamaCare and the scripted attempt by Nancy Pelosi, along with members of the Congressional Black Caucus to gin up visions of the 1963 Civil Rights march on Washington DC, equating health care with the generational struggle to overcome bigotry?

Now we have Eric Holder’s Justice Department thumbing their noses at the Constitution and practicing the most inflammatory kind of racial politics imaginable at Obama’s behest, suing Arizona for upholding federal immigration law while turning a blind eye to San Francisco and other self-declared “sanctuary cities” that openly refuse to enforce those very same federal laws.

Holder also refuses to prosecute the Black Panthers and their two thugs who stood outside of a Philadelphia polling station in 2008 brandishing batons. He threw out charges against one Panther and the organization and reduced the injunctive relief imposed on another after a default judgment had already been rendered. Holder has also allegedly refused to prosecute any black-on-white civil rights complaints his agency may uncover, a gross violation of his oath of office and ample grounds for his resignation.

Finally, we have the Daily Caller’s expose on the so-called “Journolist”, a loose amalgamation of liberal-minded, mixed-nuts in the media who spew hatred, manufacture racism where none exists, and bury stories critical of Obama and his associations while putting forth lies about those who oppose him in an effort to bolster Obama and discredit the opposition.

Hate spewed by the NAACP’s aptly-named Ben Jealous towards the Tea Party
Throw in the hate spewed by the NAACP’s aptly-named Ben Jealous towards the Tea Party while he ignores Reverend Wright and black-on-white racism, add the Shirley Sherrod controversy, and it’s hard to argue that Barack Obama has done anything but harm US race-relations. In fact, his eagerness to get out in front of the Sherrod story actually damaged his credibility on race immensely when it backfired.

Obama’s occupation of the White House would not be possible without the support of white, middle-class voters. Yet, with only one exception I’m aware of, he has stood there mute every time those same white voters who trusted him to represent all Americans are ostracized as racist lynch mobs due to their vehement opposition to his socialist ideology.

These tactics will not diminish, they will only escalate, the product of a strategy born years ago, necessitated by the birth of the Tea Party and their refusal to go along quietly with a complete national transformation. While these attacks are not necessarily orchestrated by Barack Obama or his underlings, the Journolist proves that they don’t necessarily need to be. Obama’s failure to condemn them does show his approval.

Although I initially found Eric Holder’s comments about us being a nation of cowards on matters of race quite offensive, perhaps he was right. Perhaps it is time for a national dialogue on race. But leadership and national dialogue both begin at the top. If, in his unique position as the nation’s first half-black, half-white Chief Executive, Barack Obama lacks the leadership to get the discussion started, then perhaps it is up to ordinary Americans. If so, then the first question I would ask is:

Based on what I’ve outlined above, do you think Barack Obama is, as the media suggests, the “post-racial”, or “most-racist” president?

Got to love this woman!

Obama's Poll Numbers Down, Imaginary Racism Up
by Ann Coulter
07/21/2010


The Democrats are depressed about their collapsing poll numbers, so it's time to start calling conservatives "racist."

As we now know from the Journolist list-serv, where hundreds of liberal journalists chat with one another, and which was leaked to Daily Caller this week, journalists cry "racism" whenever they need to distract from bad news for Obama. (Ironically, this story did not make headlines.)

When the Rev. Jeremiah Wright scandal broke during the 2008 campaign, the first response of Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent was to demand that they start randomly picking conservatives -- "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists."


Ackerman, frequent guest on MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show," continued on Journolist:

"What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger's [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically."

This is what "racism" has come to in America. Democrats are in trouble, so they say "let's call conservatives racists." We always knew it, but the Journolist postings gave us the smoking gun.

This explains why we've heard so much about Tea Partiers being "racists" lately.

But despite a frantic search, the media have been unable to produce any actual evidence of racism at the Tea Parties. Even the trace elements are either frauds or utterly trivial.

For example, there was blind terror last week over a Tea Party billboard in northern Iowa that showed a picture of Adolf Hitler, Obama and Vladimir Lenin under the headings: "National Socialism," "Democratic Socialism" and "Marxist Socialism."

Overheated? Perhaps. Racist? No. Unless liberals are about to break the news that Lenin and Hitler were black, what we have here, gentlemen, is not racism.

I'm not even sure why liberals are so testy: As an aficionado of liberal talk radio, I've heard both Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes repeatedly say socialism is terrific. (Given their ratings, this is understandable.)

Most sickeningly, the mainstream media continue to spread the despicable lie that someone called civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis the "N-word" 15 times during the anti-ObamaCare rally in Washington. Fifteen times!

That turned out to be another lie. About a week after the protest, Andrew Breitbart offered a $100,000 reward for anyone who could produce a video of Lewis being called the N-word even once -- forget 15 times. (That's the most we can afford. Hey, who do we look like over here, George Soros?)

Plus, the winner might have his video appear on the new hit TV show, "America's Most Racist Home Videos."

With hundreds of news cameras, cell phone cameras and camcorders capturing every nook and cranny of the Capitol Hill protest -- and news media hungry for an ugly, racist act -- it defies possibility that someone called Lewis the N-word once, much less 15 times, without one single camera capturing the incident. And yet, to this day the reward remains unclaimed.

Democrats did their best to provoke an ugly confrontation by marching a (shockingly undiverse) group of black Democrats right through the middle of the anti-ObamaCare protest. But they didn't get one, so the media just lied and asserted Lewis was called the N-word. (If they wanted to hear the N-word so badly, they should have sent the congressional delegation to a Jay-Z concert.)

Indeed, news anchor after news anchor has indignantly claimed to have footage of the incident, teasing viewers by saying, "We'll get that right up" or claiming personally to have seen the video -– and then you watch the whole program without ever seeing footage of anyone calling Lewis the N-word.

Dateline: April 18, 2010, CNN's Don Lemon: "We have the tape here at CNN. I saw it on CNN's 'State of the Union.'" And yet, Lemon never got around to showing viewers that tape. IF YOU HAVE THE TAPE, DON, CLAIM YOUR $100,00 REWARD!

And now this week, with the NAACP accusing the Tea Partiers of harboring racists, and conservatives demanding proof, the George Soros-backed Center for American Progress ran a 45-second video allegedly showing racism at the Tea Parties.

One of the videos shows an obvious liberal plant announcing, "I'm a proud racist!" Apparently this was their best shot, because they had to work this video into the montage twice, amid utterly innocuous posters, for example, saying, "God bless Glenn Beck." So I guess they didn't have anything better.

Here's the part Soros' people didn't show you: In the fuller video shown on the Glenn Beck show, the Tea Partiers surrounded the (liberal plant) racist, jeering at him, telling him he's not one of them and to go home. In a spectacularly evil fraud, all that was edited out.

Just hours later on MSNBC, Chris Matthews was loudly proclaiming that he would believe the Tea Partiers weren't racist when he sees "just one of those Tea Party people pull down one of those racist signs at the next Tea Party rally. I'm going to just wait. Reach over, grab the sign and tear it out of the guy's hands. Then I will believe you."

Well, here it was. The (liberal plant) racist was driven from the Tea Party by the Tea Partiers. But you won't see that. Like USDA official Shirley Sherrod's apparently racist comments excerpted this week from what was, in fact, a commendable speech about racial reconciliation, the alleged Tea Party racism was, literally, "taken out of context."

Communists(Liberal Democraps) at work

-- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.
-- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America . But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

-- Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America . The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.
-- Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.
With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.
Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan.

And there are still idiots, that are willing to vote for the Democ-rats. WHY????
ALL OF THE FREE-BEE'S THEY PROMISED, ARE NOT FREE, AND YOU HAVE GIVEN UP YOUR AMERICAN FREEDOM AND AMERICA RIGHTS.

THAT SHOWS WHAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN YOU TAKE YOUR FREEDOM FOR GRANTED.

Can you read this mr Stupak?????

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Obamacare to Pay for Abortions under New $160 Million Pennsylvania Program

TODAY'S HEADLINES | SEND NEWS TIPS | DONATE
SHARE: E-MAIL PRINT


WASHINGTON, D.C., July 13, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In the first known instance of direct federal funding of abortion under the new health care legislation, the Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program - and has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of Governor Edward Rendell (D) under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.

The high-risk pool program, which will be funded entirely by the federal government, is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide.

Although an earlier version of the health care legislation prevented federal funds from subsidizing abortion, that protection was not included in the bill signed into law. Although the president's Executive Order regarding funding for abortion was touted as the solution, the White House later admitted the Order simply "reiterated" what was already in the bill. Nonetheless, the mainstream media continues to portray the Executive Order as having effectively blocked federal funds for abortion.

"This is just the first proof of the phoniness of President Obama's assurances that federal funds would not subsidize abortion - but it will not be the last," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has emphasized that the high-risk pool program is a federal program, and that the states will not incur any cost. On May 11, 2010, in a letter to Democratic and Republican congressional leaders on implementation of the new law, DHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote that "states may choose whether and how they participate in the program, which is funded entirely by the federal government."

Details of the high-risk pool plans for most states are not yet available. But on June 28, Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario issued a press release announcing that the federal Department of Health and Human Services had approved his agency's proposal for implementing the new program in Pennsylvania. According to the release, "The plan's benefit package will include preventive care, physician services, diagnostic testing, hospitalization, mental health services, prescription medications and much more, with subsidized premiums of $283 a month."

Examination of the detailed Pennsylvania plan (posted here), reveals that the "much more" will include insurance coverage of any legal abortion.

The section on abortion (see page 14) asserts that "elective abortions are not covered." However, that statement proves to be a red herring, because the operative language does not define "elective." Rather, the proposal specifies that the coverage "includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of" several specific statutes, the most pertinent of which is 18 Pa. C.S. § 3204, which says that an abortion is legal in Pennsylvania (consistent with Roe v. Wade) if a single physician believes that it is "necessary" based on "all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman."

Indeed, the cited statute provides only a single circumstance in which an abortion prior to 24 weeks is not permitted under the Pennsylvania statute: "No abortion which is sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child shall be deemed a necessary abortion."

As a result, "Under the Rendell-Sebelius plan, federal funds will subsidize coverage of abortion performed for any reason, except sex selection," said NRLC's Johnson. "The Pennsylvania proposal conspicuously lacks language that would prevent funding of abortions performed as a method of birth control or for any other reason, except sex selection - and the Obama Administration has now approved this."

Responding to NRLC's discovery, Tom McClusky, Family Research Council Action's Senior Vice President, said: "Never have we so regretted being right on an issue, but this $160 million for an abortion insurance program in Pennsylvania validates the arguments FRC Action made throughout the health care debate: Taxpayer dollars will fund abortions. For our efforts to remove the bill's abortion funding, we were called 'deceivers' by President Obama and 'liars' by his allies."

"Now we know who the true deceivers and liars really are."