Obama’s executive order forbidding the use of ObamaCare money for abortions has been rendered useless by … the Obama administration.  Did anyone, other than hyper-partisan liberals, really believe him when he signed it?  I certainly didn’t.

The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.

The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.

It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.

Tabitha Hale writing at RedState explains that the so-called "high risk" qualifier is just another fig leaf.

The loophole comes in the wording:

The section on abortion (see page 14) asserts that “elective abortions are not covered,” though it does not define elective — which Johnson calls a “red herring.”

Therein lies the problem. Anything that is not hard worded is a gray area that will be manipulated by the most pro-abortion administration we’ve ever seen. What, then, determines an “elective” abortion? Is the mother who chooses to terminate her baby with Down’s Syndrome “electing” to have an abortion, or is she forced by circumstances?

The National Right to Life Committee has determined that the only abortion that will not be covered under the plan is gender selection. It’s dangerous territory, which is why there should be no Federal funding for abortions, period. Everyone has a different definition of what is “elective.” We know all too well what happens when Washington has room to maneuver within the wording of the law.

Bart Stupak caved, and I agree with Tabitha that the term "pro-life Democrat" is an oxymoron.  The Democrats flat-out lied to get their agenda through, both (at least) in that this would be a a cost saver (whereas now they’re defending it in court as a tax increase) and what it would pay for.  This is big government.  It’s what it does.  The more power you give it, the more it’ll lie to you (and bribe you) to get more.

We’ve not seen the end of the surprises.

It’s been interesting to see the continued liberal ranting regarding the Sherrod incident - that of USDA offical Shirley Sherrod being forced to resign due to the publication of a partial video of her allegedly espousing racist views. Over the weekend, Howard Dean ignorantly attributed the whole mess to the “absolutely racist” FoxNews, despite the fact that Sherrod resigned before FoxNews had aired the video footage. Even Sherrod herself is cashing in on her Warhol minutes, claiming that Andrew Breibart (whose website the original video was posted) wants to take us back to the days of slavery.

Now, I thought that Obama’s election had elevated us beyond the racial divide of our past? I thought that Obama and, presumably, his administration, would usher in the era when persons were judged not by the color of their skin?

In Owning up to jumping the gun, my previous post on the Sherrod incident, the author of the piece at the New Mexico Independent refers to certain conservatives (originally) claiming that Sherrod was guilty of “reverse racism”. Well let’s be clear - racism is racism - any belief that one race is superior to another. There is no such thing as “reverse racism”, regardless of whether the views expressed are from blacks against whites. That blacks, or people of color, may suffer from racism more often than whites does not change the definition of the word racism.

Good morning.

1. Words on racism, with which I basically agree. Aff. action and other policies on racism support ontological racial distinctions … which is why they tend to support and reinforce that which they are trying to remove.
2. Where blogging is really political.
3. Flailing against “deeper than objective reason” and forgetting that most of life is like that. Your love for, well anything, but take your love for your beloved and/or your children. This is not a thing established by “objective reason.” Perhaps you don’t like the term “deeper” but that is something of shorthand for “more profound and basic.” This also connects with the piece on the Jewish discussion in which objective discussion disproved God, yet they prayed (calmly) on the way to immolation.
4. Weather without climate change hyperbole.
5. A film noted.
6. Ladies, I’m sorry but in real life it’s just not all that complicated.
7. Propane.
8. A girl and a map.
9. Ms Sherrod’s case reviewed.
10. Discussing Colonel Lynch’s solution to a vexing problem (which by the by had nothing at all to do with race relations).
11. Our new healthcare working for (or against) us.
12. Memory Eternal.
13. I’m not sure that would work for me … how about you?