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.

The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 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.

“The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which we’ve discovered will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.

Johnson told LifeNews.com: “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.”

Thanks a lot Stupak. You sold out your long-held pro-life principles and gave up your congressional seat for squat. Because of you American taxpayers who abhor abortion are now on the hook for paying for it.

Even more disturbing than the ad itself, at least to me, is the reason why the regulatory body changed its advertising rules regarding abortion in the first place. According to a UK Daily Mail report published last year, the two independent media regulatory boards approved the new rules so they worked in conjunction with the British government’s new efforts to reduce the nation’s high teen pregnancy rate:

The proposals by the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) will give Britain among the world’s most liberal broadcasting regimes on sexual health services.

The watchdog claims it is responding to Government calls for action to combat rising teenage pregnancy.

The Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) and their sister organisation the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) are starting a 12-week public consultation into the proposals today.

But it is clear it hopes to implement the changes early next year to fall in line with the policy of the Government and its advisers.

It’s hard to stomach, but it’s been laid out plainly that the new advertising rules and the resulting advertisements are targeted at pregnant teen age girls in an effort to convince them to have abortions. Why would any government that supposedly cares about the well-being of its citizens encourage its teen girls to do something so destructive as a means to reduce the nation’s teen pregnancy rate?  The unfortunate reality is the NHS is suffering devastating cost overruns and the British government needs to implement budget cutting measures that will have immediate and measurable results.

Britain’s NHS may have had a very altruistic beginning, but it did not take long for its costs to completely overwhelm Britain’s national budget. Cutting costs has become such a high priority that from all appearances it has replaced the system’s original mission of providing high quality health care and saving lives. Consequently, when government bureaucrats look at the NHS balance sheets, they don’t see abortion as the death of unborn babies. Rather, in their world of accounting cycles they see abortion as a highly effective means of reducing the cost of health care. Not only does abortion cost significantly less than prenatal care and delivery, but its long term savings probably make every government bean counter’s heart go aflutter. Every unborn baby that is eliminated, a lifetime of health care costs associated with that baby are eliminated as well.

Is reducing the nation’s health care costs really what the British government and its media regulatory body had in mind when they took up the effort to allow abortion advertising? If so, what Western nation that supposedly believes in the inherent value of human life balances its health care budget on the bodies of its unborn babies? Yes, the NHS is bloated and must slash its budget, but there are ways to achieve that goal that don’t result in the death of its unborn. How about allowing general practitioners to open their own private clinics where patients can pay cash for treatment of minor illnesses and injuries?  Instead, the rules are changed to allow abortion clinics to promote their services on television in the hopes that pregnant teens and women choose that option instead of giving birth.  What a gruesome and nihilistic to save money.

Update: Hmmm. It seems the folks who approved the rules allowing these ads didn’t think about the impact it would have on the other side of the argument.

He explained that he and his “pro-life” colleagues came to an agreement with the House leadership and the President that there would be no federal funding for abortions in the Health Care Reform bill. But here’s the issue. The language will be in the form of an Executive Order, which is not law. It does not trump existing law and it can be rescinded at any time by Obama or any other future presidents. It seems Stupak wanted to vote for this bill badly enough that he folded on a piece of paper that does not change anything in the bill he is going to vote “yes” on. Pro-life, huh?

Update: John Boehner’s office just issued a statement:

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement on a potential Executive Order from the White House on abortion:

“The law of the land trumps any Executive Order, which can be reversed or altered at the stroke of a pen by this or any subsequent President without any congressional approval or notice. Moreover, while an Executive Order can direct members of the executive branch, it cannot direct the private sector.

“Because of Roe v. Wade, courts have interpreted the decision as a statutory mandate that the government must provide federal funding for elective abortion in through federal programs.  In other words, no Executive Order or regulation can override a statutory mandate unless Congress passes a law that prohibits federal funding from being used in this manner.  Legal experts at the US Catholic Conference of Bishops, National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, and Family Research Council have confirmed this view that if the Senate bill is signed into law, it is a statutory mandate for the new health plans to include federal funding of elective abortion.  The need for an Executive Order is evidence that this is true, and Congressional Democrats know it.  Make no mistake, a ‘yes’ vote on the Democrats’ health care bill is a vote for taxpayer-funded abortions.”

Update II: Andrew Malcolm at the LAT Top of the Ticket has the text of this Executive Order.

Update III: Tom Elia at the New Editor says Stupak “may have been the first person in US history to commit political suicide by executive order…”

Update IV: Andy McCarthy has more on Obama’s meaningless EO:

The Susan B. Anthony List observation that EOs can be rescinded at the president’s whim is of course true. This particuar EO is also a nullity — presidents cannot enact laws, the Supreme Court has said they cannot impound funds that Congress allocates, and (as a friend points out) the line-item veto has been held unconstitutional, so they can’t use executive orders to strike provisions in a bill. So this anti-abortion EO is blatant chicanery: if the pro-lifers purport to be satisfied by it, they are participating in a transparent fraud and selling out the pro-life cause.

The second and more controversial one that pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood and the National Organization of (Pro-Abortion) Women got all hot and bothered about will run during the game itself. I’m guessing the second ad will be pretty much like this first one, but we’ll find out very soon. And to think pro-abortion groups lost their minds over this.

Hat tip: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air

Update: I just saw the second ad, which followed a hilarious ad for Snickers featuring Betty White and Abe Vigoda (you had to see it). This second Tebow ad was much like the first, as I expected, but with Tim “tackling” his mom. It was a truly innocent ad, and the pro-abortion groups should feel really stupid about now.

I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.

Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.

Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikini selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t.

Hurray for Sally Jenkins. She’s a great example of what the pro-choice philosophy is supposed to be about, and that is “safe, legal, and rare.” Pro-abortionists claim that they want abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare,” but their actions tell a different story, one that has abortion-on-demand at its core.

I especially like this part of Sally’s piece the best:

Here’s what we do need a lot more of: Tebows. Collegians who are selfless enough to choose not to spend summers poolside, but travel to impoverished countries to dispense medical care to children, as Tebow has every summer of his career. Athletes who believe in something other than themselves, and are willing to put their backbone where their mouth is. Celebrities who are self-possessed and self-controlled enough to use their wattage to advertise commitment over decadence.

You know what we really need more of? Famous guys who aren’t embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it out loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions. See, the best way to deal with unwanted pregnancy is to not get the sperm in the egg and the egg implanted to begin with, and that is an issue for men, too — and they should step up to that.

Indeed!

Update: My friend Natalie Jost commented on Sally’s article at her place:

No matter what side of the abortion issue you take, you have to admit, it’s a really good thing that Tim’s mother chose not to go there. And whether you share his belief in Christ or not, you can’t deny he stands out as a man of character—but, that’s pretty threatening to a lot of people.

It’s a defining moment in a parent’s life: Seeing their unborn child’s image on an ultrasound for the first time. Now pregnant women could have the chance to hold a life-size model of their unborn baby.

The startling new medical technology is the result of a Royal College of Art design student’s PhD.

Brazilian student Jorge Lopes has pioneered the conversion of data from ultrasound and MRI scans into life-size plaster models of living embryos using a method called rapid prototyping.

‘It’s amazing to see the faces of the mothers. They can see the full scale of their baby, really understand the size of it,’ said Dr Lopes.

Take a look at this:

Be sure to head over to the link and take a look at the other images. They are amazing.  I would have loved to have had this with each of my three kids. Now, this may very well cause some problems for pro-abortion activists who insist that an unborn baby isn’t really a baby or even a human.

The perpetrator has been arrested:

Sedgwick County 911 dispatchers are confirming that the Johnson County Sheriff’s Department has arrested a possible suspect in Dr. George Tiller’s murder. A car matching the description of the vehicle wanted in the killing was pulled over near Gardner, KS.

Kansas City television stations report the stop was made along I-35 near Gardner, south of Kansas City.

Dr. Tiller was shot and killed this morning at his church. Authorities were called to a shooting at Reformation Lutheran Church in the 7600 block of E. 13th Street at 10:03 this morning.

Sources close to the investigation and the controversial abortion doctor confirm that George Tiller was pronounced dead at the scene shortly after emergency crews arrived. Although Police Captain Brent Allred is not formally naming the victim of the shooting, he does classify the case as “high-profile” and that the victim has been the target of violence in the past. The police department has scheduled a news conference at 4 p.m. this afternoon to discuss today’s events.

He was killed inside his church. He actually went to church. How he reconciled what he did with any kind of Christian faith is a topic left for another day.

Dr. Tiller was a monstrous man who made money killing unborn babies. But that does not mean he should have been killed because to kill him is as monstrous an act as partial birth abortion.  If someone is pro-life, that means respecting the lives of those whom we believe to be doing evil. Tiller should have been left for the Kansas medical board to handle as his license was probably going to be revoked.

If the suspect turns out to be an anti-abortion activist, this will give the Obama administration and Janet Napolitano’s DHS the excuse to view all pro-lifers through the same lens as Tiller’s murderer, which means pro-lifers will be labeled terrorists. Now there will be an even greater push to equate Christians with radical Islamists. Andrew Sullivan already is screaming about Christian terrorism. Unfortunately, there will not be a call for tolerance toward Christians as there has been for Muslims, even though 25% of young American Muslims believe suicide bombings are sometimes justified.

That National Right to Life Committee has responded to Tiller’s murder:

National Right to Life extends its sympathies to Dr. Tiller’s family over this loss of life.

Further, the National Right to Life Committee unequivocally condemns any such acts of violence regardless of motivation.  The pro-life movement works to protect the right to life and increase respect for human life.  The unlawful use of violence is directly contrary to that goal.

Watch:

Swedish women will be permitted to abort their children based on the sex of the fetus, according to a ruling by Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare.

The ruling was spurred by a request from Kai Wedenberg, head of the clinic where a woman twice requested, and received, an abortion based on sex.

Mr. Wedenberg asked for clarification from health officials after a woman, who already had two girls, requested amniocentesis and to be told the sex of her unborn child. She found out she was pregnant with another girl and asked for an abortion six days later.

The woman then became pregnant again, returned to the clinic and asked for another amniocentesis, which was not performed. Later, at her ultrasound, she asked the nurse to reveal the sex of her fetus, which was a girl. After learning this, the mother requested an abortion later that day and received it later that week.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air sadly notes that Sweden is nothing if not consistent:

At least Sweden remained consistent. Unlike the CRR, their decision reluctantly noted that the woman’s motivation was irrelevant if one accepts that someone can “choose” to end human life as a right. One wonders whether CRR will protest this decision in Sweden as they do in China, extending their intellectual confusion over the nature of “choice” as an absolute right.

Ed West at the UK Telegraph notes that this decision is putting liberals in quite a quandary.

Remember, Dr. Page is not your typical Evangelical critic. He has a good relationship with the President and doesn’t just criticize to be a thorn in the side of this President.  Actually, on the council he tells me he’s considered the “Religious Right” guy so his comments should be taken seriously. These remarks are a sobering reminder that just because President Obama is “reaching out” to Conservative Evangelicals, if his policy bottom line ends up being the same as other pro-choice Democrats then he will have squandered any good will he built up during the 2008 campaign. That’s the emphatic message here.

Dr. Page says he’s disappointed that President Obama keeps removing what few protections have been in place to protect unborn babies.  When Obama was a state senator in Illinois, he voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which would have required that babies born alive after botched abortions be given the medical treatment to save their lives. I am shocked that Dr. Page actually thought a man who would make such a vote would then work to reduce the number of abortions in Americca.