An investigation by three Republican congressmen has revealed the Obama administration has secretly spent $23 million of U.S. taxpayer dollars in Kenya to fund a “Yes” vote on a constitutional referendum scheduled for Aug. 4 that would increase access to abortions in Kenya and establish legal status for Islamic law tribunals.

Meanwhile, trusted sources in Kenya tell WND that the White House has used Vice President Joseph Biden’s trip to Kenya in June and the office of U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Michael E. Ranneberger to put out the message that passage of the referendum would enable the White House to open the floodgates to allow millions of dollars of additional U.S. government aid and private investment capital to flow into Kenya.

Last week, in response to inquiries from Reps. Chris Smith, R-N.J., Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, admitted to spending more than $23 million of U.S. taxpayer money to influence voters in Kenya to pass the highly contentious constitution.

“Despite denials, the Obama administration’s funding to support passage of the controversial Kenyan proposed constitution is clear,” Jeff Sagnip, spokesman for Rep. Smith, told WND in an e-mail over the weekend. “It constitutes U.S. monetary interference in a sovereign nation’s voting process. If passed the constitution would dramatically alter existing pro-life laws.”

Sagnip pointed out that the proposed constitution would water down the existing abortion law. It would permit abortion when “in the opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law.” That language, Sagnip said, is “obviously vague” and riddled with “blatant loopholes.”

Islamic courts

The proposed constitution would also give legal status to what are known as “Kadhi Courts,” constituting an Islamic judicial structure within the overall structure of the Kenyan legal structure, to resolve disputes between Muslims under Shariah, or Islamic law.

Critics have charged that the constitutional provision to codify Kadhi Courts would violate the separation of state and religion by allowing Islamic law to have official legal status.

WND previously reported that in the 2007 presidential campaign in Kenya, Raila Odinga – the presidential candidate of the Orange Democratic Party and a Luo tribesman like Obama’s father –signed an undisclosed memorandum of understanding with radical Muslims in Kenya to expand Islamic law within the country in exchange for Muslim support of his candidacy.

As reported by Ecumenical News International in the U.K., many Kenyans believe the provision in the proposed referendum that would establish Kadhi courts is a fulfillment of the agreement Odinga made with Sheik Abdullah Abdi, the chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum.

U.S. taxpayers suppory “Yes” vote

According to Smith’s office, the USAID inspector general had identified the following programs with direct ties to supporting the “Yes” vote the Obama administration had funded in Kenya:

• Provincial Peace Forum, Eastern Providence: $97,633.33 to “gain buy-in for the new proposed constitution by educating the professional elites in Isiolo South Constituency about its benefits and getting their commitment to use their influence to ensure people register and vote ‘Yes’ at the referendum.”
• Central Organization of Trade Unions, Kenya (COTU): $91,106.66 to “marshal a coalition of pro-Constitution individuals, institutions, and organizations to drum up political support for the Proposed Constitution by organizing a public rally at the historic Kamukunji Grounds, Nairobi.”
• Provincial Commissioner North Eastern Province: $99,220 for “one of a series of activities that aim to contribute to an ‘overrepresentation’ of the ‘Yes’ voters at the next referendum. Specifically, OTI will provide support to the office of the Provincial Commissioner (PC) in the form of transportation and fuel.
• Kenya Muslim Youth Alliance (KMYA): $56,953.33 for “one of a series of activities that aim to contribute to an ‘overrepresentation’ of the ‘Yes’ voters at the next referendum. Specifically, OTI will provide support to Kenya Muslims Youth Alliance (KMYA) in the form of transportation and communications.
• Provincial Peace Forum, Rift Valley Province: $94,193.33 to “build on previous activities in the North Rift as an entry point for a ‘Yes’ campaign on the constitution. Specifically, this activity will serve to gain buy-in for the new proposed constitution by getting the professional elites’ commitment.”
• Inter community Peace Choir Organization: $38,600 for “one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in cosmopolitan areas occupied by IDPs for a ‘Yes’ vote at the next referendum.”
• North Rift Theatre Ambassadors: $37,773.33 for “one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in cosmopolitan areas of Uasin Gishu, namely Turbo, Maili Maili Nne-Chepkanaga, and Huruma divisions for a ‘Yes’ vote at the next referendum.”
• Amani Peoples Theatre: $41,400 for “one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in Kachiliba and Psigor Constituencies-North Pokot for a ‘Yes’ vote at the next referendum.”
• Christian Community Services: $37,466.67 for “one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 in the three Constituencies of Turkana South, Central, and North for a ‘Yes’ vote at the next referendum.”
• Pokot Outreach Ministries: $38,133.34 for “one of a series of activities aimed at facilitating registration of approximately 20,000 additional voters in the entire Constituency of Kapenguria for a ‘Yes’ vote at the next referendum.”

“By funding NGOs (non-governmental organizations) with obtaining ‘yes’ votes, the administration has crossed the line,” Smith said last week in a statement. “Directly supporting efforts to register ‘yes’ voters and ‘get out the yes vote’ means the U.S. government is running a political campaign in Kenya. U.S. taxpayer funds should not be used to support one side or the other.”

The Standard in Kenya reported Kenyan Higher Education Minister William Ruto, who is leading the “Red” team opposing the Kenyan constitutional referendum, has accused Ambassador Ranneberger of crossing the “no-go-zone for foreign diplomats.”

In defending his actions, Ranneberger argued he was operating within his diplomatic orbit, but “more so because the U.S. is a friend of Kenya and is pro-reform,” according to the report published by the Standard.

“Ranneberger maintained he was a friend of Kenya and would therefore not shy away from pointing out the lies being propagated by the ‘No’ team,” the Standard wrote.

“Separated by a few kilometers from another meeting, where Ruto was selling his views against the draft, the envoy promised to continue helping the push for reforms,” the paper said. “The American ambassador again pointed out Obama was interested in ensuring the country embraces reforms to pave way for better governance, improved livelihood for citizens.”

Obama’s links to Odinga

The Obama administration’s funding of Kenyan internal politics appears to follow a pattern then-Sen. Obama first set on his 2006 Senate-funded visit to Kenya.

During that trip in 2006, Obama campaigned so openly for Odinga that Kenyan government spokesman Alfred Mutua went on Kenyan television on behalf of Kenyan President Kibaki to object that Obama was meddling inappropriately in Kenyan politics, as WND reported.

WND reported in 2008 that Obama raised almost $1 million for Odinga during the run-up to Kenya’s 2007 presidential election.

Also as WND previously reported, Odinga called for protests over alleged voter fraud during the December 2007 Kenyan presidential election, with the resulting protest violence leaving an estimated 1,000 members of the dominant Kiduyu tribe in Kenya dead and an estimated 500,000 displaced from their homes.

In a horrifying incident following the election, at least 50 people, including women and children, were killed when an angry mob forced Kiduyu Christians into an Assembly of God church in the village of Eldoret, about 185 miles northwest of Nairobi. The mob set fire to the church, hacking with machetes any of the Christians who attempted to escape the flames.

In the final days of the New Hampshire Democratic primary, after the post-election violence in Kenya, Obama told reporters he continued to remain in contact with Odinga by telephone.

Obama did not object to Odinga’s continued push to share the head of state with President Mwai Kibaki despite Odinga’s electoral defeat.

Instead, Obama worked with former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to end the violence by creating for Odinga the position of prime minister – a position not defined in the Kenyan constitution – so Odinga could become co-head of state with Kibaki.

As recently as May, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the top prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, was in Kenya to investigate the possibility of bringing criminal charges against both Kibaki and Odinga for their roles in the post-election violence.

Maryland will join Pennsylvania as the second state to use federal tax dollars to pay for abortions under the new health care law signed by President Barack Obama in March, according to information released by Maryland’s State Health Insurance Plan.

Maryland will receive $85 million in federal funds for its federally mandated high-risk insurance pool, which will cover abortions. As CNSNews.com reported on July 14, Pennsylvania will receive $160 million in federal funds for its high-risk insurance pool, which will also cover abortions.

During the debate over the health-care bill, President Obama delivered a speech to a joint session of Congress, saying: “Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.”

The day the House voted to pass that bill, President Obama also signed an executive order purporting to prevent federal funding of abortions in the programs it created.

Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.), the chairman of the House Republican Conference, said Friday that the fact that Maryland will now use federal dollars to fund abortions under a program mandated by the health-care law signed by President Obama represents a “broken promise.

“This is one more example of a broken promise in ObamaCare,” said Pence. “It is morally wrong to end an unborn human life and it is reprehensible to take taxpayer dollars from millions of pro-life Americans and use them to pay for abortions.”

Pence urged Congress to enact new legislation to stop abortion funding through the health-care law.

“I call on Congress to act quickly on critical legislation by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) to stop the administration from using ObamaCare to fund abortions.”

In a July 7 press release, the sate of Maryland announced that it had reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to offer federally subsidized insurance plans to people with pre-existing conditions as mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—the health-care law signed by President Obama in March.

Under the terms of that law, either HHS itself or state governments contracting with HHS must offer such plans in each of the 50 states to people with pre-existing conditions. These plans must operate until 2014 when all states are required under the law to run insurance exchanges that will offer federally subsidized insurance plans to state residents earning less than 400 percent of the poverty level.

Maryland said it will use its existing high-cost insurance pool–the Maryland Health Insurance Plan (MHIP)–to administer the federal high-risk plan, which it calls the MHIP Federal Plan.

The press release, issued by MHIP, said Maryland will receive $85 million in federal money to administer this plan and pay claims.

According to a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) fact sheet published by MHIP, its new Federal Plan will offer the same benefit package as its state-funded plans. “The MHIP Federal Plan offers the same benefit package as other MHIP plan options,” that document states. All five of MHIP’s plans cover abortion, including one plan that requires no co-pay if the abortion is performed at an out-patient abortion clinic, according information found on page 53 of the 2010 MHIP Certificate of Coverage.

Maryland’s federally subsidized plan for people with pre-existing conditions will be available in September 2010.

The day after revelations that the Obama administration allowed federal taxpayer funding of abortions under the new national health care law that was supposed to prevent it, new information shows President Barack Obama has authorized abortion funding in a second state.

The first abortion funding had the Obama administration approve a Pennsylvania plan calling for the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions for virtually any reason through a new high risk insurance program created by the national health care law.

Now, the National Right to Life Committee, which uncovered the first case of abortion funding, has dug up a second set — in New Mexico.

NRLC legislative director Douglas Johnson informed LifeNews.com of the first set and spoke with Kathryn Lopez of National Review about the abortion funding in the western state.

He said New Mexico state officials have put together a new $37 million high-risk pool that will begin enrolling members on July 1 and they will begin receiving benefits August 1 — including federal funding for elective abortions according to the state insurance department’s website. After the insured pays the deductible, taxpayer dollars from the federal government cover the remaining 80 percent.

“HHS has been hiding most of these high-risk plans, including the plan that HHS will administer directly in 21 states. Of the four state plans we’ve managed to ferret out, two provided coverage of essentially all abortions — Pennsylvania and New Mexico,” Johnson told National Review.

“This is part of a pattern, under this administration, of making ‘soft’ rhetorical statements on abortion policy, but consistently promoting and expanding abortion through low-visibility administrative decisions. The administration’s heavy funding of groups pushing a proposed new pro-abortion constitution in Kenya is another example,” Johnson added.

House minority leader John Boehner also sent a statement to National Review about the New Mexico funding.

“In just the past 24 hours, we’ve learned of two states in which the new federal high-risk insurance programs created under Obamacare and approved by the Obama administration will use federal funds to pay for abortion, despite promises by the White House and Democratic leaders that no such funding would occur under Obamacare,” he said.

“These developments provide stark confirmation that President Obama’s executive order last spring was little more than a political ploy to ensure passage of Obamacare by circumventing the will of the American people, who are clearly opposed to taxpayer-funded abortion,” the Republican leader added.

Lopez, of National Review, opined on the situation and urged voters to hold accountable in November those lawmakers who voted for the pro-abortion health care plan.

“The Obama administration lied, and members of Congress who claim to be pro-life went along with the sham. There should, indeed, be electoral consequences,” she said.

If you want proof that President Obama’s Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham, look no further than Pennsylvania, says House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio).

Boehner and other Republicans point to reports that the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

“The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable,” Boehner said in a statement on Tuesday.

“Just last month at the White House, I asked President Obama to provide the American people with a progress report on the implementation of his Executive Order, which purports to ban taxpayer-funding of abortions. Unfortunately, the President provided no information, and the American people are still waiting for answers.”

President Obama pledged that under his health care plan “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

In a May 13 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Boehner asked if her department has provided guidance to the states on how to implement the president’s Executive Order on abortion funding. Boehner also asked Sebelius if the new federal high-risk pools would exclude abortion coverage.

He says his questions remain unanswered.

“Millions of Americans care deeply about this aspect of the new law and its implementation, and no progress report is complete without detailed information about it,” Boehner wrote to Sebelius.

The conservative Family Research Council says the $160 million in taxpayer funds for Pennsylvania is the first known instance of direct federal funding of abortions through the new high-risk insurance pools.

The abortion funding for pool participants validates the arguments pro-life groups made throughout the health care debate – that taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the Family Research Council’s political action arm.

“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,’ McClusky said.

“This action by the Obama Administration also exposes the worthlessness of President Obama’s Executive Order that supposedly would prevent federal funding of abortion, but which both sides, including Planned Parenthood, agreed was unenforceable.

“While the American people deserve an apology from President Obama for his deception, we should only be satisfied when this Pennsylvania abortion funding is rescinded and the health care law repealed.

McClusky noted that the new health care law also includes $12.5 billion for community health centers, and $6 billion for co-ops, both of which can fund abortions. And some people will use tax credits to help them pay for plans that cover abortion.

Even before it’s fully implemented, the Democrats’ health care plan “is already being exposed as a high-taxing, poorly thought-out, and taxpayer-funding-of-abortion monstrosity,” McClusky said.

Republican leader Boehner says House Republicans would codify the Hyde amendment, thus prohibiting all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. Under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage would not receive federal funds.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) told CNSNews.com that President Barack Obama told him in a telephone conversation that when he said in his Sept. 9 speech to a joint session of Congress that “under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” he was not talking about the actual bill drafted in the House but about the president’s own health care plan—which has never been written.

“I don’t know if it is a game of semantics or what,” Stupak said of Obama’s nationally televised declaration to Congress that the health-care plan will not allow federal funding of abortion.

Both the House and Senate versions of the health-care bill permit federal funds to pay for insurance plans that cover abortions.

In his speech to the joint session of Congress, Obama directly rebutted the claim that the plan would fund abortions, calling it a “misunderstanding.” But in his later telephone conversation with Stupak, according to the congressman, Obama said that when he claimed in the speech that the plan would not fund abortions he was not talking about the House plan, he was talking about his own plan.

CNSNews.com read Stupak the verbatim transcript of President Obama’s joint-session-speech statement about abortion funding: “And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up: Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.”

CNSNews.com asked Stupak: “Is that a true or false statement?”

“That is exactly what he said,” said Stupak.

“But is it an accurate statement?” asked CNSNews.com.

“I called him,” said Stupak. “I called the president–had a discussion with the president. And I read exactly what you just said. And he said: ‘What it says is “under my plan”’—meaning the president’s plan. And I said: ‘With all due respect, sir, you do not have a plan. The only plan we have out is the House plan.’ So, I don’t know if it is a game of semantics or what.”

CNSNews.com then asked Stupak if Obama was referring to a plan that existed only ‘theoretically, some different plan than the one you actually drafted in committee?”

“Correct. Correct,” said Stupak. “And when I pointed this out, he said: ‘Go back and work with the people on your committee and get this matter worked out. Work with the speaker.  Work with us, would you?’ And I said: Yes, I would. And we have tried. But we haven’t been able to resolve our differences because we do not want public funds going for abortion.”

Stupak serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the panel that has primary responsibility for crafting health-care legislation. The House health-care-reform bill approved by this committee would create health insurance “exchanges” in each state where people using federal subsidies to purchase their insurance could choose the plan they want from among a group of government-approved plans.

On July 30, the committee approved an amendment to the bill sponsored by Rep. Lois Capps (D.-Calif.) that mandates that at least one insurance plan in each exchange must cover abortions.

On Aug. 19, in a radio presentation, President Obama nonetheless said that it was “not true” that the bill would allow government funding of abortion. On Aug. 21, the independent group FactCheck.org analyzed the bill in light of this statement by President Obama and concluded: “Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.”

The Senate Finance Committee’s health-care bill had not been completed at the time that President Obama delivered his Sept. 9 speech to Congress. When it was completed, however, it also included a provision like the Capps Amendment. Thus, both House and Senate versions of the health-care bill as they now stand would allow people to use federal dollars to buy health insurance plans that cover abortions.

In the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Stupak offered his own amendment to the health care bill that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to cover “any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion.” This amendment mirrors the language of the Hyde Amendment that is included each year in various annual appropriations bills. Because the Hyde Amendment only affects funding included in the appropriations bill that carries it, its prohibition on abortion funding would not apply to the permanent funding stream for federal health insurance subsidies that would be set up by the health-care reform bills drafted by the House and Senate.

On July 31, by a 27-to-31 vote, the Energy and Commerce Committee defeated Stupak’s effort to include the Hyde language directly in the health-care bill itself and thus prohibit abortion funding through that bill and the programs it would create.

Stupak told CNSNews.com he has organized a group of “about 40 likeminded Democrats” who will try to kill the health care bill itself unless House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) agrees to allow an up-or-down vote on his amendment when the bill comes to the House floor.

“The speaker has told me I will not have my amendment,” said Stupak. ”It will not be made in order.”

Stupak also said that during his telephone conversation with Obama the president indicated that he supports Stupak’s goal of prohibting federal funding of abortion through the health-care reform plan, although the president did not say that he supports the specific language of Stupak’s amendment.

“I would call upon the President to help us out here,” said Stupak.

Here is a partial transcript of CNSNews.com’s interview with Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.):

Jeffrey: “When President Obama came and spoke to the joint session of Congress on September 9th, he said, quote: ‘And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up: Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” unquote.  Is that a true or false statement?”

Stupak: “That is exactly what he said.”

Jeffrey: “Okay, that is what he said. But is it an accurate statement?”

Stupak: “I called him. I called the president–had a discussion with the president. And I read exactly what you just said. And he said: ‘What it says is “under my plan”’—meaning the president’s plan. And I said: ‘With all due respect, sir, you do not have a plan. The only plan we have out is the House plan.’ So, I don’t know if it is a game of semantics or what.”

Jeffrey: “So President Obama did not tell you, Congressman Stupak, that the plans that have been drafted in the House—the bill that actually came out of your committee—does not fund abortion.”

Stupak: “He did not say that.”

Jeffrey: “He did not assert that. He said that ‘his’ plan–”

Stupak: “His plan.”

Jeffrey: “Theoretically, some different plan than the one you actually drafted in committee?”

Stupak: “Correct. Correct. And when I pointed this out, he said: ‘Go back and work with the people on your committee and get this matter worked out. Work with the speaker.  Work with us, would you?’ And I said: Yes, I would. And we have tried. But we haven’t been able to resolve our differences because we do not want public funds going for abortion.”

Jeffrey: “Did President Obama indicate to you that he supports your amendment?”

Stupak: “He is supportive of what I am trying to do. However, we are getting down to crunch time. And I would call upon the President to help us out here. The speaker has told me I will not have my amendment.  It will not be made in order. It will not be part of 3200. So the Capps language—which [means] citizens would have to start using their funds, public funds, to pay for abortions–will be part of 3200. And I will not have an opportunity on the House floor to delete that language or put the Hyde language in there to supersede the Capps language.”

Jeffrey: “So, the president has represented to you that he supports the goal—”

Stupak: “Yes.”

Jeffrey: “–of prohibiting federal dollars from being used to buy insurance that covers abortions?”

Stupak: “Yes.”

Jeffrey: “Without saying that he supports your specific language?”

Stupak: “Without saying he supports my specific language.”

As the debate over President Obama’s socialized healthcare plan heats up, the depth of his radicalism is becoming more evident.John Holdren, Obama’s recent choice for “Science Czar,” provides the latest and perhaps most troubling example of extremism. In the name of population control, Holdren has advocated both forced abortion and compulsory sterilization through government-administered tainting of the water supply.

In a 1977 book he co-authored, called “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,” Holdren called for a “Planetary Regime” to enforce mandatory abortions for population control and limit the use of natural resources.

Holdren wrote: “There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

Holdren writes that “a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits.”

He states that “sterilizing women after their second or third child” may be more practicable than sterilizing men and proposes a “long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin” at puberty and then “might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

He queried: “Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

He wrote “that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution. [N]either the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce.”

John Holdren is like a bad character from a George Orwell novel. The fact that Obama would unilaterally appoint him to a position of such power and influence says more about our President than it does his ‘Science Czar.’ Birds of a feather flock together.

President Obama’s hyper-extremism continues to astound, and the mainstream media cannot continue to cover it up much longer.

As Obama pushes his massive scheme for socialized medicine, the American people are slowly beginning to grasp the radical nature of the minds and philosophies behind it. One more question the President needs to answer: ‘Is there a co-pay with forced abortion?’

Read more about John Holdren here.

Want a preview of ObamaCare in action? Sneak a look at what has happened in Maine. In 2003, the state to great fanfare enacted its own version of universal health care. Democratic Governor John Baldacci signed the plan into law with a bevy of familiar promises. By 2009, it would cover all of Maine’s approximately 128,000 uninsured citizens. System-wide controls on hospital and physician costs would hold down insurance premiums. There would be no tax increases. The program was going to provide insurance for everyone and save businesses and patients money at the same time.

After five years, fiscal realities as brutal as the waves that crash along Maine’s famous coastline have hit the insurance plan. The system that was supposed to save money has cost taxpayers $155 million and is still rising.

Here’s how the program was supposed to work. Two government programs would cover the uninsured. First the legislature greatly expanded MaineCare, the state’s Medicaid program. Today Maine families with incomes of up to $44,000 a year are eligible; 22% of the population is now in Medicaid, roughly twice the national average.

Then the state created a “public option” known as DirigoChoice. (Dirigo is the state motto, meaning “I Lead.”) This plan would compete with private plans such as Blue Cross. To entice lower income Mainers to enroll, it offered taxpayer-subsidized premiums. The plan’s original funding source was $50 million of federal stimulus money the state got in 2003. Over time, the plan was to be “paid for by savings in the health-care system.” This is precisely the promise of ObamaCare. Maine saved by squeezing payments to hospitals and physicians.

The program flew off track fast. At its peak in 2006, only about 15,000 people had enrolled in the DirigoChoice program. That number has dropped to below 10,000, according to the state’s own reporting. About two-thirds of those who enrolled already had insurance, which they dropped in favor of the public option and its subsidies. Instead of 128,000 uninsured in the program today, the actual number is just 3,400. Despite the giant expansions in Maine’s Medicaid program and the new, subsidized public choice option, the number of uninsured in the state today is only slightly lower that in 2004 when the program began.

Why did this happen? Among the biggest reasons is a severe adverse selection problem: The sickest, most expensive patients crowded into DirigoChoice, unbalancing its insurance pool and raising costs. That made it unattractive for healthier and lower-risk enrollees. And as a result, few low-income Mainers have been able to afford the premiums, even at subsidized rates.

This problem was exacerbated because since the early 1990s Maine has required insurers to adhere to community rating and guaranteed issue, which requires that insurers cover anyone who applies, regardless of their health condition and at a uniform premium. These rules—which are in the Obama plan—have relentlessly driven up insurance costs in Maine, especially for healthy people.

The Maine Heritage Policy Center, which has tracked the plan closely, points out that largely because of these insurance rules, a healthy male in Maine who is 30 and single pays a monthly premium of $762 in the individual market; next door in New Hampshire he pays $222 a month. The Granite State doesn’t have community rating and guaranteed issue.

One proposal to get people into the DirigoChoice system is to reduce the premiums, presumably to give the uninsured a larger incentive to join. But that would explode the program’s costs when it already can’t pay its bills. A program that was supposed to save money by reducing health-care waste and inefficiencies has seen a 74% increase in premiums. But even those inflated payments can’t keep the program out of the red.

Last year, DirigoCare was so desperate for cash that the legislature broke its original promise of no tax hikes and proposed an infusion of funds through a beer, wine and soda tax, similar to what has been floated to pay for the Obama plan. Maine voters rejected these taxes by two to one. Then this year the legislature passed a 2% tax on paid health insurance claims. Taxing paid insurance claims sounds a tad churlish, but the previous funding formula was so complicated that it was costing the state $1 million a year in lawsuits.

Unlike the federal government, Maine has a balanced budget requirement. So out of fiscal necessity, the state has now capped the enrollment in the program and allowed no new entrants. Now there is a waiting list. DirigoChoice has become yet another expensive, failed experiment in government-run health care, alongside similar fiascoes in Massachusetts and Tennessee.

Not everyone sees it this way. Noting the similarities between the Maine program and the Congressional initiative, Karynlee Harrington, the executive director of the Dirigo Health Agency, boasted recently: “DirigoChoice is consistent with what we think the definition of a public health option is.” It certainly is.

From The Heritage Foundation:

Is Healthcare a “Right?”

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) likes to refer to healthcare as “a fundamental right and not just a privilege.” But what exactly does he mean? Is there really a ‘right’ to healthcare?

Debate over the purported ‘right to healthcare’ has quieted recently. Or rather, with concrete proposals under consideration, ‘rights questions’ have been drowned out by other concerns—things like cost, taxes, the deficit, a “public option,” end-of-life decisions, and so on. But the rights debate is well worth having because the stakes are so high. If Ted Kennedy is correct—if every American has a fundamental right to government-provided healthcare—then we are constitutionally obligated to provide universal health insurance. All the discussion of costs and deficits is beside the point.

The problem is that Sen. Kennedy is wrong; there is no fundamental right to healthcare. When the founders wrote of our “inalienable rights” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” they were referring to natural rights, things that we can enjoy on our own, without depending on government. They exist by nature—they are not entitlements to things produced by others. The rights to life and liberty are individual rights that I can pursue or neglect as I wish. Governments are instituted merely to secure these rights by providing the necessary infrastructure for their flourishing—this involves instituting a rule of law and order, providing for the public defense, and so on.

The idea that healthcare is a right is based on a theory of rights completely alien to that of the founding. Sen. Kennedy speaks of rights as if they are created by government, not derived from the “laws of nature and nature’s God.” According to Kennedy’s thinking, the only way that rights exist is through positive government action; the natural rights theory is both outdated and discredited.

Inevitably, these two conceptions of rights clash. Government must infringe on some citizen’s natural rights to liberty and property to grant benefits to other citizens and, in doing so, making the beneficiaries dependent on government. Over time, as natural rights are subdued to modern, positive rights, we all become dependent on government—this is the direction we are moving in.

This is the basic issue that separates the two schools of thought—whether we are to be equally self-reliant, or equally dependent. Alexis de Tocqueville’s well-known phrase is fitting here: “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”

Read more:

• Catholic Bishops Tell House: Health-Care Bill is ‘Unacceptable’ Due to Pro-Abortion Mandates
• Obama Calls Health Care a ‘Moral Obligation,’ But Pro-lifers Say Tax Money for Abortions Is ‘Moral’ Issue
• Insurance-Premium Regulation in Health Care Bill Rewards Bad Behavior, Penalizes Good
• Obamacare: Unemployment You Can Believe In
• Republicans Have Better Healthcare Proposals

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would eliminate every restriction on abortion nationwide.

• FOCA will do away with state laws on parental involvement, on partial birth abortion, and on all other protections.
• FOCA will compel taxpayer funding of abortions.
• FOCA will force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions by law, even if it goes against their religious beliefs.

Please sign the petition against FOCA at www.fightfoca.com.

Learn more about FOCA here.

What Does FOCA Say?

FOCA provides that “[i]t is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.”

Further, FOCA would specifically invalidate any “statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action” of any federal, state, or local government or governmental official (or any person acting under government authority) that would “deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose” abortion, or that would “discriminate against the exercise of the right . . . in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.”

Clearly, its reach is very broad. This single piece of legislation would apply to any federal or state law “enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of [its] enactment.”

What is the Legal Impact of FOCA?

FOCA creates a new and dangerously radical “right.” It establishes the right to abortion as a “fundamental right,” elevating it to the same status as the right to vote and the right to free speech (which, unlike the abortion license, are specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution). Critically, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court did not define abortion as a “fundamental right.”¹⁰ And with the exception of one justice’s attempt in 1983 to distort the Court’s abortion jurisprudence by framing the abortion license as a “fundamental right,” the Court has not subsequently defined abortion as a “fundamental right.” Thus, FOCA goes beyond any Supreme Court decision in enshrining unlimited abortion-on-demand into American law.

FOCA would also subject laws regulating or even touching on abortion to judicial review using a “strict scrutiny” framework of analysis. This is the highest standard American courts can apply and is typically reserved for laws impacting such fundamental rights as the right to free speech and the right to vote. Prior to the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (which substituted the “undue burden” standard for the more stringent “strict scrutiny” analysis), abortion-related laws (such parental involvement for minors and minimum health and safety standards for abortion clinics) were almost uniformly struck down under “strict scrutiny” analysis. If enacted, FOCA would retroactively be applied to all federal and state abortion-related laws and would result in their invalidation.

What is the Practical Impact of FOCA?

In elevating abortion to a fundamental right, FOCA poses an undeniable and irreparable danger to common-sense laws supported by a majority of Americans. Among the more than 550 federal and state laws that FOCA would nullify are:

• Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
• Hyde Amendment (restricting taxpayer funding of abortions)
• Restrictions on abortions performed at military hospitals
• Restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion for federal employees
• Informed consent laws
• Waiting periods
• Parental consent and notification laws
• Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics
• Requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions
• “Delayed enforcement” laws (banning abortion when Roe v. Wade is overturned and/or the authority to restrict abortion is returned to the states)
• Bans on partial-birth abortion
• Bans on abortion after viability. FOCA’s apparent attempt to limit post-viability abortions is illusory. Under FOCA, post-viability abortions are expressly permitted to protect the woman’s “health.” Within the context of abortion, “health” has been interpreted so broadly that FOCA would not actually proscribe any abortion before or after viability.
• Limits on public funding for elective abortions (thus, making American taxpayers fund a procedure that many find morally objectionable)
• Limits on the use of public facilities (such has public hospitals and medical schools at state universities) for abortions
• State and federal legal protections for individual healthcare providers who decline to participate in abortions
• Legal protections for Catholic and other religiously-affiliated hospitals who, while providing care to millions of poor and uninsured Americans, refuse to allow abortions within their facilities

Notably, pro-abortion groups do not deny FOCA’s draconian impact. For example, Planned Parenthood has explained, “FOCA will supercede anti-choice laws that restrict the right to choose, including laws that prohibit the public funding of abortions for poor women or counseling and referrals for abortions. Additionally, FOCA will prohibit onerous restrictions on a woman’s right to choose, such as mandated delays and targeted and medically unnecessary regulations.”

Conclusion

Clearly FOCA will not make abortion safe or rare – on the contrary, it will actively promote abortion and do nothing to ensure its safety – so, abortion advocates’ unrelenting campaign to enact FOCA is a “wake-up call” to all Americans. If implemented, FOCA would invalidate common-sense, protective laws that the majority of Americans support. It will not protect or empower women. Instead, it would protect and promote the abortion industry, sacrifice women and their health to a radical political ideology, and silence the voices of everyday Americans who want to engage in a meaningful public discussion over the availability, safety, and even desirability of abortion.

Today, on the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion in all 50 states, Obama will sign the executive order, despite hundreds of thousands are marching peacefully just outside in the 36th annual March for Life and some 77 congressmen uniting to respectfully urging him not to do so.

So now, during rough economic times, President Obama is going to waste even more of our already-strained tax dollars, and is doing so by funding the killing of unborn foreign children. Well, here it is America. Change.

Here is an excerpt from Gateway Pundit.

Obama is the most radical pro-abortion and infanticide candidate in the last 35 years. Barack Obama even voted 4 times to support infanticide.

After his victory his advisers announced that one of his first moves would be to lift a ban that would swell the number abortions both here and abroad. They weren’t kidding.

Yesterday it was announced that Obama will fund foreign abortions.
FOX News reported:

President Obama will issue an executive order on Thursday reversing the Bush administration policy that bans the use of federal dollars by non-governmental organizations that discuss or provide abortions outside of the United States.

Obama will sign the executive order on the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states.

The policy, known in governmental circles as the “Mexico City policy,” requires any non-governmental organization to agree before receiving U.S. funds that they will “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.”

The language was announced at the United Nations International Conference on Population in 1984, and was approved by President Reagan and originally drafted by his assistant secretary of state, Alan Keyes.

Maybe James Francis Cardinal Stafford was right when he warned, “For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden.”

Here is another good article from LifeNews.com:

The music video:

There is also a nice user-made slideshow version with onscreen lyrics here. Now that you feel inspired and uplifted, leave it to our future president to tear you down. Watch at least the first minute and a half, where he mocks the bible and America’s Christian heritage:

Interesting that he says he “might be opposed to abortion for religious reasons” and yet he later goes on to imply that he would allow his daughters to have an abortion if they made a “mistake” because he would not want them “punished with a baby”:  (not to mention his extreme pro-abortion voting record)