Regarding that executive order, if the bill itself says abortions are to recieve funding, is it really legal for an executive order to be enforced if it says abortions are not to recieve funding?
Well the executive branch is in charge of giving out the money. They can withhold it if they believe the statute doesn’t allow them to fund abortions.
However, if this gets challenged and a court rules that statute requires the executive branch to fund abortions, then the executive branch will have to follow the court order.
Stupak was worried that the federal branch would do some sort of end-run around the anti-abortion language in the bill once it was passed. Most observers, including a decent number of pro-life groups, concluded that that wouldn’t be possible, but apparently Stupak needed something in writing from Obama before he was satisfied.
So it probably doesn’t make any difference one way or another.
The bill says abortions cannot receive funding, but anti-abortion forces didn’t think the language was strong enough.
So Stupack’s announcement renders the “recommitment” section (“last GOP trick”) moot, I assume. But what about the other possibilities mentioned in the OP’s article, like the need to vote all over again later?
I must say will this be the next Social Security or Medicare or the next Smoot-Hawley tariff? Also if this bill passes it will vindicate the centre-left of the Democratic Party who made some compromises not the far-left wing of Kucinich and his ilk and their rhetoric of how this bill would never pass because of “corporatism” and about how corporations will stop this and etc.
I would say the anti-abortion forces flat-out lied about the contents of the Senate bill. Whether or not such lying was intentional, I can’t really say, although I’m leaning towards the lying being intentional.
It looks like debate on the UHC bill has started. Each side has 60 minutes, so I guess that means we’ll have a vote at around 9pm.
Eastern Time? (Because you know not every American is from the East Coast ;))
Also, CNN had this to say:
Probably right? But then, that goes back to my earlier question: the OP’s article implied plenty of ways this could possibly STILL not happen. Which still apply?
I’m suspicious of this-post midnight voting is NEVER good for the taxpayers.
My guess is: it will pas, by adding riders to the bill (exempting unions, state government workers, federal employees, congress).
Beware!
And this is why the GOP will delay, for voters like ralph.
All of the Congressmen are on the East Coast when they vote, though. 
The bill won’t be up for amendments. They can’t add anything.
And its predicted to go past midnight because the Republicans are saying they’re going to draw the process out via procedural votes and the like. I’m sure if the Dems could have the vote now, they would.
Ramming, cramming, jamming, thrusting this down America’s throat in the middle of the night?! The Pubbies are, of course, poised for oral arguments, and will not swallow this easily. Some adjustments must be made so the Congress doesn’t choke on this. You can expect their leader to leap to his feet at once, enraged, an erect and swollen Boehner…
Leaving aside completely the fact that if the vote does take place after midnight it will be due to Republicans throwing up procedural delays, why do you say that post-midnight voting is never good for the taxpayers?
Does the health care bill turn into a pumpkin after midnight? Because then I would agree that voting for a pumpkin isn’t a great idea.
Whether the vote takes place at noon or midnight, most of the population is still going to learn about it in the papers the next morning. And if you’re concerned about the legislators getting tired and voting while sleep-deprived, I can’t imagine that the last few hours of debates would actually change anyone’s mind: They already decided which way they wanted to vote long before, while they were still wide awake.
(I agree with what’s been written upthread – this is amplification.)
The president generally can’t overrule legislation, but he’s in charge of doing what it instructs. The executive order can’t theoretically change what’s required, but it explains how the president understands what could be ambiguous language.
In this particular instance, it’s all for show. The House bill and the Senate bill both have restrictive language. Stupak, either through ignorance or hubris, insisted that the Senate bill language wasn’t equivalent to what he got into the House bill. He was mistaken – they were very similar in effect. But this Ex. Order (which I’ve read) adds no further duties or restrictions – it’s pretty much just a reiteration of the policy that the Senate bill would enact. What it did was allow Stupak and the remainder of his coalition* to say they had won something, when what they really got was a buffing up. And so they can vote for the bill and still at least assay to their anti-choice supporters the argument that they secured stronger policy than they would have had anyway. As I say, I think this is wrong as a matter of substance, but it’s the plan.
- N.B., Stupak had lost about half of his bloc already, and from their remarks at the press conference, I wouldn’t be surprised if at least the two women and the guy from Ohio who spoke had told Stupak in private that he was going to lose them too once the rubber hit the road.
–Cliffy
The executive order has no teeth - and if it did it would be unconstitutional as far as I can tell. The President can’t just override part of a bill he doesn’t like - that would be the equivalent of a line-item veto, a power which congress has refused to give the president.
It’s a smokescreen - an attempt to deflect blame and provide cover while actually doing nothing, to enable Stupak to mislead his constituents into believing that he truly fought for them and got concessions.
And this from the ‘transparency president’. Hope and Change rides again.
It may be that the executive order is purely so Stupak et al. can claim they won something, but what does that have to do with transparency? I think you got your talking point cards mixed up.