The executive order isn’t overriding anything. The bill already forbids spending federal money on abortions. The Stupak crowd just needed a hand job for the happy ending.
Did you read the thread? The executive order isn’t trying to over-ride part of the bill, its just reiterating that the executive branch will follow it.
Which is why I said it has no teeth. I’m not saying the order IS unconstitutional - I’m saying that it WOULD be unconstitutional if it actually did what they were claiming it will do, which is to answer Stupak’s concerns.
And just how did you feel about this particular vote, that was passed at 3:00 AM, starting on a Sunday, but lasting until the next morning?
And as been mentioned, they can’t add any riders or amendments to it. And why would they want to exempt a bunch of people that would not be affected by the bill? All of those people already have insurance and would not have to worry about getting it.
I misread your name when I started reading your post. I say it as starting with an e and ending with ator, but the middle was jacul, rather than lucid. Made your post an even more compelling image. 
The President signs a completely meaningless executive order, for the sole purpose of allowing Representative Stupak to go home to his constituents and try to tell them that he voted for it after the President bowed to his constituent’s wishes.
Yes, that’s the very model of transparent, honest government.
Ah sorry, I misread your post.
But I agree with Richard that the link to gov’t transparency is a stretch.
Well, ya saw through it!
To the OP title- yes. Congrats to the Dems. I hope it succeeds & doesn’t become yet another Federal boondoggle.
Well, it’s been all over the news. I guess the cover-up failed.
What, is Obama claiming that he’s signing that executive order for any reason other than placating Stupak and his contingent? Is he hiding the fact that he’s signing it? Is the text of the order going to be classified? What’s not transparent about it?
Sam, it sounds like your problem is with Senator Stupak, not President Obama.
The bill just passed. Sweet.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Thank goodness.
Not a great bill, not by a long shot, but it’s better than not passing anything, and the Dems needed the win.
Whew! What a nail biter.
Don’t dance too soon. There’s still another vote. Still need to have the vote on the motion to recommit.
Stupak smackdown of Republican heel dragging.
Which is, and means, what exactly? If it fails, what exactly happens? If it passes, what exactly happens? I’ve been confused about this for a while, especially since this is the first time I’d ever heard of it.
If anyone were going to change the vote, they would have done so. The cast is died.
If it passes, they will vote on a House bill that will reconcile with the Senate bill. (Both houses have to pass an identical bill to send it to the President for signature.) The failure of either will kill the legislation.
It’s a rule that allows the minority party to amend the bill before it passes or to kill the bill entirely. In this case Republicans are claiming to amend the bill with pro-life language that will never be approved by the senate. They are trying to spook the pro-life democrats into voting for the stronger pro-life language. If pro-life democrats vote against it they can be branded as weak on pro-life legislation.