House Democrats seeking executive order on abortion funding

washingtonpost ^ | 3/20/10 | Lori Montgomery, Paul Kane and Ben Pershing

[Track9]

House Democrats are working with the White House to craft an executive order that would clarify President Obama's intention to maintain a long-standing ban on federal funding of abortion, congressional Democrats said. The effort was part of a hurried campaign by House leaders on Saturday to persuade a pivotal bloc of antiabortion Democrats to support far-reaching health insurance reforms.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and others huddled in a suite of offices just off the House floor, trying to come up with language that would satisfy six to 10 lawmakers, mostly Rust Belt Catholics, who voted for an earlier version of the health-care package but have threatened to vote against the $940 billion compromise expected to come before the House on Sunday. Those lawmakers have argued that the measure would open the door to federal funding for elective abortions. Democratic leaders counter that the measure would do no such thing.

[nralife]

"The old catch all, “threatens the life of the mother”,"

I always thought the "catch-all" was the "health" of the mother, which could mean mental health or almost anything.

[Red Steel]

You’re correct and you don’t need a law professor to tell you.

[Track9]

It also tells me the Dems have short mindedness.

It's moment to moment with these people.. and the ends always justify the means. Absolutely no restraint or principled consideration.

[CSI007]

This is all nothing more than speculation. Obama and his minions are jubilantly talking about the historic vote tomorrow to bring health care reform as if it is a done deal. They WOULD NOT expend all of their political capitol like they are if they did not have the votes to pass. They would have mud all on their faces. This is a done deal. It’s time for everyone to get over it and start to figure out a way to get us out of this mess before it’s too late for us all.

[Track9]

There’s a difference between having the votes and being drunk on Saki.

[LS]

Ultimately Stupak and his buds are Democrats. It's one thing for Choice or some of the others to announce now . . . IF they know that Stupak will cave.

But if Stupak and his seven hold and actually defeat this bill, then I will have to revise my maxim that there is no such thing as a "moderate" or "good" Democrat.

[CSI007]

People here are dreaming and on drugs if they think this thing won’t pass tomorrow. I said it a million times before. I saw it typed here time and time....This bill won’t pass the house, well it won’t pass the senate....It will never make any further than the senate now that Scott Brown was elected.

People here need to wake up to the political reality that we live in and stop dreaming that what is about to happen won’t happen. Tyranny is afoot and we are all in a whole lot of trouble.

[Track9]

G-d works is mysterious ways. I hope you’re wrong. I was there when Elway had his 97 yard drive in the snow. People were just shaking their heads.

[The Pack Knight]

It depends on whether the bill actually requires the funding of abortions. I haven't seen the language myself, but if the Democrats can't agree amongst themselves on what it says, then it must be at least somewhat ambiguous.

If the bill requires federal funding of abortions, as the Stupak group seems to fear, then the President has no authority to issue an executive order against funding abortions. The Steel Seizure Case is pretty clear on that. It would also probably violate the Supreme Court's holding in Clinton v. New York, since it would effectively amount to an unconstitutional line-item veto.

[TruthConquers]

There is much confusion in the reporting of who is voting, and which way the votes are stacking up. Of course people want to believe that this won’t pass. I hope it won’t pass.

But if it does pass, then we truly are in a world of hurt for a generation at least. So, a few more days of praying, and watching, and hoping won’t hurt.

I pray it won’t pass.

[Track9]

Is there a difference between ‘requires’ and ‘provides for’? That’s the language I’ve been hearing used.

[BenKenobi]

Yeah, EO’s can be rescinded at any time.

1. EO.
2. Pass Obamacare.
3. Rescind EO, and presto, abortion funding included in health care.

[what's up]

They WOULD NOT expend all of their political capitol like they are if they did not have the votes to pass

Oh,yes...Zero is now spending every last BIT of political capital.

If this vote doesn't go well for them tomorrow he is DONE DONE DONE.

Plus, you're not up on your Alinsky tactics. They always pretend like it's a done deal; this is how they get the shirkers to come on over to their side.

[Aria]

Why do you write “G-d” instead of God?

[Track9]

It’s a family thing. Tertiary reference as show of respect.

[The Pack Knight]

After reading the text of the "Nelson Compromise" part of the Senate bill, I really don't see anything there that can be changed by Executive Order. The Senate bill as it stands (and as I'm reading it) requires anyone wanting to purchase a plan that covers elective abortion (the type prohibited by the Hyde Amendment, which is effectively incorporated into the bill) to purchase that additional coverage separately using their own money (with no tax credit or federal subsidy), and requires insurers to keep that money segregated.

If an insurer covers elective abortions and complies with the separate payment and segregation of funds requirements, I don't think the President can deny funds to that insurer by executive order under the Youngstown Sheet & Tube rule. If the Senate bill passes, that means Congress has spoken on the issue and the President would not have much discretion to contradict Congress's will.

As an aside, there's also some weird rules on "notice" that I've read multiple times and still can't figure out - and, having worked in bankruptcy law, I'm no stranger to reading confusing statutes. It seems to prohibit insurers from publicly disclosing the amount they pay for elective abortions.

Also, I should add as well that any restrictions on funding abortion in this bill is contingent upon the continued addition of the Hyde Amendment to DHHS appropriations. If Congress stops passing the Hyde Amendment every year, then that would also undo any restrictions on funding of abortion under the health care bill.

Finally, I should say that there may be other places where abortion might be funded by the bill that I haven't seen. The bill is a huge, complicated, confusing mess, and there's no way I or anyone else could tell you everything it actually does. Hell, I spent two semesters at law school learning the Bankruptcy Code, and I've never studied Chapters 9 or 12. This bill is much longer and more confusingly written than the Bankruptcy Code. That alone should be evidence that this is not a subject Congress ought to be involved in.