[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.

[Track9]

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