The House just passed by a vote of 220-211 a bill that would make corrections to the massive health care reform legislation passed earlier Sunday evening.

The second bill would strip some of the special deals carved out for Senators and would protect labor unions from the impact of a planned excise tax on expensive insurance plans.

Earlier, the House voted against a motion by Republicans that would have sent the main health care reform bill back to committee with stricter language prohibiting federal funding of abortion.

The next stop for health care is the Senate, where Democrats will try to pass the smaller corrections bill using the budget reconciliation process, which will would require just 51 votes for passage. Senate Republicans are already warning they will try to prove the bill violates the rules governing reconciliation, which could make it much harder to pass it.

 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., praised the House passage in a statement but made no promises he would be able to clear the reconciliation bill.

"As the Senate prepares to complete our work on this historic effort, Senate Democrats reaffirm our commitment to reform because we know it's good for middle class families, seniors and small businesses in Nevada and all across America," Reid said.

The House has just passed the massive health care reform bill approved by the Senate in December. The vote was 219 to 212 and it concluded with jubilant Democrats cheering "yes we can" in the House chamber. Democrats hugged each other and walked the aisles with copies of the 2,700-page bill, seeking autographs from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. and others who were instrumental in its passage, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif. 

Republicans stood brooding on their side of the chamber, watching the number tick up past the 216 needed to clear the legislation for President Obama's signature.  The viewing galleries were packed with guests of Pelosi, reporters and other spectators.

Republicans are on the House floor now trying to get support for a motion to recommit the bill with changes that would incorporate stricter language prohibiting the funding of abortion with federal dollars.

But this will likely fail, as even pro-life Democrats, including Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., have pledged to vote against it because it would sent the bill back to committee.

"We are on the cusp of a great victory for America," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., warned. "They are indirectly trying to kill this bill."

More negative consequences for Rep. Bart Stupak, D-MI, flowing from his agreeing to support Obamacare tonight following President Obama's issuance of an Executive Order allegedly insuring that no federal funds will be used to pay for abortions.

"This Wednesday night is our third annual Campaign for Life Gala, where we were planning to honor Congressman Stupak for his efforts to keep abortion-funding out of health care reform- we will no longer be doing so," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List Fund.

"By accepting this deal from the most pro-abortion President in American history, Stupak has not only failed to stand strong for unborn children, but also for his constituents and pro-life voters across the country," she said.

"Let me be clear: any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this healthcare bill can no longer call themselves 'pro-life.' The Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund will not endorse, or support in any capacity, any Member of Congress who votes for this bill in any future election," Dannenfelser said.

For these Members, it will be a quick downhill slide to defeat in November," she said.

The problem is simple, according to Dannenfelser: "The executive order on abortion funding does absolutely nothing to fix the problems presented by the health care reform bill that the House will vote on this evening. The very idea should offend all pro-life Members of Congress. An executive order can be rescinded at any time at the President's whim, and the courts could and have a history of trumping executive orders. Most importantly, pro-abortion Representatives have admitted the executive order is meaningless."

The Susan B. Anthony List describes itself as "leading the fight against abortion funding in health care reform for over a year, spending nearly $2 million on a grassroots campaign of targeted television and radio ads, 1.3 million automated calls, 70,000 patch-through constituent calls, 1.2 million letters and petitions to Congress, two media and grassroots tours in pro-life Democratic districts, television ads in six districts and comprehensive polling in 20 pro-life Democratic districts."

UPDATE: What about your airport grants, Mr. Stupak?

It wasn't noticed until late this evening but it appears that Rep. Bart Stupak, D-MI, quietly announced Friday that three small airports in his district will receive federal grants totalling more than $726,000. The news release says the grants are being awarded competitively by FAA.

But given the timing, it is probably inevitable that Stupak will now have to answer the obvious question: Can he really be bought for so little when so much is at stake?

Reminds me of a scene from "A Man For All Seasons" concerning the price of a soul:

With House Democrats passing Obamacare over the vociferous objections of a clear majority of Americans, Republicans are confidently predicting they will score big gains in November's mid-term congressional election, quite possibly as big as the landmark 1994 contest.

But there is one very important difference between then and now that could negate or blunt GOP gains: Bill Clinton suffered two major defeats prior to the 94 elections - failure of Hillarycare and what was then the biggest tax increase in America, which was  passed by the House by one vote, that of freshman Rep. Marjorie Margolies, D-PA. who was subsequently defeated.

Hillarycare never came to a vote in Congress, but the tax hike was voted on in early August 1994, only about three months prior to the election. Obamacare is being approved in late March, nearly eight months before the 2010 congressional contests. So much can happen between now and then.   

Did the Democratic leadership need the vote of Bart Stupak and several other anti-abortion Democrats to pass the Senate health care bill? The vote on the rule to consider the legislation suggests they did. The rule carried 224-208.

The intrepid David Dayen of firedoglake.com notes that 28 Democrats voted against the rule. All but one had previously made public commitments to vote against the legislation; one, Mitchell (AZ 5) made a public commitment to vote for it.

In addition, 7 Democrats made public commitments to vote against: Berry (AR 1), Peterson (MN 7), Teague (NM 2), McMahon (NY 13), Kissell (NC 8), Altmire (PA 4), Tanner (TN 8). Assuming all vote on the bill in line with previous public commitments, the legislation will pass by a 218-213 margin.

Appearing with Stupak at his press conference announcing with executive order deal were five other members. Two had already announced they’d vote for the bill: Kaptur (OH 9), Carney (PA 10). Five had not: Stupak (MI 1), Driehaus (OH 1), Dahlkemper (PA 3), Mollohan (WV 1), Rahall (WV 3). All voted for the rule and can be presumed to vote for the bill. Without those five votes, the bill—if this count is correct—would have gone down 213-218.

Conclusion: the Democratic leadership had to make a deal with Stupak in order to avoid defeat. As was the case in November. The large number of Democratic defections suggests how unpopular this bill is with the voting public. Without the abortion deal, the leadership was losing 40 of the 253 House Democrats. Perhaps some other Democrats will come on board; we'll see. But I doubt it.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California holding the gavel used to pass Medicare Reform, laughs as she walks across the street and into the U.S. Capitol as the House prepares to vote on health care reform in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Sunday, March 21, 2010. Walking with Speaker Pelosi are from left, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Rep. John Larson, D-Conn. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Intrade's odds, over the past month, of ObamaCare passing is represented by the thick blue line (and the left axis). The stocks of the major health insurers are the thinner lines (with percentage change on the right axis).

All I'm saying is they look similar.

[This has been updated with a clearer and more accurate chart.]

Why did Bart Stupak agree to a deal which supposedly restricts abortion funding by an executive order, when it’s obvious, as Yuval Levin points out, that an executive order can’t trump a law and the Senate bill clearly authorizes abortion funding? The reason, I suspect, is that aside from the abortion language Stupak really wants this bill to pass and recognized that it wasn’t going to if he didn’t make the deal. On the Energy and Commerce Committee Stupak has been a protege and ally of his Michigan colleague John Dingell. Dingell is the longest-serving member of the House, and every year he files a bill providing for nationalized health care, which was supported by his father, who preceded him in the House and served from 1933 until his death in 1955, after which the current Mr. Dingell was elected to succeed him. In his remarks Stupak took care to thank Dingell, even though he was ousted as Energy and Commerce Chairman by Henry Waxman with the support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Why did the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership make the deal with Stupak? Because they feared they didn’t have the 216 votes to pass the bill without him. And they know that, as Debby Wasserman-Schultz stated, an executive order cannot override an act of Congress. Wasserman-Schultz is an astute member of the Democratic leadership and can be counted on to calm down the feminist left members who could expected to be furious at any abortion ban. You can be sure such assurances have been given behind the scenes.

How many votes does Stupak bring with him? We won’t know for sure until the roll call. But it’s interesting that in his announcement only one other member spoke, Marcy Kaptur, who had already indicated she would support the bill.

Looks like Rep. Bart Stupak is already seeing the pushback from constituents to his decision to back Obamacare because President Obama promised to issue a meaningless Executive Order concerning federal funding of abortion.

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit just posted this from a reader:

STUPAK FOLDS.

Meanwhile, reader Lisa Schell writes:

Watch the momentum on Stupak’s opponent’s facebook page. Dr. Dan Benishek is running against Stupak in Michigan. Check out the velocity of his growth since Stupak announced: Benishek for Congress.

His membership is currently growing at a rate of about 20 new members every 30-60 seconds and incoming comments are fast and furious. People are begging him to set up his donation site so that they can start a money bomb.

Like the protester said yesterday, if you vote yes on the bill, we’ll vote no on you in November.

Posted at 5:33 pm by Glenn Reynolds.

As you can see here, the Benishek campaign is a work in progress. And Benishek's wall on Facebook is clearly getting a surge.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich. said he and a group of up to 10 pro-life Democrats are ready to vote for the Democratic heath care reform bill now that President Obama has agreed to sign an executive order banning federal funding of abortion under the proposal.

"Make no doubt about it, there will be no public funds for abortion," Stupak said.

Stupak appeared at a press conference with a group of pro-life Democrats to make the announcement, which came as the White House released a statement confirming the executive order.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, denounced the deal, saying an executive order "can be reversed or altered at the stroke of a pen by this or any subsequent president without any congressional approval or notice."

Stupak said he wanted the language encoded into law, but couldn't get it because it would require a new bill to pass with 60 votes in the Senate.

"We would all love to have a statute that would be stronger," Stupak said. "We can't get the 60 votes in the Senate. The reality is we can't do it."

Stupak said he believed the leadership was already at or near the 216 votes they needed without pro-life Democratic support, but the deal announced today practically ensures an easy victory for Democrats.

Democrats who joined Stupak at the podium included Reps. Marcy Kaptur and Steve Driehaus of Ohio and Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall, both of West Virginia.

According to White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer, the executive order, "provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation’s restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented." 

Senate Democrats are "slow-walking" a request from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for a bipartisan meeting with the Senate Parliamentarian to discuss whether the House Obamacare reconciliation bill would survive a GOP point of order questioning its legality.

“Republicans have been trying to set up a meeting with Senate Democrats since yesterday to discuss this fatal point of order but have been met with nothing but silence. We suspect Democrats are slow walking us so as to have the House vote first," said McConnell spokesman Don Stewart.

"Since Senate Democrats refuse to meet with us and the Parliamentarian, we’ve informed our colleagues in the House that we believe the bill they’re now considering violates the clear language of Section 310g of the Congressional Budget Act, and the entire reconciliation bill is subject to a point of order and rejection in the Senate should it pass the House,” Stewart added.

The possibility that a successful Senate GOP point of order against the reconciliation package - which makes major changes to the Senate version of the President Obama's health care reform measure - could jeopardize the whole process and possibly force the issue into the federal courts in order to avoid a constitutional crisis.

Here's the text of the section of the budget act Stewart referred to in his statement:

“LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution reported pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget agreed to under section 301 or 304, or a joint resolution pursuant to section 258C of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, or any amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that contains recommendations with respect to the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program established under title II of the Social Security Act.” (Congressional Budget Act Of 1974, Sec. 310g, P. 31)

For more information on this issue, go here.

Rep. Bart Stupak and his gang of pro-life Democrats have signed onto a deal with the White House over abortion funding language in the bill. Stupak will announce his intention to vote for the bill at 4 p.m. The deal comes in the form of an executive order that will be signed by President Obama banning the use of federal funds for abortion.

The move should clear the way for Democrats to pass the bill later tonight.

But a pro-life Democrat who is voting against the bill and asked not to be named has warned that executive orders carry the intention of law, but not the power, and can be easily lifted. 

Some Republicans are suggesting that in light of the fact that the administration's Medicare and Medicaid actuary was not able to estimate the cost and impact of the health package some conservative Democrats might be tempted to vote "present" today.

Plus, with plenty of uncertainty about the impact of a proposed executive order blockading federal funding of abortion, there's lots that Democrats don't know about the impact of their votes.

Congress doesn't have the same provisions for voting present as some state legislatures, lawmakers have, from time to time, used their votes to make statements -- recall Sen. Arlen Specter's vote of "not proven" in the Clinton impeachment trial.

Any Democrat who did vote "present" or anything other than "yes" would be counted the same as a "no," just as Specter's Clinton vote was.

I suspect that few Democrats would like to antagonize the president by alluding to one of his less winning biography points, but for a retiring member like Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark. it would have some appeal. Similarly, for liberals worried about the Obama-Stupak abortion deal, it would be a strong protest.

Two southern Democrats, Rep. Lincoln Davis and Rep. John Tanner, both of Tennessee, are voting against the health-care bill.

I talked to Davis this afternoon about his decision. Davis, who represents Tennessee's 4th district, said he supports health care reform, but on a smaller scale. Davis is looking for reform that addresses some of the gaps and problems in health care coverage experienced by Americans, 85 percent of whom have coverage, without redoing the entire system.

"We need to do something for those other 15 percent percent if they choose to have insurance, to come into the system," Davis said. "And there are ways to do that, but there are some folks who don't want to come into the system."

Davis said he is not getting any pressure from the Democratic leadership about his vote.

"I explained up front where I am and why doing it, and they accept that, period," Davis said.

Despite reports on MSNBC that pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak, D-Mich., will vote for the bill, he remains a "no" vote.

I just talked to Stupak in the basement of the Capitol as he walked passed a throng of protesters calling for members to vote against the bill.

"I'm still a no vote. There is no final agreement." Stupak said.

Stupak and other pro-life Democrats are in negotiations with the White House on a deal that would involve President Obama signing some kind of executive order that would ban federal funding of abortion under the health care bill.

"We are waiting until we have an agreement with not just the White House but also the Speaker and others," Stupak said. "There is no agreement. It's still a work in progress. I think we have work to do. "

4:15 Update: Pro-life Democrat Stupak agrees to vote for health care bill

It's pretty safe to say the Democrats will pass the health care reform bill this afternoon, but Republican opponents aren't giving up yet.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said on Sunday's Meet the Press that he is confident Democrats will be able to pass the bill with more than enough support.

"I think we are going to have the 216 votes when the roll is called, yes," Hoyer said in response to a question by host David Gregory.

Gregory asked if Hoyer has the votes locked down now.

"There are still members looking at it and trying to make up their minds but we think that there are going to be 216 votes-plus when we call the roll."

Republicans are still trying make the argument that it's not too late to stop the bill from passing. Tea party protesters have swarmed the Capitol and the switchboard was tied up for days this past week with people calling to complain about the bill.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said public protest can still influence the outcome.

"It's clear from listening to Steny that they don't have the votes yet," Boehner said. "If the American people stay involved, this fight is not over yet."

The U.S. House of Representatives, under the leadership of the Catholic Nancy Pelosi, today will vote on a bill that uses taxpayers' money to insure abortions. As a result of the abortion subsidies in the bill, the US Conference on Catholic Bishops has called on all members of the House to vote no.

From the letter:

The Senate bill extends abortion coverage, allows federal funds to pay for elective abortions (for example, through a new appropriation for services at Community Health Centers that bypasses the Hyde amendment), and denies adequate conscience protection to individuals and institutions. Needed health care reform must keep in place the longstanding and widely supported federal policy that neither elective abortion nor plans which include elective abortion can be paid for with federal funds.

But the Bishops also oppose the bill because of its treatment of immigrants:

The Senate bill would not only continue current law that denies legal immigrants access to Medicaid for five years, but also prohibit undocumented immigrants from buying insurance for their families in the exchanges using their own money. These provisions could leave immigrants and their families worse off, and also hurt the public health of our nation.

In Catholic teaching, there is the idea of proportionality: If a bill contained bad elements it could still be worth supporting the bill's positive elements outweighed the negative. The Bishops have concluded that the bad in this bill clearly outweigh the good.

Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., chairman of the House Democratic Caucus in the House said today on ABC's "This Week" that Democrats, "as we speak" have locked down the 216th vote needed to pass the Senate version of the president's health plan.

Unless the sincere members of Rep. Bart Stupak's bloc (probably seven votes) have folded up their objections on the unlikely promise that something will later be done to remedy the Senate bill's subsidies for insurance policies that cover elective abortions, the whipping will continue right up until the 2 p.m. floor vote.

So why say you have the votes? It diminishes the drama of a moment Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama are going to milk with gusto and it invites Democrats leaning against the bill to go ahead and walk away. The speaker cannot insist that a member from a competitive district walk the plank if she already has the votes.

I'd say it's likely a tactic to push conditional "yes" vote Democrats to go ahead and declare. These are members who have said they intend to vote yes, but want something in return -- a little pork, a special provision, a promise of fundraising help, etc.

Saying that the deal is done may convince these folks to abandon their conditional status and get on board. The message here is: you'll be left out in the cold if you don't act now.

The other advantage is that by saying the deed is done diminishes Republican efforts to entice or threaten wavering members like Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D. now facing Rick Berg in what will be the most competitive race of his 18 years in Congress. If the GOP believes that the fight is over, they will be less likely to offer big incentives for individual votes -- a pass in November, a lush package for a party switch, etc. But having seen Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., while I was at Fox this morning, I don't think the GOP is in much of a backing down mood today.

I suspect that Democrats will get the votes, but I think that Larson's statement is more about securing them than counting them.

Chief Deputy Whip Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida on "Fox News Sunday" was probably closer to the truth when she said that they don't have the numbers, but will make the lift by 2 p.m.

Among the most important sub-texts in the year-long national debate over Obamacare has been the massive support for the proposal by organized labor and the opposition of most of the business community.

Erick Erickson, the dough-faced, take-no-prisoners proprietor of the Redstate.com blog and CNN's newest political analyst, offers an interesting tidbit of information that helps illuminate the Labor vs Business factor in the Obamacare debate. Seems the chief organized labor non-profit is the AFL-CIO's American Center for International Labor Solidarity, aka the Solidarity Center.

According to the center's 2009 annual report, it received $28.5 million in federal grants, with portions coming from the U.S. Department of Labor. the State Department, the National Endowment for Democracy, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS relief, the Center for Disease Control, and the Agency for International Development.

The AFL-CIO's contribution to its non-profit was a mere $600,000. Other non-government grants came from the Academy for Educational Development, and Family Health International.

In other words, the AFL-CIO's non-profit gets approximately 96 percent of its $30 million annual budget in 2008 came from U.S. taxpayers via grants from federal agencies. Even if the AFL-CIO did not have a longstanding ideological comittment to government-run health care for all Americans, does anybody really think they would oppose the signature program of the party in power, which virtually funds its world-wide foundation operations?

Fat chance, right?

Now, contrast that with the amount of taxpayer dollars directed by federal agencies to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's chief non-profit, the National Chamber Foundation - Zero. Zilch. Nada. The National Chamber Foundation's total revenues for 2008 were $4.7 million.  

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls for consideration of the Senate version of Obamacare sometime early this afternoon, it won't be under the now-infamous "deem and pass" procedure, but rather a highly restrictive "Supermax" rule that stifles debate and limits the minority's right to offer amendments.

By a 9-4 count, the Democratic majority on the House Rules Committee adopted the Supermax rule after Republican opposition - echoed by a few Democrats not on the Rules panel - generated intense public opposition to "deem and pass." The decision appeared to be motivated at least in part by panel chairman Rep. Louise Slaughter's anger towards Ranking Minority Member Rep. David Dreier, R-CA, who led the charge against "deem and pass."

But Dreier isn't backing off, issuing a statement late last night blasting Supermax:

“Even without the Slaughter Solution, this rule is an affront to the democratic process. Rather than living up to their promises of transparency and accountability, the Democratic Majority is now openly flouting them. By severely limiting debate and protecting the backroom deals that have so angered the American people, the Majority has demonstrated their top priority remains forcing through their government takeover of our healthcare system at all costs.”

The rule sets up following votes today, which House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said would most likely be taken between 1 and 2 pm this afternoon: The first vote will be on the Supermax rule itself; the vote will be on the Senate version of Obamacare, including the special deals like the Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase, Gator Aid and the Cadillac Tax, the vote will be on a motion to recommit on the “sidecar” reconciliation package that contains changes in the Senate bill sought by the House,  and the fourth and final taly will be on sidecar measure.

Dreier said the net effect of this rule will be the same as "deem and pass. “If this rule and the bills it provides consideration for pass tomorrow, the American people will be stuck with every pig in the poke that is Senate-passed bill. It will be law. The fixes will not be. Members can try to argue they only supported the Senate bill in a fixed form, but the American people won’t buy it."

Dreier further argued that the debate over "deem and pass" had at least one salutary effect, bringing home to the public the importance of how Congress does its business. "They get it – process is substance. They know what all of this means and they don’t like it. There is still time for the Majority to turn back and work with Republicans on meaningful healthcare reform that won’t break the bank and won’t do further harm to our already vulnerable economy. I will argue vigorously against this unfair, flawed rule on the floor of the House.”