UPDATEx10: CQ, The Hill, and Roll Call all report Stupak bloc "cut in half," Stupak himself may vote yes in exchange for the executive order. That number 6 puts us on the verge of clinching this thing. And by now you've all heard the confidence of Obama and House leadership that they will have the votes. This is why the crazies are threatening gun violence and screaming the N-word and F-word.
I recommend Ezra's twitter list for the latest!
UPDATEx9: Rep. DeGette of the pro-choice caucus says Dems don't need Stupak and that she will support an executive order clarifying what everyone with a brain knows already, that the Senate bill will not spend Federal money on abortions. Pelosi also backs the executive order. (HuffPo, h/t Just Keep it Simple Stupid) (This is not finalized though.) It looks like "pro-choice female Dems" were a key part of giving Stupak the shaft, while progressives were going to force a House vote on the PO if Stupak got his way (same HuffPo link).
UPDATEx8: Fullest reporting yet at The Hill.
Rec List thanks! mcjoan has now put this on the front page, but check out all our updates and the great work done by the commenters below to get the news out. Thanks for my first trip to the rec list!
UPDATEx7: "There's not going to be any deal made with Mr. Stupak...there's been no deal whatsoever. He's been told that his language is not going to be added to the legislation. ... We think we have the votes regardless, and we're going to be moving forward," Schakowsky said. "Yes. We do think we have the votes without him." (Beutler: Pelosi: "No separate vote" on abortion)
UPDATEx6: Also from Greg Sargent:
Dem Leaders Prepare To Move Forward Without Stupak
What Stupak wants — a resolution that adds the same restrictive abortion language Stupak attached last time — isn’t happening.
That may explain why Stupak abruptly canceled his presser.
Conversations are still ongoing, and some kind of accommodation with Stupak is possible, though not the one he’s apparently insisting on. Dems are holding a whip meeting soon to determine where the votes are and whether it’s possible to move forward without him and whoever else he controls.
That’s where we are.
UPDATEx5: The good news is leaking out from the other side. The deal with Stupak is OFF (h/t Brainwrap):
Two pro-life GOP members close to Stupak tell NRO that any Stupak deals are off. They just spoke with him and they said he's finished with Pelosi. They rejected his enrollment corrections proposal.
Will he have to settle for an executive order? (Another tweet says: "WH and Dem leaders floating trial balloon in press of exec order to clarify abortion funding policy.")
UPDATEx3x4: Wonkroom's feed says "Democrats say they are ready to move forward without Stupak." Beutler: One aide says Stupak won't get his way, another that Stupak will "renegotiate." Politico: Stupak says he's still dealing. Senior aide quoted by wonkroom says "We may be able to find a way to satisfy (Stupak's) concerns."
UPDATEx2: Waxman now "says party leaders are unlikely to cut a deal with abortion opponents to pass President Barack Obama's health care overhaul." (AP News) Nice timing after Stupak's presser canceled.
BREAKING UPDATE: mark louis says below - CONFIRMED by newsfeeds of wonkroom and TPM and by Dayen at FDL - that Stupak has "canceled" his presser. Wonkroom also reported "rumors that Stupak's enrollment resolution has been ruled out of order." Let's hope he's having more trouble than he thought he'd have keeping his bloc together and getting his parliamentary maneuver approved.
* * * * * * * * * *
My original diary below explains how Dale Kildee may have been instrumental in weakening Stupak's position, by using the truth to peel off some of his fellow anti-choice members, leaving him with less support for his truly irrational objections to the Senate bill.
This will be short. I have been very dispirited by the reports that a deal may be developing in which an "enrollment correction" lets Stupak tie the HCR bill to his holier-than-thou abortion provisions.
Well, cockeyed optimist that I am, I have a little ray of hope to offer.
You may have caught abortion-opposing Dem Dale Kildee's statement three days ago announcing his yes vote (NYT Prescriptions blog, "Stupak Ally in House Approves Senate Abortion Restrictions"):
I now find myself disagreeing with some of the people and groups I have spent a lifetime working with. I have listened carefully to both sides, sought counsel from my priest, advice from family, friends and constituents, and I have read the Senate abortion language more than a dozen times. I am convinced that the Senate language maintains the Hyde amendment, which states that no federal money can be used for abortion.
That's strong stuff, and it joins the equally unimpeachable voices of 59,000 nuns and the National Catholic Reporter to suggest that, well, any God-fearing "pro-life" Catholic should endorse the life-saving HCR bill, whereas Stupak's position... well, don't get me started.
Anyway, the purpose of this diary is to call your attention to some great reporting by Nick Baumann over at Mother Jones:
Stupak has a surprising obstacle in his path: his old friend Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.). Kildee isn't just opting out of his pal's voting bloc: He told reporters on Friday that he's been working hard to convince other anti-abortion Democrats to abandon Stupak's effort. As the final hours before the vote tick down, the battle between these two Democrats could determine the fate of the party's biggest legislative priority.
Kildee and Stupak have much in common. They're both pro-life Democrats from Michigan. They're been social and political comrades for years. Kildee, who's 81, knew the 58-year-old Stupak when Stupak was a young Michigan state trooper.
...
I asked Kildee about Stupak's statement that he relies on groups like the National Right to Life Committee and Focus on the Family (groups that have generally opposed the Democrats' health care reform plans) for guidance. Kildee questioned the wisdom of depending on these outfits. Members of Congress have to be wary of groups that "start out with a premise and only seek out facts that support their premise," Kildee warned. He added, "You have to know where they come from. You have to know what their purpose is—they gather information that supports their purpose."
In that last bit, it seems Naumann got Kildee to say that, if you want to hold the Hyde Amendment line on abortion funding, maybe you should read the Senate bill and use your brain to understand that it does just that, instead of relying on wacko wingnuts who wouldn't want HCR in any shape or form.
Look, I'm not holding up Dale Kildee as a progressive lion (we heard from his primary challenger on the left here recently). But damn it, I can respect that he seems to have a brain and a conscience in better working order than Stupak. Let's see if some of the other "Stupakians" are in fact willing to listen to reason and endorse Nelson's anti-choice Hyde-amendment-preserving Senate-bill language on this topic and let us have HCR without another huge deformation in it.
At 11 a.m. Stupak will give a press conference. This is what Naumann says we can look for:
We'll know more tomorrow, when Stupak will face put-up-or-shut-up time. If he can produce at this press conference—or any other time—the 11 or 12 House Democrats he has claimed are with him, health care reform could be in serious trouble. If his allies are much less than that, the bill's passage could become a foregone conclusion.