An Executive Order on Abortion?

White House photo/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/4420427482/">Pete Souza</a> (<a href="http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml">Government Work</a>)

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


President Barack Obama is considering issuing an executive order on abortion as part of a last-ditch bid to convince members of Rep. Bart Stupak’s anti-abortion bloc to vote for the Democrats’ health care reform package. Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the Democrat in charge of “whipping” members to vote for the bill, told reporters on Saturday that while he hadn’t yet read the proposed order, he was hopeful it might change some minds. “I understand the language is being read by various people,” Clyburn said. 

The wording of the order is, of course, crucial. And it may not be enough to flip Stupak.

The first reason to doubt the order will satisfy Stupak (D-Mich.) is that Rep. Diana Degette (D-Colo.), a leader of the congressional pro-choice caucus, has expressed support for it. “If there was an executive order saying that they weren’t going to use federal funds in the bill to pay for abortions that would be fine with me because we’ve stipulated to that even though we don’t like it,” Degette told the Huffington Post on Saturday. That statement suggests Degette has received assurances—either from the White House or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—that the order wouldn’t be the equivalent of Stupak’s anti-abortion amendment, which she opposes.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), the co-chair of the progressive caucus, has a similar position. Woolsey told Mother Jones that she would be “fine” with an executive order clarifying the health care reform bill’s abortion language. “I have not seen the words,” of the order, Woolsey said to reporters on Saturday. She suggested that even though she hasn’t seen the order, she already knows what it might say. “The executive order will describe what the health bill contains regarding abortion and federal funding,” she noted. “It will be very clear, there is no federal funding that will be spent on abortions in the health care bill.”

There are two reasons the White House might be considering an executive order. One reason would be to make actual, substantive changes that would win over some of Stupak’s bloc. And that might work: as Clyburn said, “If an executive order is sufficient to restart stem cell research, it ought to be sufficient here.”

More likely, however, Obama simply wants to give political cover to Stupak bloc members who want to vote for health care reform but who need a good excuse to change their minds. Degette and Woolsey’s support for the executive order indicates that it will not amount to the same thing as the Stupak amendment, which they oppose. (Jane Hamsher has another theory—that Degette is simply selling out her pro-choice supporters. But that doesn’t jive with Degette’s recent threat to bolt if Stupak got a new vote on adding his anti-abortion provisions to the Senate health care bill at the last minute.)

If the executive order turns out to be simply a restatement of existing law, Stupak might remain unsatisfied. He’s been arguing for months that his provision is the only way to prevent health care reform from funding abortions. It would be suprising if he settled for anything less now. But if this move is enough to peel away members of Stupak’s bloc, why the Democrats didn’t try this sooner. “Oh well, whatever,” Woolsey said when asked this. “Everything’s timing. Timing is everything. It’s a good thing that it’s done now.”

This post was reported by Suzy Khimm and Nick Baumann and written by Baumann.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate