It appears the Democrat leadership is going to call Rep. Bart Stupak's "bluff" and go forward with their health care legislation vote in the House.

APP's James Bell has compiled a list of the on-the-record statements made by members of the Stupak coalition so far. These are Democrats who have said they are not voting for the bill unless it is amended to include Stupak-approved language:

1. Steve Driehaus
2. Marion Berry
3. Joe Donnelly
4. Dan Lipinski
5. Kathy Dahlkemper
6. Jim Oberstar
7. Bart Stupak

If we are missing any public statements please supply the link in the comments!

First of all, the Associated Press suggests that the Democrat leadership is attempting to ignore the requests of Rep. Stupak's pro-life Democrats:

House leaders have concluded they cannot change a divisive abortion provision in President Barack Obama's health care bill and will try to pass the sweeping legislation without the support of ardent anti-abortion Democrats.

A break on abortion would remove a major obstacle for Democratic leaders in the final throes of a yearlong effort to change health care in America. But it sets up a risky strategy of trying to round up enough Democrats to overcome, not appease, a small but possibly decisive group of Democratic lawmakers in the House.

Democratic leaders are working to rally rank-and-file members around last-minute agreements on several sticking points, health insurance taxes and prescription drug coverage among them, and dozens of other complicated issues — all as Republicans stand ready to oppose the overhaul en masse.

Moreover, Philip Kleine reveals the legislative process that this is expected to employ:

Rep. Paul Ryan says that Democrats are ready to ram a "shell" health care bill through the Budget Committee, on which he serves as ranking Republican member, to use as a vehicle to impose national health care.

In a phone interview with TAS Thursday afternoon, Ryan said that he expects Democrats to begin the complex process on Monday, under which they would have the Budget Committee approve a phantom bill by midnight, which they will then send over to the Rules Committee. At that point, the Rules Committee will strip out all of the language in the phantom bill, and insert the changes to the Senate bill that Democrats have negotiated.

"They don't have the votes right now, but they're creating the vehicle so that they can airdrop in whatever changes they want," Ryan said.

And Ryan reminds citizens to keep their eyes on the ball:

He also warned against focusing too much on the reconciliation process in the Senate. "Reconciliation is a distraction," he said. "Once the House passes the Senate bill we have the massive new entitlement."

update - Matthew Continetti adds more.

From a breaking Roll Call report:

The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.

The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.

House Democratic leaders have been searching for a way to ensure that any move they make to approve the Senate-passed $871 billion health care reform bill is followed by Senate action on a reconciliation package of adjustments to the original bill. One idea is to have the House and Senate act on reconciliation prior to House action on the Senate’s original health care bill.

Information Republicans say they have received from the Senate Parliamentarian’s Office eliminates that option. House Democratic leaders last week began looking at crafting a legislative rule that would allow the House to approve the Senate health care bill, but not forward it to Obama for his signature until the Senate clears the reconciliation package.

This report, if true, all but nixes the possibility that House Democrats can be convinced to vote for a bill with the promise that Senate action will fix their concerns.

It's appearing more and more likely that the House is going to use a controversial house provision to push through Obamacare (as if the reconciliation process being invoked in the Senate was not already controversial enough).

Brian Darling at the Foundry blog has a good explanation of what is being concocted:

House members have come up with a unique way to structure a vote that attempts to avoid the House voting on legislation before it goes to the president.  First, the House Budget Committee will report out a reconciliation bill.  It is unclear as to whether the Stupak Amendment will be added.  This reconciliation measure would be reported for consideration by the House of Representatives as a whole.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) would then package the Senate passed Obamacare bill and the House reconciliation measure into one measure.  The House rules committee will report out a rule that will allow the Senate passed Obamacare bill to pass the House without a vote.  The rule will be self-executing in the sense that the House will have been deemed to pass the Senate Obamacare bill if the House can muster the votes to pass the reconciliation measure.  The House has used this  procedure in the past during a debate on funding the Global War on Terror and in passing debt limit increases under the “Gephardt Rule.

A report from NationalJournal.com confirms that this may indeed be the Democrat plan.

Jay Cost writes that there is no chance for Stupak's language to survive unless the House is presented with a new bill (i.e., the Senate moves first). Cost provides a helpful decision tree:

Similarly, the Democrats cannot promise the final bill will retain Stupak language:

Cost's conclusion:

I think the only solution for Stupak is somehow to find a way for the Senate to act first on abortion. This is the most important point: when Stupak and his bloc cast their votes in the House, their leverage is completely gone. That's the only power they have in the process. If they are induced to go first, they will lose to the Senate liberals.

The only way for Stupak language to survive "final passage" is for the Senate to move first. If the House moves first to approve the current Senate language, that can only mean Stupak's language will perish - in fact, it will never survive its introduction.

Who is the Stupak Coalition?  Who are these “at least twelve” Democrats who voted for health care reform last time but are willing to derail the President’s most cherished legislative agenda over the contentious issue of abortion?

Are they part of Bart Stupak’s imagination, as Rachel Maddow of MSNBC believes?  Are they Catholic pawns of the Roman Catholic Bishops as the Huffington Post argues?  Are they a faction of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition as Rush Limbaugh and many news outlets think?

In the wake of the controversy of the Stupak Dozen, six of the twelve have come out of the closet to support the beleaguered Michigan Democrat.  Are they all Catholics, Blue Dogs, or imaginary?  Let’s look and see.

Steve Driehaus is a fiscally liberal Roman Catholic from a blue collar section of Ohio.  He looks real.

Marion Berry is a retiring, Methodist Blue Dog Representative from Arkansas.  Many witnesses have confirmed his existence.

Joe Donnelly is a Catholic Blue Dog Democrat from Indiana.  Nobody has thus far called his reality into question.

Dan Lipinski is a fiscally liberal Catholic from Illinois.  All sources seem to agree upon his reality.

Kathy Dahlkemper is a Blue Dog Catholic Representative from Pennsylvania.  There are no known advocates that she is not real.

Jim Oberstar is a fiscally-liberal Catholic from Minnesota. The constituents who elected him 14 times seem to think he's real.

Bart Stupak is a fiscally liberal Catholic Democrat from Michigan.  The amount of news he is causing indicates that his reality is deeply probable.

Some have not yet come out of the Stupak closet but are allowing Stupak to take the heat on the issue while negotiating for their vote.  There are “at least twelve.”

The hard and fast statistics: 36% Blue Dog, 86% Catholic, and 100% real.

Kevin Jennings continues to avoid responding to the legitimate questions posed about his agenda for public eduction, and continues to avoid any opportunity to be transparent about it:

Kevin Jennings, a leading gay activist and President Obama's "Safe Schools" Czar, dodged a question on whether the federal government should promote homosexuality as moral in public schools earlier this week. Instead, the embattled czar, who was the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), emphasized the limit of the government's authority on school curriculum.

When CNSNews.com asked Jennings, following a speech to teachers at the National Press Club Monday, about “issues raised by congressional Republicans" about his background, he replied, “I’m not going to talk about that. Thank you. … You can ask what you want, but I’m probably not going to answer it.” (LSN)

The days of Ronald Reagan are gone and Democrats have transformed California into one of their greatest strongholds.  Senator Barbara Boxer, the sponsor of the (unsuccessful) Freedom of Choice Act to enshrine Roe v. Wade in law, is one of the most far left Democrats in the Senate.

That was before all three of her G.O.P. challengers cut her polling advantage to less than 6%.

The most recent primary poll shows liberal former Representative Tom Campbell at 32%, moderate former Hewlett-Packard C.E.O. Carly Fiorina at 18.5%, and conservative State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore at 11%.  But with 39% of likely GOP primary voters undecided and with few voters very certain this early on, the race is still considered to be up for grabs.

The New York Times predicted that Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore would split the conservative G.O.P. vote, allowing Tom Campbell to waltz to victory with the liberal G.O.P. and some of the unaffiliated independent votes.  However, it has not been smooth sailing for the liberal Republican.  Carly Fiorina welcomed him into the race by attacking him with the now-infamous “Demon Sheep” ad.  She was criticized for the over-the-top quality of the ad, but she has kept Campbell on the defensive ever since, forcing him to defend anti-Israel votes and his support of tax hikes.

Now, the L.A. Times is breaking a new scandal of Campbell falsely denying a letter he wrote to defend a radical Islamic professor who was a donor to his campaigns.  Campbell is in hot water, to put it mildly, and it is unclear if his poll numbers will be able to survive the onslaught (and money) of the Fiorina campaign.

Conservative pundit Dick Morris believes that Carly Fiorina, who has by far the most money (including $2.5 million of her own) in the race, can pull ahead of Tom Campbell – describing her as a “successful businesswoman.”  She has gained the support of the Republican establishment, with a swathe of sitting Republican Senators endorsing her.

However, she too has run into some stormy waters.  Tom Campbell has accused her of slander, which has hurt her somewhat.  And Arianna Packard, the granddaughter of HP co-founder David Packard, has slammed Carly Fiorina in an article in Politico.  She argues that the only reason that Fiorina is no longer the CEO of HP is because she was fired for almost destroying the entire company.  She endorses Assemblyman Chuck DeVore as a real conservative.

In early February, George Will surprised everyone by predicting that Chuck DeVore would emerge victorious.  The truth is that Chuck DeVore would have to turn this into a three way race and thread the needle in order to win.

However, he has won a string of critical endorsements that have allowed his poll numbers and fundraising numbers to grow: Senator Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund on November 3rd, the Erick Erickson’s conservative blog Redstate on February 11th, radio host Mark Levin on February 16th, and the California Republican Assembly, “conscience of the Republican Party,” on March 7th.  However, in order to turn the race into a three way race, he needs the coveted endorsement of Sarah Palin, which vaunted NY-23’s Doug Hoffman to stardom.  Without her endorsement, anything he does will be too little … too late.

And whoever wins will be the underdog against Barbara Boxer …

Polling Scorecard If Race Was Held Today – Republicans Pick Up 8 Seats.

A press release from the Secular Coalition for America:

Marking the first time in history a presidential administration has met for a policy briefing with the American nontheist community, on February 26 the Secular Coalition for America will engage with White House officials on issues of great concern to the secular movement

Some of their specific goals:

Fixing Faith-Based Initiatives: Taking all necessary steps to make certain that religious organizations receiving federal funding for social welfare programs cannot discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion, that program beneficiaries are never subject to proselytizing, and that secular options are made equally available to those in need.

"There has been a movement toward theocracy in America that is too often overlooked," said Faircloth. "As a result, good Americans, including children, have been harmed, and men and women in uniform denied their rights. This strikes at the very core of American values. The Secular Coalition for America seeks justice for every citizen, regardless of creed."

While justice for every citizen is indeed a laudable goal, I fail to see how religious institutions have, on the whole, impeded that goal.

After all, our nation's founding fathers, on the whole, were deeply religious, but that did not prevent them from founding a government that seeks to be just to all citizens, regardless of creed.

Would the Secular Coalition for America have a problem with this scene?

It depicts our first Continental Congress.

A memory of history should provide wisdom to help decide what should be done next in the health care debate:

A piecrust promise is one that is easily made and easily broken. The promise – more a rumor than anything else – that the U.S. Senate will use the reconciliation process to adopt a strong ban on abortion funding if the House passes the Senate-approved bill is flakier than most. Never before in the history of the 34-year abortion funding debate have pro-life members of Congress approved a bill containing abortion funding on the promise that a subsequent vote will fix the problem.

... pro-life House Democrats have no reason to believe that the “reconciliation fix” on abortion is anything more than a piecrust promise. If they were to proceed anyway and vote for H.R. 3590, it would indeed be “career-defining” for these House members who have so far stood tall for their, and their constituents’, convictions. (Chuck Donovan at The Foundry)

The Good - Stupak is not standing down:

Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak said yesterday at a townhall in his home state, "I'm more optimistic than I was a week ago" that a deal could be reached to pass a health care bill that bans public funding of abortion. Some speculated that this meant Stupak was ready to cave. "Obviously they don’t know me," Stupak said in an interview this afternoon with THE WEEKLY STANDARD. "If I didn’t" cave in November, "why would I do it now after all the crap I’ve been through?"

"Everyone’s going around saying there’s a compromise—there’s no such thing," Stupak said. What's changed between this week and last, Stupak went on, is that he had his first real conversation with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Congressman Henry Waxman about fixing the bill. (Weekly Standard)

The Bad - one of his coalition is wavering:

Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.), a key supporter of Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-Mich.) anti-abortion language intended for the health care bill, said Tuesday night that he’s satisfied the Senate abortion language prohibits federal funding of abortions and will likely vote for the bill.

“I think the Senate language keeps the purpose of the Hyde amendment,” Kildee told reporters. “I’ll probably vote for it.”

Kildee’s conversion undermines the position of Stupak, his fellow Michigan Democrat who has been demanding changes to the Senate bill. (Roll Call)

Update - Kildee's office says this Roll Call report is innacurate and that he is still undecided.

Why?

"So that you can find out what is in it!"

What are the wages of challenging Nancy Pelosi? Political death by a well-funded leftist challenger, as the Detroit news reports today:

I'll give you one guess for which candidate EMILY'S List, Planned Parenthood and NARAL will be supporting next cycle in Michigan's first congressional district.

Is Bart Stupak turning the tables and caving in to Democratic pressure? The Associated Press sure thinks it’s likely: Abortion Battle On Health Bill May End. That is enough to produce a panic attack on pro-life advocates across the nation, causing severe Ben Nelson flashbacks. However, he is only actually quoted as saying that he is more optimistic than he was a week ago. Does that mean he is about to cave?

What reason could he have for being optimistic?

The answer is obvious. Kathleen Sebelius, formerly a fiery opponent of Bart Stupak and pro-life leaders across the nation, has showered compliments upon him, emphasizing the similarity of the goals of Bart Stupak and President Obama. One thing is certain. The Obama Administration is wooing the pro-life Democrats – a role it is not familiar with or comfortable with. He now knows he has the leverage to win the fight.

Meanwhile, is Bart Stupak saying to his constituents that he is about to vote for the Senate Health Care Reform Bill with a promise that Democrats will fix it later? Take a look:

[Video link]

From USA Today:

“Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.”

“These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.”

The means on average a federal worker receives $108,476 in salary + benefits per year vs. a private worker who receives $69,928 in salary + benefits per year ... for essentially the same job.

Ph/t: Big Government, which also has a chart comparing various professions.

I admire how Prager critiques Leftist values because they are different from the values of America's founding:

"I used to believe that the Left and the Right had similar goals for America, that they just differed in the means they wanted to use to get there. I was mistaken. The Left has a very different vision of America than those who hold to America’s founding values, most especially individualism and small government. Their vision is one in which a once-in-a-lifetime chance to establish a giant welfare state dominated by the Left is worth any price — even America’s steep financial decline." (National Review)

The Chief of Staff for Rep. Eric J.J. Massa of New York has just confirmed that the Democrat will in fact be resigning his seat by the end of today.  Eric Massa has come forward today with the claim that Rahm Emmanuel conspired to eliminate him because of his opposition to Obamacare.  To more fully understand what could be gained by eliminating Massa, the situation bears some scrutiny.

Eric Massa campaigned on a platform of abolishing insurance companies altogether.  Although this is to the left of most Congressional Democrats and far to the left of rural upstate New York, he avoided the stigma of being a liberal on the basis of his distinguished career in the Navy.

When he voted against the House Health Care Reform Bill, he and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio were the only two Democrats that opposed the bill for being too conservative.  Both quickly announced opposition to the more moderate Senate Health Care Reform Bill.

The important thing here is that this resignation may open the door for Nancy Pelosi to be able to bypass the giant roadblock to health care reform called Bart Stupak.  However, we cannot overstate her strength.  She would need to convince all nine of the wavering Democrats to support the Senate Health Care Reform Bill.  Then, she would need to win all three of the special elections.  Even one loss in the special elections could be fatal.

There is an April 13th special election in Florida.  There is a May 18th special election in Pennsylvania.  There is a scheduled May 22nd special election in Hawaii.  By waiting to get reinforcements in those elections, Nancy Pelosi could also gain the additional advantage of waiting for the retirement of Georgia GOP Rep. Nathan Deal.  The big question is … can she maintain the pressure she needs to win the vote until the end of May?

No one has ever accused her of being short on willpower, but … that is a long time to keep the newspapers buzzing about an unpopular issue in an election year.

And even one election loss in FL, PA, or HI could be fatal.

On November 7, Nancy Pelosi threaded the House Health Care Reform Bill 220-215 with the pro-life Stupak Amendment.

The Senate passed a health care reform bill without the Stupak Amendment, thus risking the pro-life defeat of health care reform on a bill that spends taxpayer dollars on health care policies that fund abortions.

Nancy Pelosi cannot afford to lose even one vote:

• On December 16th, Joseph ‘Anh’ Cao, the lone Republican supporter of the bill, declared his opposition to the Senate bill due to its lax abortion provisions.
• On January 2nd, Democratic Representative Robert Wexler of Florida resigned to become the President of the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation.
• On February 8th, John Murtha died of complications relating to surgery.
• On March 1st, Democratic Representative Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii resigned to run for Governor.

216-216. Tie game.

(The Democrats may be able to force the resignation of health care opponent Eric J.J. Massa of New York, which would lighten the burden on their whip count, but that will not be resolved until tonight).

With this Susan B. Anthony List poll demonstrating fierce opposition to abortion funding in the Districts of pro-life Democrats, it is clear why Bart Stupak is able to whip up opposition (to the tune of “at least twelve” votes) to the pro-choice Senate Health Care Reform Bill.

Now, of the 38 remaining Democrats who voted against the health care bill (Parker Griffith is now a Republican), 29 are still committed to opposing the Senate Health Care Reform Bill.

Only 9 are not sure how they will vote this time around.  However, even if the Democrats are able to win the special elections in Hawaii, Florida, and Pennsylvania and flip all 9 of the Democrats who opposed the bill last time, the vote will be a dead heat – no passage … unless Nancy Pelosi can accept the resignation of Eric Massa.

This is politics at its most riveting.

An important observation from Mark Steyn:

... When seeking to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences, President Ford liked to say: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." Which is true enough. But there's an intermediate stage: A government big enough to give you everything you want isn't big enough to get you to give any of it back. That's the point Greece is at. Its socialist government has been forced into supporting a package of austerity measures. The Greek people's response is: Nuts to that. Public sector workers have succeeded in redefining time itself: Every year, they receive 14 monthly payments. You do the math. And for about seven months' work - for many of them the workday ends at 2:30 p.m. When they retire, they get 14 monthly pension payments. In other words: Economic reality is not my problem. I want my benefits. And, if it bankrupts the entire state a generation from now, who cares as long as they keep the checks coming until I croak?

We hard-hearted, small-government guys are often damned as selfish types who care nothing for the general welfare. But, as the Greek protests make plain, nothing makes an individual more selfish than the socially equitable communitarianism of big government. Once a chap's enjoying the fruits of government health care, government-paid vacation, government-funded early retirement, and all the rest, he couldn't give a hoot about the general societal interest. He's got his, and to hell with everyone else. People's sense of entitlement endures long after the entitlement has ceased to make sense. (Washington Times)

From Simon Heffer writing for the UK Telegraph:

"For a land without a welfare state, America starts to do an effective impersonation of a country with one."