Politico reports:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who had a central role in the health reform fight as the leader of anti-abortion Democrats, plans to announce Friday that he will not run for reelection, a Democratic official said. Without Stupak on the ballot, the seat becomes an immediate pickup opportunity for Republicans.

... President Barack Obama called Stupak on Wednesday and asked him not to retire. Stupak, 58, also resisted entreaties from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the dean of the Wolverine State delegation.

Stupak's health-care-vote related difficulties are shared by other Democrats in moderate districts, specifically over their final abandonment of pro-life priorities:

Republicans believe that other pro-life Democrats, suh freshman Reps. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) and Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Pa.), will also face serious trouble because of their support for the health care legislation without strict anti-abortion provisions.

The post mortems on his political career are already being written.

Here's one from Kathryn Lopez:

It has seemed obvious to me since last year that Stupak would retire. The tragic thing is that he could have been an inspiring leader, a man who stood up on principle to the most prominent politicians of the day, of his own party. Instead, we know what he did — he surrendered all the power he had for a meaningless executive order, bowing at the altar of a party that long ago sold its soul to the culture of death he claimed to be standing athwart, to boot.

Stupak has made it almost impossible for other pro-life Democrats to organize and stand up to their party leadership on this issue.

Here's another comment from W. James Antle, III:

When faced with the actual option of being responsible for the bill's defeat, Stupak and his colleagues couldn't go through with it. The executive order was window dressing to make them feel better and also to make it seem less absurd that they had tied up the health care bill for so long only to fold at the end. The sad reality is that the pro-choice liberals had up to that point shown they were much more likely to back down than the Stupak Democrats, so Stupak might have prevailed had he stuck to his guns.

This whole debate about what could have been is only meaningful when we're forced to discuss the motivations of politicians who don't stick to their principles. If Stupak had stuck to his pro-life principles his vote would not have become a bargaining chip. Instead, the President and Democrat leadership would have been forced to come to an agreement with Stupak's principles on his terms, not theirs. 

In a game of principles vs. bargaining, principles can win.

And as for Mr. Stupak, I can barely muster the energy or care to write "good riddance."

W. James Antle, III writes for the American Spectator:

A group that tracks earmarks is reporting that 11 Bart Stupak Democrats have requested more than $3.4 billion in earmarks for 2011. Stupak himself requested more than $578 million in earmarks. Of the eight members whose 2010 earmarks requests were available for comparison, five requested more than they did a year ago: Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Ill.) Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Pa.O Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) and Rep. Charles Wilson (D-Ohio).

Personally, I doubt any of these lawmakers flipped because of the earmarks -- though given the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase, you can never rule it out -- but their loyalty to their party's leadership rather than their pro-life views may yet be rewarded.

I would agree. This sort of news strongly cuts against my hope of seeing both parties make pro-life issues their priority, more than their party leadership's favor.

APP's Jimmy Bell has had his exclusive findings on Robert Bauer re-posted by John McCormack at the Weekly Standard today:

When Bart Stupak announced his support for the Senate Health Care Reform Bill, one reporter asked him if the deal between Barack Obama and the pro-life Democrats was made face-to-face with the President himself. Mr. Stupak said that he had made the deal working with White House Counsel Robert Bauer.
Who is this Robert Bauer - the man capable of selling Bart Stupak a bill of goods on the Executive Order?

Prior to his involvement with Mr. Obama, from 2005-2007 Mr. Bauer was a registered lobbyist for America Votes.  In this capacity, he sought to enact laws that would help the fund-raising prospects of left-leaning 527s.  After he finished the campaign of Mr. Obama, he served as the Counsel for the pro-choice election powerhouse EMILY's List.

America Votes (AV) is a coalition of liberal groups that has, according to their website "more than 20,000,000 Americans in every state in the country." AV is controlled by an Executive Board that consists of 9 members: 5 unions (AFL-CIO, AFSCME, NEA, SEIU, and UFCW), 2 global warming advocacy groups (The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters), 1 general liberal advocacy network (Progressive Future), and, most importantly, the most influential pro-choice lobby - The Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

Read Jimmy's first post on Buaer, explaining more of his ties to the abortion industry here.

I've written an essay in response to a dominant claim spread by the pro-life movement post-passage of Obamacare: that there can be no such thing as a pro-life Democrat.

I hope they are wrong, and I would argue that they already are:

In the wake of Bart Stupak's 11th-hour betrayal of pro-life values and the simultaneous disintegration of his coalition of pro-life Democrats in the face of overwhelming political pressure, many in the pro-life and conservative movements have begun trumpeting the claim that "there is no such thing as a pro-life Democrat."

Phyllis Schlafly crystallized this sentiment when she wrote about the "Myth of the Pro-Life Democrat": "Mr. Stupak and his Democrat followers have now clarified that you cannot be pro-life and be a Democrat.  If abortion was truly their biggest issue, they wouldn't willfully align themselves with the Party of Death."

In the days since last Sunday's vote, I've read dozens of emails, blog comments and facebook updates that echo the same theme. I respectfully disagree with all of them. To say there is "no such thing as a pro-life Democrat" is to create a myth of our own. And we should leave myth creating to those who are not comfortable with or must avoid reality.

[Read the full essay here.]

Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, the former Democrat who turned Republican because he found his own party too hostile to the belief in the sanctity of life, had a great quote about the health care reform bill in William McGurn's Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Pro-Life Democrats, RIP

"The peer pressure to be part of the team can be overwhelming.  But sometimes it's absolutely necessary, regardless of the cost, to bend into the wind, unmovable, committed to what your heart, mind and conscience know to be right."

"For so long, Bart did that. Then he was like a runner who stopped a hundred feet before the finish line. It's a sad day for the unborn, a sad day for their mothers, and a serious setback for the culture of life."

In his first post-vote interview with Fox News (if the video does not work you can also watch it here):

I was completely unimpressed by his explanation. What did you think?

Last night the meme was quickly begun that Bart Stupak was called a "baby killer" from the House floor during his speech against the Republican motion to recommit the bill.

Rep. Randy Neugebauer has come out this morning, admitting to be the person who made the exclamation, only he says he said, "it's a baby killer" - referring to the legislation under consideration.

If you listen very carefully you can hear the shout out at the seven second mark:

A clever photoshop from my friend Erik:

At the very least, this has bad timing written all over it:

U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) announced three airports in northern Michigan have received grants totaling $726,409 for airport maintenance and improvements.  The funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration.
 
“This federal funding will help these airports better provide critical services to communities in northern Michigan,” Stupak said.  “I am pleased the FAA has made this investment in our local airports and the individuals and businesses they serve.” (source)

One of the last-ditch attempts to bring pro-life Democrats into Pelosi's fold has been to suggest that a Presidential executive order will fix the abortion funding problems in the bill.

Here is what the pro-life watchdog National Right to Life had to say about that idea:

“If the [Senate] bill is signed into law, these statutory requirements and defects are not subject to correction or nullification by the chief executive or his appointees, whether by Executive Order, regulation, or otherwise.”

At this point it does not appear any compromise on this issue of abortion funding will be sufficient. Any pro-life Democrat who votes with Pelosi will be sacrificing whatever pro-life standing and record they had up until this point.

This should be deeply disturbing to them, not only for reasons of justice, but also for those who have made such a fundamental promise to the constituents they represent back home.

As usual, we will be following the health care debate into the evening and all tomorrow on our APP Twitter account.

It's been a long road.

Going into the final two days of the health care battle, I see only one path to victory for Nancy Pelosi - if she manages to convince enough pro-life Democrats that the Senate will fix the abortion problems in the current language of the bill. Some pro-life Democrats in the House are beginning to speak as if they believe that could work to secure their vote.

For the record, I think it is unbelievable that the Senate will ever fix the abortion language passed by the house, and the Speaker has promised there will be no more changes to the House-version of the bill's language.

Then again, the Speaker has been known to change her mind.

But the choice for the pro-life Democrats remains clear: either vote for this deeply-flawed legislation, or vote against it.

The last word at the end of today is that the Speaker may have the votes she needs. But nothing is decided until the vote is actually taken (probably on Sunday).

Over the next 48 hours I will continue to post updates to the APP Twitter Feed.

One Democrat switches from Yes to No:

"A key House Dem has begun informing party leaders he plans to vote against health care legislation both on the House floor and in the rules committee, on which he sits.

Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY), a sophomore Dem who had a tougher-than-expected re-election bid in '08, has told the Dem caucus he will vote against the bill.

He becomes the 3rd member, along with Reps. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) and Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), to have switched from supporting the first bill, in Nov., to opposing the Senate version."

Meanwhile Charlie Wilson (D-OH, pictured above), who was considered part of the Stupak coalition, is signaling that he is wavering and will probably vote for the bill.

(I'll try to get an updated whip list posted later this afternoon.)

Bart Stupak still claims he has 12 members with him. Although he admits its been tough:

Leading a revolt against President Barack Obama’s healthcare legislation over abortion has been a “living hell” for Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.).

The telephone lines in his Washington and district offices have been “jammed” and he’s gotten more than 1,500 faxes and countless e-mails — most of which he says don’t come from his constituents.

And by tough I mean "harassed":

The fight has taken a toll on his wife, who has disconnected the phone in their home to avoid harassment.

“All the phones are unplugged at our house — tired of the obscene calls and threats. She won’t watch TV,” Stupak said during an hourlong interview with The Hill in his Rayburn office. “People saying they’re going to spit on you and all this. That’s just not fun.”

I am told that Stupak has actually been spit upon.

So much for reasonable debate and courteous dialogue.

John McCormack, online editor at the Weekly Standard, follows-up on my speculation about who Pelosi invited to the meeting of Democrat congresswomen this morning, and what they talked about:

There's been chatter on Capitol Hill today that Pelosi excluded pro-life women from a meeting this morning, and a staffer for pro-life Democrat Marcy Kaptur tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD's Daniel Halper that Kaptur did not attend this morning's meeting, though the staffer didn't specify why Kaptur didn't attend.

... A lot has been made about erstwhile pro-lifer Jim Oberstar abandoning Stupak, but Pelosi's maneuvering seems to be the bigger news. She doesn't appear to have the votes to pass the bill unless pro-life or pro-choice Democrats cave in.

Oberstar is a dissapointing but not surprising switch (neither is Dale Kildee, for that matter). But let's remember - Pelosi is still a few votes away from Magic 216, so the battle is far from lost.

I wonder how many pro-life Democrat congresswomen there are in the House - anyone know off-hand?

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!

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.