I’m not going to be able to say it any better than El Presidente did on March 3: “No matter which approach you favor, I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform.” Well, no shit.

To ensure a speedier delivery of a health bill, the House must pass the version of the bill that passed in the Senate on Dec. 23, 2009. And because there is a strong possibility the bill won’t get any Republican votes in either the House or the Senate, Congress may have to turn to reconciliation, a process in which a bill is passed with no filibustering, only 20 hours of floor debate and a simple majority.

Bill passage by reconciliation also means the House will have to adjust the Senate bill to be in accordance with Obama’s February proposal regarding health care. The problem is, despite the fact that the reconciliation process requires only a simple majority and is filibuster-proof, the House may still not have enough votes to pass the Senate’s draft of the bill.

While there are multiple reasons why this is the case, one major party pooper (no pun intended) is — you guessed it — abortion! Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., author of the now-infamous Stupak Amendment, finds the language of the Senate bill too soft on abortions without the inclusion of his adjustments, which are intended to prevent any federal funds from being used to cover abortion costs or the cost of insurance plans including abortion coverage (with the exception of rape, incest or life-threatening circumstances for the mother).

Thoughts on the Stupak Amendment aside, the fact of the matter is that health reform is unlikely to power through the House without the vote of Stupak and company (about a dozen other Democrats have indicated they would not sign the bill without the amendment). Keeping this in mind, the logical step in the interest of passage would seem to be to include the amendment in the reconciliation bill.

However, requirements dictate any changes made during the reconciliation process must affect federal spending. As Timothy Noah of Slate magazine points out in “The mathematics of a reconciliation health reform bill” piece, “if Stupak were truthful in [his] claim that the Stupak Amendment merely preserved the … existing ban on federal funding for abortions, then the Stupak Amendment would indeed affect the federal budget by stripping from the Senate bill its supposedly noxious funding for abortions.” But according to the Congressional Budget Office, Stupak’s proposed changes would not result in any changes to the current federal budget, and therefore cannot be added to the House bill under reconciliation.

If this is the case, then doesn’t it mean the Senate’s version of the bill doesn’t provide federal funding for abortion, as Stupak insists it does? Yes. Stupak stated in an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren that enrollees in the proposed health plan exchange program “have to pay one dollar per month … for reproductive rights which include abortion,” It is not true that this is a requirement for everyone who enrolls in an exchange-eligible plan. Stupak fails to note the Senate bill also mandates that all insurers participating in the national exchange must provide at least one plan that doesn’t include abortion coverage. So, people who do not feel comfortable helping fund a plan that supports abortion rights may choose to enroll in a plan that doesn’t include abortion coverage.

Basically, this comes down to two things. First, the Stupak Amendment is an unnecessary deterrent to expedient health care passage, and second, Bart Stupak and his House groupies might need to get Hooked on Phonics, since they clearly missed something in their reading of the Senate bill. Sucks to be you right, now, Nancy.

Hannah Shtein ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in philosophy.