CQ Politics is reporting that the House of Representatives will vote on Saturday on a health care bill which includes new language on abortion services coverage, but which would not go nearly as far as the language sought by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), which would have effectively banned all insurance coverage for abortion services in the individual and small group market.

House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise M. Slaughter said Wednesday that the rule for considering the sweeping health care legislation will encompass anti-abortion language put forward by Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind.

The Ellsworth language would become part of the House adopts the rule for the bill, Slaughter said. It would explicitly prohibit federal funding for abortions and also guarantee patients access to “pro-life” insurance plans that would not cover the procedure.

While the language is explicit on the funding question, and offers this access to “pro-life” insurance plans, that’s not substantively different from current law. Stupak’s amendment would have banned any private insurer accepting subsidies – i.e. everyone in the exchange – from offering reproductive services.

You know that this is insufficient to Stupak because he says it in the article.

Bart Stupak, D-Mich., may still oppose the Ellsworth language, potentially keeping the bill from passing. Stupak wants to bar any federally subsidized insurance plan from covering abortions, including any public plan set up to compete with private insurers.

As I’ve noted, Stupak doesn’t have the votes on his own, and most of his votes are no votes on health care no matter what. Now that Nancy Pelosi has a bigger cushion for health care reform, and because she’s probably enticed at least a couple pro-life Dems – like Ellsworth – with the fig leaf language they can take back to their states – along with the biofuels rider, which probably was designed to get someone’s vote, she doesn’t seem so concerned about Bart Stupak anymore.

The big question is, will progressives allow this bill to go through? I sought comment from Rep. Raul Grijalva of the Progressive Caucus, and here’s how his office responded.

• They’re very happy that the bill “includes a total rather than partial repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act as it relates to health insurance companies.” So they believe that the language in repealing the anti-trust exemption is stronger, not weaker, and encompasses all anti-competitive practices.

• They are “concerned” about getting a vote on the floor on a robust public option with Medicare + 5% rates. It’s likely that will not happen, but until the Rules Committee passes out the bill you cannot be sure.

• A bill called the “Indian Health Care Improvement Act” was attached to the bill wholesale in the manager’s amendment, which also has made Grijalva’s office happy. I think this is part of the Office of Minority Health.

This does not sound like the words of someone ready to put up a huge fight on the bill. I don’t think Pelosi would have gone this far if she wasn’t confident of passage.

UPDATE: I didn’t realize that Ellsworth threatened to vote against the bill yesterday if his language on abortion services wasn’t adopted. This secures his vote. It’s unclear what this means for the public option, and whether Ellsworth’s language would ban coverage of reproductive choice services in it. We’ll have to see the language first.

UPDATE II: A Pelosi spokesman says that no final decision has been made on the timing of the vote. However, Louise Slaughter of the Rules Committee appears to have set a time for their session on finalizing the rule: 2pm ET on Friday.