I just finished reading the EO. My key takeaway is that it doesn't do much more than restate the relevant language of the Senate bill. For those of us--myself included--who think the Senate language provides sufficient protection on the issue of abortion, that's not a problem. But if you have a problem with the Senate language,the EOis unlikely to change your mind.One of the odd things about the recent debate is how the issue of Community Health Centers has soaked up most of the oxygen in the room. The EO clarifies thatthe Obama Administration will interpret the law so as to impose Hyde Amendment-type restrictions on the new funding stream for Community Health Centers. As we've noted in these precincts earlier, such language was not explicitly included in the Senate Bill. In truth, though, the idea that the Senate bill would have mandated CHCs to start providing abortion--something they have never done--was just absurd.What the EO doesn't change, though, is the Senate bill's provision that those who purchase insurance through the exchanges will be able to choose plans that cover abortion as long as the cost of that coverage is borne entirely by the enrollee. The EO reaffirms this and instructs the OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop regulations for health plans to ensure the segregation of funds. It should be said, though, that this would have happened even in the absence of the EO becauseHHS is going to have the responsibility of drafting all the regulations necessary to implement the bill.As argued several weeks ago, I think that these provisions of the Senate bill (what I called at the time the "Nelson Amendment") meet the test of "neutrality." At the time, though, it seemed that Rep. Stupak (D-MI) did not agree. So I am still not certain what in the EO changed his mind. I'm glad that he did change his mind because I think his earlier interpretation was wrong, but I can understand why some of the Republicans who joined him in opposition to the Senate language might be feeling a bit frustrated.Stupak has said that he plans to insert the EO into the Congressional Record as part of the legislative history. That will be important because it will encourage the courts to resolveambiguities in the law (of which there are likely to be several) in favor the Hyde restrictions. I'm fairly certain, though that those court decisions would have come out the same way even in the absence of the EO.In the end, then, I would say that the impact of the EO is more symbolic than substantive. It provided the public commitment of the Obama administration that the pro-life holdouts among the Democrats needed to support the reform bill. Substantively, though, if those folks are comfortable now, they should have been comfortable 24 hours ago.