As of last night, this was the text. Not having a ton of Democratic sources, I can’t tell you if this is the final or not, assuming there is even such a thing:

Proposed Executive Order Language
1. The Executive Order directs that the Hyde language found in sections 507 and 508 of the Labor HHH Appropriations Bill shall apply to the HR 3590.
SEC. 507.
(a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.
(b) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
(c) The term ‘‘health benefits coverage’’ means the package of services covered by a managed care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.
SEC. 508.
(a) The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion —
(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.
(b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or private person of State, local, or private funds (other than a State’s or locality’s contribution to Medicaid matching funds.)
(c) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as restricting the ability of any managed care provider from offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such a provider for such coverage with State funds (other than a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.)
2. Under this Act, Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds under section 10503 of the Community Health Centers.
SEC. 10503. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS AND THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS FUND. Pages 2355-2357 of H.R. 3590.
3. Under this Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the section 1303 of the HR 3590.
SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES. Pages 2069-2079 of H.R. 3590.
4. Under this Act, the Accommodation of Conscious is recognized.
(a) NONDISCRIMINATION.—A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not—
(1) subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination; or
(2) require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination,
on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
(b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘healthcare entity’’ includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.
(c) ADMINISTRATION.—The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services is designated to receive complaints of discrimination based on this section, and coordinate the investigation of such complaints.
5. Addition Conscious Provisions
“(1) Nothing in this Act shall require an otherwise qualified health plan, including an Exchange-participating plan, to cover any items or services to which the issuer, plan sponsor, or purchaser has a moral or religious objection, provided the plan is at least actuarially equivalent to a qualified health plan that covers the essential health benefits.
“(2) If a health plan is permitted not to cover items or services under paragraph (1), then the issuer, plan sponsor, or purchaser shall not be required to include such items or services in such plan as a condition of (A) being eligible for a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction, or (B) avoiding any assessable payment or any other tax, assessment or penalty under this Act.
“(3) Nothing in this Act shall prohibit a qualified health plan, including an Exchange-participating plan, from contracting with an individual or institutional health care provider that declines to provide, participate in, or refer for an item or service to which the provider has a moral or religious objection.
“(4) Nothing in this Subsection shall be construed to deny, alter, or modify any right or duty any person may have under state or local law, or under federal laws other than this Act.”
“(5) Nothing in this Subsection shall be construed to authorize a health plan to deny coverage for all medical care, or for life-preserving care, to an individual based on a view that treats extending the life or preserving the health of the individual as of lower value than extending the life or preserving the health of others because of the individual’s disability or other characteristic.”

The reality of this or any other text, though is: It is meaningless legally. It has no binding effect. I don’t know a single lawyer with a working knowledge of the Constitution, Congress, and the Executive, who says otherwise.

And remember how fast the pro-abortion feminists went wild when they heard Pelosi was talking with Stupak about a legislative fix Friday night? I hear no shrieking this morning. There’s a reason for that. They know it’s meaningless and has no binding effect.

I wouldn’t be surprised, though, if, upon reading the above text, legal-abortion supporters do make noise: Because it purports to do more than it actually can. As one reader suggests, maybe they’ll just hold their fire until after the vote tonight, when the EO can easily fall to the wayside.

Ed Whelan — who, if we were the Obama administration, would be “Bench Memos” czar — adds: “Totally meaningless because it has no binding force. An utter sham.”

UPDATE: The typos were in the text as I received it. A reader, appropriately, snarks:

“Under this Act, the Accommodation of Conscious is recognized.”
this means that if you’re conscious, it doesn’t apply to you?
maybe the white house doesn’t know how to spell “conscience” because
it is unfamiliar with the notion.