Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today that there will be no abortion funding in the Senate version of the health care reform bill. Meanwhile, the Senate is expected to begin its battle on the government-run health care bill as soon as Monday once Reid unveils the final legislation.

Last weekend, the House approved its health care bill after adopted the Stupak amendment to prohibit the massive abortion funding the bill previously contained.

The Senate has approved two different versions of the health care bill, the Baucus measure and the Kennedy legislation, both of which contain public funding for abortions.

But, when he unveils the merged bill, Reid tells Roll Call that it will not contain abortion funding.

Reid said he expects an acceptable compromise to be reached on the abortion funding issue -- which leads one pro-life advocate to think he will include phony language that doesn't actually prohibit abortion funding.

“I expect that the bill that will be brought to the floor will ensure that no federal funds are used for abortion and that the rights of providers, health care facilities, like Catholic hospitals, will be protected, so I believe we can work that out, and we will” Reid said.

Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for National Right to Life, tells LifeNews.com he doesn't believe Reid will include a true funding ban in the vein of the Stupak amendment.

"There is no reason whatever to think that Democratic Leader Harry Reid is really going to insert into his bill any language that would truly prevent federal funding of abortion," he said. "What he will no doubt insert is, rather, deceptive language similar to the Capps-Waxman language that pro-life forces fought and finally beat in the House."

"The anticipated phony Reid language will allow the proposed federal government plan (the public option) to cover elective abortions, and also will provide federal subsidies to private plans that cover abortions," Johnson told LifeNews.com.

"Reid will claim, falsely, that his phony language prevents federal funding of abortion. And then pro-life senators will move forward with amendments, like the House-passed Stupak Amendment, to strip out the phony language and insert language that really would take abortion out of the bill," Johnson concluded.

He urged pro-life advocates to not "be fooled" by Reid's statement.

Meanwhile, the Senate could begin consideration of the current pro-abortion, government-run health care bill as soon as Monday, once Reid gets the financial numbers on the cost of the legislation.

The Congressional Budget Office is expected to finish its analysis of the financial details of the bill by the end of the week or early next week and, when it does, Reid will finally unveil the legislation to the Senate.

Monday could provide the first critical test for the pro-abortion bill as Reid will rile a "motion to proceed" with debate on the legislation and pro-life lawmakers, combined with a handful of moderate Democrats, may vote against it or filibuster it.

If a filibuster ensues, Reid will need 60 votes just to proceed on considering the bill -- and this motion gives the pro-life movement a chance to stop the bill outright.

Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia said today, “He doesn't have enough votes to get on the bill with a motion to proceed. And he doesn't have enough votes to get off the bill with a motion for cloture. So he’s got a big problem.”

That could force Reid to rely on reconciliation to bring the bill forward -- a rarely-used process by which the Senate can bring forth a bill under emergency financial rules. Using the process would greatly upset some lawmakers and the public.

Reid and his top lieutenants say they hope to consider the bill and a multitude of amendments, including one to strip the abortion funding from the measure, and they expect final votes by Christmas or the first week of January.

Then, the House and Senate would meet to merge the two pieces of legislation into one -- where pro-life advocates expect the abortion funding ban to be removed -- and then both the House and Senate will have to sign off on the final version. If that measure is pro-abortion and retains its current rationing and end-of-life problems, pro-life groups will engage in an all-out effort to kill the bill.

On Monday, Reid spokesman Jim Manley said Reid “continues to work with the Obama administration to get a bill done by the end of the year.”

But Republican lawmakers predict that that deadline may not happen as every other deadline has been passed because of the complexities of the process and the stances of members on different parts of the bill.

When it comes to abortion in the Senate, Reid already has a promise from one Democrat, pro-life Sen. Ben Nelson, to pursue an amendment like the Stupak one.

“I feel that something like the Stupak amendment should be included in the Senate version. I don't know that it’s not because I haven't seen the Senate version,” Nelson said Monday.

Nelson said he met with Reid on Monday and added that if the abortion funding ban is not added, you could be sure I would vote against it,” he said of the bill itself. He added that adding the Stupak language doesn't mean he will support the bill.

Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, both Democrats, have also said they want abortion funding limits added to the bill, though they may not go as far as Nelson by opposing the measure if they are not added.

“I think all of us have recognized throughout that there are three things” -- abortion, illegal immigration and the public option -- “that could really bring this down,” said Conrad, according to a Politico report.

“I don't know that anyone has quite found the right formula yet,” Conrad said about the abortion language.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin admitted that "It’s going to be a major issue, I'm sure."

“The caucus will eventually work its will on this issue,” Durbin said. “I hope that we can find a way around it.”

Sen. Sam Brownback said he expects abortion funding to be a big fight.

“I think it’s important that something like that be in it. There will be a number of us pushing that there not be abortion funding in the bill," he said.

Sign Up for Free Pro-Life News From LifeNews.com