>> I agree that's technically true, but I think it's incredibly unlikely. <<

You're mistaken about that, and I answered it in my comment below.

>> By voting for it in the House, the Dems were counting on the Senate to keep such language out. That's a gamble. <<

You're also wrong about that, but more subtly: You missed the point that the House pro-choicers were attempting to pressure the Senate into not including that language, and knew their chances of success were very high.