The federal courts would rule that a statute would take precedent over an executive order signed by a president.
United States President Barak Obama has promised to sign an executive order to ensure that no federal funds are made available for insurance coverage for abortion by his proposed federalization of health insurance. The pro-abortion president, who in the past has expressed support for federal funding for abortion, made the promise in order to gain the necessary votes of several pro-life liberal Democrats for his proposal.
Not only could a successor overturn Obama's executive order with another executive order, but Obama could even overturn his own order. Regardless, his proposal that passed the U.S. Senate, upon which the U.S. House is set to vote, requires federal funds (i.e. taxpayer money) to be made available for companies that provide insurance coverage for abortion. Therefore, federal courts would rule that the law requires that the federal government not discriminate against insurance companies that provide coverage for abortion, despite any executive order, which would make Obama's promise meaningless. In conclusion, the House vote for the Senate bill that would be signed into law by the President, would be a vote to provide federal funds to companies that insure abortion, notwithstanding any executive order to the contrary.