"No," said Hatch, "but it would provide for them."

"It would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate," said Mikulski.

In other words, "gateway" insurers would be required to cover Planned Parenthood services, which would include procedures deemed "medically appropriate," which would include abortions.

"Well, I would have a rough time supporting it on that basis," said Hatch. "But I just wanted to get that clarified."

At this point, Democratic Sen. Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania had a go-around with Mikulski.

"You and I had a discussion about it," Casey said to Mikulski. "The way it is written -- and I don't believe this is the intent -- the way it is written, I believe it is too broad. And the way it could be interpreted down the road might include something like abortion. And I am concerned about that, the breadth of it and the scope of it. And for that reason I will oppose it."

To eliminate any ambiguity that Mikulski's amendment was intended to mandate abortion coverage in the proposed health-care reform, Hatch asked her a final question.

"Madame Chairman, would you be willing to put some language in that says, 'Not including abortion services'?" Hatch asked. "Then I think you would have more support."

Mikulski concluded a convoluted response by saying, "So, no, I would not be willing to do that at this time."

Mikulski's amendment passed.

On Monday, Hatch offered his own amendment in the committee to prohibit any funding of abortion through federally funded health insurance programs except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. The amendment was defeated.