I don’t mean to be that cute about it, but Roll Call reported yesterday that the Pro-Choice caucus was “studying” the Senate bill and determining whether it went beyond the Hyde Amendment.

The issue of abortion is still fracturing the Caucus, with a handful of lawmakers pledging to vote against the measure for language they say doesn’t go far enough in restricting taxpayer funding of the procedure and others threatening to oppose it because they believe the same provision too tightly limits access. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) — a Chief Deputy Whip and leading abortion-rights supporter — still needs to review the Senate-passed approach to determine whether it passes muster, said her chief of staff, Lisa Cohen. She signaled if the Colorado Democrat decides it goes further than current law in denying access to abortions, she will oppose the bill and rally other abortion-rights supporters to do the same unless leaders pledge to address their concerns later.

But Pelosi on Monday reiterated that abortion and immigration language — another hot-button issue that’s divided Members — cannot be changed in a reconciliation bill, and she said that she is not considering offering future votes on abortion or immigration in return for Members’ support.

It’s hard to quantify “current law” in this context. Because we know that the segregation of funds in the Senate bill is meant to stigmatize abortion services coverage and make it cumbersome for insurers, and we know that states can opt out of such coverage in their state exchanges. The NYT rounded that up in an excellent editorial the other day. We also know that the exchanges are set to expand over time. So the burdensome rules governing exchange plans will eventually cover all plans, and even before then, there will be significant spillover effects. Your insurance will, over time, not cover abortion services, and that could include costly “chemical abortions” or D&E, which run in the thousands of dollars.

People can choose to support the bill despite this, the biggest rollback in abortion access since Roe v. Wade, on the grounds that increases in total health care access will limit abortions, or because women’s health will improve, or whatever other reason. But don’t pretend to “study” the issue. We know exactly what the Senate bill would accomplish, taking a legitimate medical procedure and making it taboo. Nobody’s leg injury is uncovered because people are uncomfortable about “paying taxpayer money” for leg injuries. Only women’s health gets treated this way.

UPDATE: Michelle Goldberg acknowledges the flaws in the abortion language, but thinks that the increased access for women’s health and maternal health make up for it.