Having the government mandate a minimum level of coverage is very different from having the government prohibit certain types of coverage. We must consider that:

1. Part of insurance reform is expected to be an end to the denial of coverage based on "pre-existing conditions," the practice of rescission, and other methods of discriminating against people who simply have bad luck;
   
2. We expect that everyone will be mandated to have insurance, so that you can't free ride by refusing to buy until you're sick, then taking advantage of point (1);
3. Given that everyone will have to buy insurance, we will have to subsidize those with lower incomes, so they are not forced to choose between meeting the requirement, and stuff like eating (the same kind of choice they face today, but with added import since they might face fines for making the "wrong" decision); and lastly
   
4. Since insurers will have to offer their plan at the same rate to all comers, it is inevitable that virtually every plan on offer will have at least a few subsidy-receiving subscribers.
   

Given this fact pattern, saying that any insurer that receives gov't dollars must not pay for abortions is equivalent to banning insurer coverage of abortions.

How about this: Instead of sending the subsidy check to the insurer, we'll send it as a "voucher" or "refundable tax credit" to the poor people, and then let them exercise their judgement in where they want to sign up for insurance. I suppose that distinction still wouldn't make the prohibitionists happy, since obviously their goal is to block abortion at any cost. But maybe it would get Will to stop equivilating.