During last week’s “utterly surreal” hearings on contraception, Reverend William Lori equated requiring religiously-affiliated institutions to provide birth control with mandating a Kosher deli to serve pork.

The analogy—along with the rest of the hearing—was widely ridiculed. And yet on Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing of its own on birth control only to field another food-based comparison. Faith in Public Life flags the exchange between Asma Uddin, an attorney from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX):

SMITH: What are other examples, what else could the government force religious organizations to provide if this mandate were to remain in effect as is unchanged.

UDDIN: Well, I mean, this mandate has been justified on the basis of the fact that there’s health benefits to providing contraceptives. But the issue of health benefits is not the point. If the government mandated everything that had positive health benefits, it could possibly mandate that everyone drink red wine for heart health even though it violates the religious beliefs of Muslims and Mormons. And it could mandate that everyone eat shellfish even though that violates the religious beliefs of Jews.

Watch it:

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a group that represents several religiously-affiliated colleges and organizations. There are several problems with the point Uddin was trying to make, however. For starters, the bill does not require people to consume anything. At best, if we stick to the restaurant analogy, the law would ask restaurants that refuse to serve red wine to at least have a Bring Your Own Bottle policy, or to be more precise, the alcohol would be delivered from across the street.

Of course, that’s far from the only point. Religious institutions like denominational colleges and universities service many nonreligious individuals who would be negatively impacted by their inability to easily access contraception because of the school’s refusal to cover birth control on religious grounds. Under the new rule, since Catholic colleges aren’t required to provide birth control coverage, the women who do want to use the benefit will receive it directly from their insurance company.

Republicans were not willing to let go of the contraception debate during this morning’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. The GOP misconstrued the administration’s contraception coverage requirement as an attack on religious liberty and argued that Catholic institutions would be required to offer birth control. During a particularly strange exchange, Rep. Mike Burgess (R-TX) even asked Sebelius if she supports requiring sterilization as a condition of citizenship:

BURGESS: If a state required sterilization as a condition of citizenship, would you be required to do that on the federal level?

SEBELIUS: Sir, I’m not going to answer that question.

Watch it:

The Senate voted to table an amendment that would permit an employer to deny contraception coverage to their employees on Thursday morning, but the debate over birth control raged into the afternoon, as HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Just moments after Senators defeated the so-called Blunt Amendment, Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA) accused Sebelius of lying about the administration’s rule requiring employers to provide birth control coverage in their health insurance plans and falsely insisted that religious organizations would be required to provide “abortifacient” drugs:

SEBELIUS: There also is no abortifacient drug that is part of the FDA approved contraception. What the rule for preventive care…

MURPHY: Ma’m that is not true…Is the morning after pill or something like that an abortifacient drug?

SEBELIUS: It is a contraceptive drug, not an abortifacient… It does not interfere with a pregnancy. If the morning pill were taken, and a female were pregnant, the pregnancy is not interrupted. That’s the definition of abortifation.

MURPHY: Ma’m that is your interpretation, and I appreciate that’s your interpretation.

SEBELIUS: That’s what the scientists and doctors…

MURPHY: We’re not talking about scientists. Ma’m we’re not talking about scientists here, we’re talking about religious belief. Ma’m, I’m asking you about a religious belief. In a religious belief, that is a violation of a religious belief.

When Sebelius went on to explain that the administration’s contraception rule “upholds religious liberty” by exempting houses of worship, religious nonprofits that primarily serve people of the same faith, and even religiously-affiliated hospitals and colleges from providing birth control, Murphy exclaimed, “Ma’m, ma’m, NO! NO! You’re Wrong!” “You’re setting up a rule that not even Jesus and his apostles could adhere too.” Watch it:

Regardless of what God may have told Murphy about the morning after pill, the administration’s guidance does not include drugs that can induce abortions. As the rule explains that insurers and employers must cover “Evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of A or B in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force)” and “the comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.” The contraception language is included in the HRSA guidelines, which reads: “All Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.” Those include:

Male Condom, Female Condom, Diaphragm with Spermicide, Sponge with Spermicide, Cervical Cap with Spermicide, Spermicide Alone, Oral Contraceptives (a.k.a. “the pill”), Patch, Vaginal Contraceptive Ring, Shot/Injection, Emergency Contraceptives, IUD, Implantable Rod, Vasectomy, Transcervical Surgical Sterilization Implant for women

These methods act to “prevent pregnancy before, and only before, fertilization occurs.” Emergency contraceptives like Plan B — which Murphy attempted to paint as an “abortion pill”– halts the union of sperm and oocyte and inhibits ovulation. It does not work after fertilization.

By a vote of 51-48, the Senate agreed to table a Republican amendment offered by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that would have empowered employers to deny coverage of health services to their employees on the basis of personal moral objections. The measure represented the GOP’s response to President Obama’s rule requiring employers to provide contraception and other preventive health services as part of their health insurance plans. Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME) — who announced her retirement earlier this week — was the only Republican to join Democrats in “tabling” the amendment, while three Democrats, Sens. Ben Nelson (NE), Joe Manchin (WV), and Bob Casey (PA) voted to preserve it.

During the nearly two hour debate, Republicans attempted to frame the issue as an attempt to prevent religious organizations from the Obama administration’s overreach and, despite supporting efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, maintained that women could obtain birth control from public sources. Blunt took to the floor to argue that employers would be discouraged from denying certain treatments by existing state mandates and a provision in the amendment requiring employers to replace the benefit with another service.

The most surprising support came from Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), a pro-choice Republican who has previously supported contraception equity measures without conscience exemptions for religious organizations. Collins expressed skepticism about the wide scope of Blunt’s amendment, but said the administration’ incomplete rule — specifically its lack of detail about how to treat self-insured plans — compelled her to support the measure. “I feel that I have to vote for Sen. Blunt’s amendment with the hope that the scope will be narrowed and refined,” she said, adding, “I do this with a lot of conflict.”

The Obama administration’s rule requires employers to offer contraception in their health care benefit plans, but exempts houses of worship and nonprofits that primarily employ people of the same faith from covering birth control. Religiously affiliated hospitals, colleges, and other nonprofits can also eschew the benefit. Their employees would obtain the coverage — at no additional cost sharing — directly from the insurer.

More people agree with Democrats that the U.S. needs to maintain a defined set of benefits in traditional Medicare, according to a new survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Seventy percent of respondents, including 53 percent of Republicans, said they want to keep Medicare as it is. This come ahead of the introduction of the Republicans’ proposed budget later this spring, which is likely to include Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan to transform the program into a “defined contribution” structure that would provide seniors with a voucher to purchase insurance from an exchange of private plans.

On contraception coverage, 63 percent of people agree with President Obama’s position that employer-provided insurance plans should cover it at no cost. Most people also agreed with the Democrats’ agrument that the contraception debate is about women’s rights, and 49 percent said they most trusted Democrats on the issue, with 33 percent saying they trusted Republicans.

The Senate will vote on the Blunt amendment, which would undermine the contraception mandate by allowing any employer to deny coverage of health services to their employees on the basis of their personal moral objections.

Mitt Romney sparked controversy Wednesday afternoon after he told local reporter Jim Heath in Ohio that he would oppose a bill that would “allow employers to ban providing female contraception.” “I’m not for the bill,” Romney declared. “But look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception, within a relation between a man and a woman, a husband and wife, I’m not going there.” Romney made the comments on the eve of a Senate vote for an amendment offered by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) to permit employers to deny coverage of health services to their employees on the basis of personal moral objections. The measure is the GOP’s response to President Obama’s rule requiring employers to provide contraception and other preventive health services as part of their health insurance plans.

But moments later, the Romney campaign reversed itself, claiming that the candidate was confused by the question and that he does indeed support the rhetoric behind the bill, namely a boss’ right to keep health care services out of the reach of workers based on religious concerns. Romney himself clarified his stance during a radio interview on the Howie Carr Show:

ROMNEY: I didn’t understand his question. Of course I support the Blunt amendment. I thought he was talking about some state law that prevented people from getting contraception. So I simply misunderstood the question and of course I support the Blunt amendment…No, I simply misunderstood what he was talking about. I thought it was some Ohio legislation, where employers were prevented from providing contraceptives, and so I talked about contraceptives and so I really misunderstood the question. Of course Roy Blunt who is my liaison to the Senate is someone I support and of course I support that amendment. I clearly want to have religious exemption from Obamacare…. I really think all Americans should be allowed to get around this religious exemption.

Watch the two moments side by side:

Note that Romney could not bring himself to back the actual intent of the Blunt amendment — empowering employers to deny any health care services that undermine their religious beliefs — but could only justify his support by embracing the GOP’s rhetorical cover story: the claim that Obama’s contraception rule undermines religious liberties and that Blunt seeks to protect them. When Jim Heath unwrapped the faux First Amendment claim and explained the bill for what it actually does (rather than what the GOP claims it would prevent), Romney opposed it. As he explained in the radio interview, he initially came out against the bill because “I thought he was talking about some state law that prevented people from getting contraception.”

Read more