They might come from different states, but Bill Cassidy and Nancy Pelosi have several things in common. For starters, they both have supported taxpayer funding of abortion and child mutilation procedures. And Cassidy, just like Nancy Pelosi did with Obamacare, thinks that we have to pass his legislation to find out what’s in it.

That’s exactly what happened with health care legislation that Sen. Cassidy introduced, and which the Senate voted on, just before Christmas. The Cassidy bill would distribute taxpayer funds into Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)—$1,000 for certain individuals aged 18-49, and $1,500 for certain individuals aged 50-64.

Cassidy’s press release on introducing the bill claimed that “these [HSA] funds cannot be used for abortion or dangerous gender transitions.” But that’s not what his bill actually does. Instead, page 3 of his bill says that “amounts paid for abortion…or any sex trait modification procedure…shall not be treated as paid for medical care.”

Under current law, individuals who contribute to an HSA can withdraw money from their account for non-health care purposes, subject to income tax and a 20% penalty. But most individuals who receive Obamacare subsidies, and who would qualify for the taxpayer-funded HSA contributions under Cassidy’s bill, don’t have income tax liability to begin with. These individuals would just have to pay the 20% penalty, and they could use the taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, trans treatments, or just about anything else they like.

In other words, a bill that Sen. Cassidy said wouldn’t fund “abortion or dangerous gender transitions” would…give people taxpayer dollars that they could use to fund abortion or dangerous gender transitions.

This loophole allowing for taxpayer funding of abortion in Bill Cassidy’s HSA bill is all the more shocking because two other Republican bills leave no room for taxpayer. Two weeks before Cassidy introduced his legislation, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) also introduced a bill that would give taxpayer dollars to patients via HSA contributions. Page 11 of that bill is crystal clear: “no amounts in [an account]…may be used…to pay for” abortion or transgender procedures. So why didn’t Cassidy include the same pro-life protections that Sen. Scott placed in his bill?

The questions don’t end there: Why did Cassidy claim that his bill prevented taxpayer funding of abortion and child mutilation procedures, when in reality it allows this very scenario? Did Cassidy not read his own legislation? Does he not understand how Health Savings Accounts work? Or does he support taxpayer funding of abortion and child mutilation, and thought he could deceive voters by mis-representing what his bill does?

Bill Cassidy may try to defend his legislation by noting that 51 Senate Republicans—including his Louisiana colleague Sen. John Kennedy—supported his bill in last month’s vote. But Kennedy and other pro-life Republicans can readily defend their vote by noting that Cassidy’s office gave them, not to mention the general public, inaccurate information about what the Cassidy bill does.

About this entire debacle, at least one of two things are true: Either Bill Cassidy is an incompetent lawmaker—or he supports taxpayer funding of abortion and child mutilation procedures. Regardless, Bill Cassidy is far too dangerous for Louisiana voters to give him another term in the United States Senate.