Republican proud of opposing 'forcible rape' language in bill he co-sponsored

Apparently, this is confusing. It's not easy being a Republican these days, having to pretend you don't fully agree with Todd Akin and his "some rape isn't really rape" nonsense. Just ask Rep. Dan Lungren:

Republican Rep. Dan Lungren distanced himself from controversial bill language involving abortion funding in cases of "forcible rape" during a Tuesday debate with 7th Congressional District rival Ami Bera, saying he told the original sponsors of House Resolution 3 that he "would not support" the proposal unless the word "forcible" was taken out.

"So in fact, if you're talking about the mistake they made, I was the one who pointed it out," Lungren said. "... I can tell you it was after I went to them and told them I couldn't support it if they didn't take the word forcible out that they changed it."

You remember HR 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." That was one of the first bills Republicans introduced when they took over the House in 2011. It included language to distinguish between "forcible rape" and not-really-rape because it was really important to close the "loophole" that not-really-raped women were exploiting in order to cash in on all the fabulous gifts and prizes that come with being a rape victim.

And Lungren sure is proud of his refusal to support such a bill until that distinction was removed. Just one little problem with that:

Congressional records show, however, that Lungren signed on as a cosponsor of the bill when the legislation was first introduced, before 'forcible' was deleted from the text.

But, you see, it was an honest mistake:

His office blamed a misunderstanding at the time of the bill introduction for the disconnect. [...]

"When he got the bill and he reviewed it and he saw that somebody had tampered with that language he basically said that was unacceptable and he went to the original cosponsors and he said you have to change this," [communications director Brian] Kaveney said.

See? Lungren can hardly be blamed for supporting something he claims he opposed because he didn't understand what he was supporting. And there's no law that says you have to actually understand a bill before you decide to add your name to it, is there? Besides, he alerted the "original cosponsors"'apparently, he sent himself a memo'to remove the language immediately, so it's totally okay that he supported the bill once that language was gone. Just one little problem with that:

They're doing it again: After jettisoning controversial legislative language narrowing the definition of rape for the purposes of abortion law, House Republicans are attempting a backdoor maneuver to ensure that solely victims of "forcible rape" are eligible for federal funding if they seek abortions.

 

Nice try, buddy, but you can't support a bill to defund women's health care and redefine rape and then pretend you're not as extreme as the rest of your anti-woman party. Especially with a 100 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee.

Let's send someone to Congress who won't try to defund women's health care, redefine rape, and then pretend it was all just a "misunderstanding."

Please give $3 to Democratic candidate Ami Bera.