Following Thursday’s passage of the Violence Against Women Act, Congressmen Tim Walberg had this to say: “As a husband, father of a daughter and grandfather of a granddaughter, I am strongly committed to ensuring that all women have access to the resources they need to protect themselves, their children and their families,” he said in a press release.
“I was proud to have voted in support of the Violence Against Women Act that included conscious clause protections,” he said.
Something is fishy here, why does the official roll call list him voting NO?
I don’t understand why Rep. Tim Walberg would say that he voted voted for the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. His own website says that he voted against it on 2/28THe
The U.S. House clerk roll call vote results also indicates that he voted no.
Is this a misunderstanding on Mr. Walberg’s part, or what?
Wait — he voted against it, didn’t he? I think he’s pulling the “I was for it before I was against it” trick here.
Yes, I checked reputable news services, and yes, he voted against the bill that was signed into law. What a conscience (none).
Thank you everyone for your comments on this release. I took Saturday off and just now turned on the computer, which is why the comments didn’t appear until now. I will double check on this with his office on Monday. Unfortunately, I deleted the original email so I can’t double check my information.
Lisa Allmendinger
Publisher
According to Congressman Tim Walberg’s office, there were two versions of this bill. One that contained “conscious clause protections,” which Walberg voted for, and another version that did not, which he voted against.
The press release sent was issued for his vote on the bill that included conscious clause protections.
Hope this clears up the confusion, everyone.
Thanks, Lisa! The real story is now that he is trying to hoodwink the public…again.