Dan Lungren

Dan Lungren co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape which would have changed the definition of rape and rolled back protections for victims. In fact, Lungren is so extreme he wants to take away a woman’s right to choose, even in cases of rape and incest. He proposed a Constitutional Amendment five different times to make abortions against the law. And Lungren even voted in favor of giving parental rights to rapists who impregnate their victims.

Lungren Co-Sponsored Bill to Redefine Rape. In 2011, Lungren co-sponsored the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, which would redefine a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt only “forcible rape” and not “rape” generally. Under the language proposed by the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, rape becomes “forcible rape.” The Washington Post reported that the bill’s critics believed “the modifier could distinguish it from other kinds of sexual assault that are typically recognized as rape, including statutory rape and attacks that occur because of drugs or verbal threats.” [HR 3 Co-Sponsors, 112^th Congress; Washington Post, 2/1/11]

Lungren Co-Sponsored Constitutional Ban on Abortion in Cases of Rape and Incest Five Times. In 2004, The Sacramento Bee reported that Lungren co-sponsored ‘human life’ amendments five times that would have outlawed abortion even in cases of rape and incest. “As a congressman, Lungren five times co-sponsored ‘human life’ amendments that would have outlawed abortion even in cases of rape and incest.” [Sacramento Bee, 11/03/04]

Lungren Voted for Parental Rights for Rapists. In 2005, Lungren voted against a “motion to recommit the bill to the House Judiciary Committee with instructions to include language which would bar fathers who have committed rape or incest against a minor that resulted in a pregnancy from being able to sue the doctor who performed the abortion.” [Congressional Quarterly, 4/27/05; HR 748, Vote #143, 4/27/05]

Red Alert

Dan Lungren has proposed reducing Social Security benefits, raising the retirement age, and even endorsed a plan to make deep cuts to Medicare – raising costs for seniors across America by replacing Medicare with a voucher program. Perhaps that doesn’t matter to Lungren, who will retire with a big government pension and recently voted to protect his own gold-plated taxpayer-funded healthcare benefits – all while voting to slash benefits for everyone else.

Favored Social Security Private Accounts. During his 2004 campaign to return to Congress, Lungren told the Sacramento Bee that he favored “allowing private investment of Social Security contributions” and “would invest his own contributions if he could.” [Sacramento Bee, 10/17/04]

Lungren Voted to Raise the Social Security Retirement Age. In 1983, Lungren voted in favor of a bill to raise the normal Social Security retirement age from 65 to 67.  The measure proposed to make the change gradually from 2000 to 2027. The bill passed 228-202. [HR1900, 3/09/83]

Lungren Voted for the House Republican Budget Which Would Cost Seniors More Than $6,000.  Lungren voted for the Republican plan turn Medicare into a voucher program and to “significantly increase the out-of-pocket costs of health care for Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, out‐of‐pocket health care costs will more than double under the Republican plan. Based on estimates from the non‐partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the typical 65-year-old’s out-of-pocket health care costs will increase from $6,154 to $12,513 in 2022—or an extra $6,359.” [Congressional Joint Economic Committee, 5/20/11; H. Con. Res. 34, Vote #277, 4/15/11; Wall Street Journal, 4/4/11; Bloomberg, 8/28/12]

Lungren Voted to Let Members of Congress Keep Their Government-Subsidized Insurance. Lungren voted to let members of Congress keep their government subsidized insurance. The Hill reported, “Repealing President Obama’s healthcare law would let members of Congress keep their government-subsidized insurance coverage after they retire — a benefit they lost under the health law.” [The Hill, 7/9/12; H R 6079, Vote #460, 7/11/12]

Ryan Plan Provided Health-Care Coverage Less Generous than Coverage that Members of Congress Received. In 2012, Paul Ryan claimed his Medicare plan was like health-care coverage available to members of Congress. Bloomberg reported “It differs in one main respect: It’s less generous.” Ryan’s plan wouldn’t have the safeguards against rising costs included in the coverage that lawmakers and other federal workers receive. [Bloomberg, 8/23/12]

Lungren Took a $56,000 California Pension and Expected to Receive Congressional Pension. In 2012, it was reported that Lungren took a pension for the California Legislators’ Retirement System. He received a $56,709 pension. According to the Congressional Research Service, there are four pension plans available to retiring members of Congress. As of 2006, the majority of retired members had taken Civil Service Retirement System pension plan — their yearly benefits in 2006 were $60,972. [publicceo.com, 5/1/12; Congressional Research Service,2/9/07]