Language is important crafting a law, because quite simply, it's not the legislative branch that interprets the law, rather the judicial branch. So the folks that write the bill, and in this case initially proposed an exception for only "forcible rape", are not the ones who will be interpreting that phrase when it comes up in court."The language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so. Nonetheless, the legislative process will provide an opportunity to clarify this should such a need exist."
Secondly, that initial phrase left the door open for no funding of abortion in cases of "non-forcible rape", whatever that is, and therefore would leave the rape victim of that scenario to foot the whole bill of her abortion, should she want one. That leaves poor women who were victims of "non-forcible rape" in, what I and perhaps many others would consider, an unjust situation.
Lastly, Paul Ryan has admitted he opposes abortion even in cases of rape, Romney believes in a rape exception. It's a fair question to ask the co-sponsor of a bill about the original language he used, as it is to bring up Ryan's pro-life stance in all cases, even rape.
The "war on women" might have been overplayed initially... right up until Rick Santorum started gaining serious traction in the primaries, along with Michelle Bachman and now, a vice Presidential candidate, that does not personally believe in a rape exception, although he'll "adhere to Romney's views on that now".