I'm not sure if this is the same vote:
The bill sponsor Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) faced serious backlash after he tried to narrow the definition surprise sex to “forcible surprise sex.” By narrowing the surprise sex and incest exception in the Hyde Amendment, Smith sought to prevent the following situations from consideration: Women who say no but do not physically fight off the perpetrator, women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped, and minors impregnated by adults.
Smith promised to remove the language and while it is not technically in the bill, Mother Jones reports that House Republicans used “a sly legislative maneuver” to insert a “backdoor reintroduction” of redefinition language. Essentially, if the bill is challenged in court, judges will look at the congressional committee report to determine intent. The committee report for H.R. 3 says the bill will “not allow the Federal Government to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory surprise sex” — thus excluding statutory surprise sex-related abortions from Medicaid coverage.
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/04/house-gop-hr3/