Despite repeatedly defending an untrue claim he made last week about a provision in a House health care reform bill, a spokesman for U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley told the Washington Post Saturday that he doesn’t really believe what he told constituents about a government-mandated euthanasia program.

Grassley told town hall forums in Winterset and Panora last week that language in health care reform legislation aimed at paying for end-of-life planning for anyone who wants it (on a voluntary basis) would lead to the government having authority to “pull the plug on grandma.” When he was criticized for his claim, which has been discredited time and time again, Grassley held to his position, saying Iowans should fear the language because of potential “unintended consequences,” even going so far as to strip end-of-life planning from the version of the bill currently before his committee.

However, as the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent points out this morning, buried deep in a story from Saturday is a quote from Grassley’s spokesman retracting his untrue statements about the bill.

Grassley drew strong rebukes from Democrats after he seemed to suggest at one town hall that conservatives were justified in worrying that a provision in the House version of the legislation that pays for end-of-life consultations would lead to the federal government playing a role in deciding when to “pull the plug on Grandma.” Grassley says he opposes that counseling as written in the House version of the bill, but a spokesman said the senator does not think the House provision would in fact give the government such authority in deciding when and how people die. The House bill allows patients to decide for themselves if they would like such counseling.

Sargent points out that the only possible explanation for Iowa’s senior senator’s sudden change of heart is that “either Grassley made his claim about ‘grandma’ to a crowd in his home state last week and didn’t believe it; or he changed his mind since then.”

After making the statements and then rebuking them, Grassley decided to post a message on his Twitter account blasting those who were critical of him for helping to spread the “death panels” rumor.

Distortion of end-of-life debate is atempt 2avoid debate:govt takovr, xplodin deficit,cost of Pelosi bill Focus shld b viabl nonGovt plan

End of life debate is deliberate atempt to focus attention away fr cost of Pelosi bill. Instead shld focus on lowering cost of health delivry

To translate for those not well-versed in Twitter-speak — “Distortion of the end-of-life debate is an attempt to avoid debate on the government takeover, exploding deficit and cost of [U.S. House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi’s bill. The focus should be a viable non-government plan. End-of-life debate is a deliberate attempt to focus attention away from the cost of Pelosi’s bill. Instead, the focus should be on lowering the cost of health delivery.”