Yes, but she admitted herself that the way the law was worded it could be used to ban books. She defended the law for it's good uses and simply said that it's ok that it could be used to ban books because "no one would ever use the law for that." It's similar to defending a law that made jaywalking a crime, and made it legal for the president to rape people because "no one would ever use the law for that." Yes, that is an extreme example, but I consider anything so blatantly unconstitutional to be extreme.
She might not have outright supported banning books, but she was fine with a law that could let it happen. The law is unconstitutional. Defending, voting for, or introducing a bill or law that you know full and well is unconstitutional while in a position of political authority should be criminal. If it's found that a law is too broad, or could be easily twisted to do bad things, fix it. If the same people keep trying to pass bad laws they need to be removed from power.
Both parties are guilty of these kinds of appointments. All they seem to care about is if the appointee is allied with their party and support a few of their pet causes. Who cares if they have a few other views that are insane, we'll just try to cover that up or accuse the other side of being petty because they're not happy the appointee isn't allied with their party.
Sorry about the ranting, but watch C-Span for any length of time and your eyes are opened to just how corrupt the whole system is and you start getting a little angry about things.