"When voters in Ohio’s 1st Congressional District threw Democrat Steve Driehaus out of office after only one term, he did not bow out gracefully. No, he decided to get even. So he did what anyone does in today’s culture: he sued somebody.
Charging that its activities contributed to his defeat and thus to his “loss of livelihood,” Driehaus is suing the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that supports pro-life candidates for Congress and which has been one of the leading and most effective organizations involved in the fight to cut off federal funding to Planned Parenthood."
The judge didn’t throw the suit out. Why? Maybe because he is the former president and director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati.
First off, an opinion piece, an editorial. The author of the piece is a member of Let Freedom Ring, which advise us that "Our mission is to promote “Constitutional Government, Economic Freedom and Traditional Values.” We sometimes say that Let Freedom Ring operates “at the intersection of faith and politics.” And the Institute for Liberty! Well, that’s gotta be good, they are for Liberty! “Help us stop Big Government’s war on small business and our economy.”
And the plus side, he also works for Fox.
And this just in! Right wing shill opposes Planned Parenthood!
Does that mean it didn’t happen? The Democrat who got thrown out didn’t sue? The judge that didn’t dismiss the case is not a former director of Planned Parenthood?
He is suing for defamation over a billboard that included what he maintains was false information. The billboard was in fact halted from being displayed pending resolution of legal challenges. He dropped the suit at the time, but is now picking it back up.
The question is how far a group can go in misleadingly representing a public figures actions during an election campaign. Certainly a reasonable area for the courts to be involved, I would think.
One final note - in seems that the ACLU of Ohio has sided with SBA List in this matter (not this suit, but a related one).
This sort of thing has to make you glad that we vote by secret ballot. Imagine if we didn’t: it’d only be a matter of time before some defeated pol took it upon his/herself to sue the saps his/her phone campaign coerced into saying they’d vote for him but didn’t.
So much for President Obama’s executive order banning federal funding of abortions under ObamaCare. Two states, Pennsylvania and Maryland, have now accepted federal funds for high-risk insurance pools, and both offer significant abortion coverage.
The Obama administration has threatened to veto legislation that would prevent federal funding for abortion, including through coverage programs created by Obamacare.
During the debate over Obamacare, the president promised that no taxpayer dollars would be used to pay for abortions under the bill. Unfortunately, this is not the way things have played out,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said at the Values Voter Summit last week.
WASHINGTON, July 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – Family Research Council Action responded today to a discovery made by the National Right to Life Committee that the Obama Administration has given federal approval to send Pennsylvania $160 million in taxpayer funds which will directly fund abortions through President Obama’s recently enacted health care law.
This is the first known instance of direct federal funding of abortion through what is called the “high risk insurance pools.” Pennsylvania has already received approval from the Obama Administration to use the funds to provide abortions to pool participants; the abortion funding is available immediately.
The problem was that the Senate version of the bill contained no abortion restrictions. But instead of putting pressure on the Senate Democrats to add the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to their version of the bill, the Obama administration chose instead to place enormous pressure on the House to take this language out of their bill. In the end, nearly all the House Democrats, including the small “pro-life” contingent, did as they were told. As a result, there are no restrictions against abortion in the bill itself.
It’s the same issue though. He claims that SBA lied (or was preparing to lie) in a campaign advertisement. This is illegal under Ohio law. He dropped the suit when SBA decided not to put up the billboard and it became clear that the ruling wouldn’t come until election day (or perhaps a few days before). He has now picked it up again, and it seems that some time in August the judge you mentioned ruled that SBA’s claim was in fact a lie.
Now you can claim that the judge was wrong, biased, etc. but claiming that Driehaus only sued because he lost is not accurate - he sued before he lost.
Now it appears the case moves on, and Driehaus will have to prove that SBA acted with malice when it put up the inaccurate information.
I personally don’t have a problem with groups stretching the truth to this degree. I prefer to err on the side of free speech wherever possible. And it’s not like any number of judges stating the obvious (that PPACA doesn’t fund abortions) will change any minds on the matter - too many folks are too strongly wedded to that notion.
“The high-risk plans in question are designed to cover older people with chronic health conditions rather than the healthy young women most likely to seek elective abortions.”
– yet they do cover elective abortions. And are funded by federal money under Obamacare. QED.
They say a lot of stuff. But the facts say otherwise. There is a plan, funded by federal money under Obamacare. It does cover abortions. To say “it was designed for older people” doesn’t mean that there won’t be younger people covered by it.
Of course, if there is explicit language in the coverage contract that says abortion is not covered, please show it and I will withdraw my statement.
This whole “issue” is bullshit anyways. Federal money already goes to abortion. Money is fungible. I guarantee you that there have been women on WIC that have used federal money for abortions. There have certainly been women on unemployment that used that money for an abortion. There are people that have used their EIC or some other tax rebate for an abortion. Hell, I would be very surprised if there weren’t women who used their $300 Bush stimulus check on an abortion.
The fact is, there is nothing in PPACA that funds abortions. They fund health-care plans, and these plans are required by law not to use the federal dollars for abortion services. Until you, or SBA, shows me one case where this rule was abrogated, the billboard was a lie.
Even so, I think they have the right to put it up, because their stupidity is not enough to override the free speech concerns, IMO.
But…but the National Right To Life Committee says they’re paying for abortions!
So obviously Rep. Driehaus voted for that! It’s hilarious!
Or a pathetic distortion.
On the other hand, if politicians begin hauling into court anyone who grossly distorts or falsifies their record with the intent to deceive voters (and if they themselves are subject to lawsuits for doing so), the dockets will be jammed full and murderers and rapists will roam free.
Personally I am rather puzzled over a mailing I just received from a Democratic Party organization, claiming that Republicans in the House voted to end Medicare. The mailing includes a push poll asking if I support such iniquity (I voted for the option putting all elderly people in FEMA camps) and assuring me that “Leader Pelosi”* will fight to her dying breath to prevent evil from flourishing.
*I swear that’s how the letter referred to her. “Leader Pelosi” - how 1984.