# Failed Democrat Pol Sues Critics Over Election Loss **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 25, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757 "2011-10-25T18:31:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757/21 "2011-10-25T21:16:43Z")
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-acts-consistency-with-longst](http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-acts-consistency-with-longst) In regards to your Maryland plan, one of your cites says this: > [@](#): > > Maryland, reports [CNSNews.com](http://CNSNews.com), has published a fact sheet that says that its new, federally funded plan “offers the same benefit package as other MHIP (Maryland Health Insurance Plan) options.” Adds CNSNews: “All five of MHIP’s plans cover abortion, including one plan that requires no co-pay if the abortion is performed at an out-patient abortion clinic, according [sic] information found on page 53 of the 2010 MHIP Certificate of Coverage.” However, if anyone at CNS News was actually assed to go find the fact sheet, it actually says this: > [@](#): > > What benefits are offered by the MHIP Federal Plan? > The MHIP Federal Plan offers a comprehensive benefit package similar to the benefit > package offered by other MHIP plan options. Among the differences between the benefit > packages offered by the MHIP Federal Plan and other MHIP plan options: > > • The MHIP Federal Plan will not cover abortions except in the case of rape > or incest or where the life of the woman would be endangered; and [http://www.marylandhealthinsuranceplan.state.md.us/mhip/attachments/FederalPreexisting\_FAQ.pdf](http://www.marylandhealthinsuranceplan.state.md.us/mhip/attachments/FederalPreexisting_FAQ.pdf) So yeah, the billboard was a lie. eta: The exact verbage in the PA bill that prohibits funding for elective abortions is in one of the politifact cites above. So we have an executive order stating that all federal funded state health care plans cannot pay for elective abortions, and we have cites from the 2 states who supposedly violate this order explicitly stating that they’re going to comply with the order. What else you got? ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757/22 "2011-10-25T21:17:34Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > So if it does, and the Dem congressman voted for Obamacare that directs that money to abortion, how was what SBA List put up a lie? PPACA does no such thing. In fact, it explicitly re-states the (meaningless, IMO) rule that no federal money goes directly to abortions. > [@](#): > > See my post right above about the Maryland plan. You linked the state-run plan, not the federal plan. Here is the federal one: [http://www.marylandhealthinsuranceplan.state.md.us/mhip/attachments/BOK5435.pdf](http://www.marylandhealthinsuranceplan.state.md.us/mhip/attachments/BOK5435.pdf) Note on page 59 under “Exclusions”: 60. Abortion services, except when the life of the woman would be endangered or when the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; As you may say, QED. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757/23 "2011-10-25T21:23:25Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > PPACA does no such thing. In fact, it explicitly re-states the (meaningless, IMO) rule that no federal money goes directly to abortions. If the rule is meaningless then the congressman voted for providing federal money to abortions. You can’t have it both ways. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757/24 "2011-10-25T21:32:53Z")
So, wait, you’re blaming an Ohio congressman for something the state of Maryland did? If you want to complain that Maryland is misusing the money it’s getting from the Feds, that’s one thing, but how does that reflect on Driehaus? The bill he voted for was the PPACA, and the PPACA explicitly does not allow federal funding for abortions. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757/25 "2011-10-25T21:33:07Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > If the rule is meaningless then the congressman voted for providing federal money to abortions. You can’t have it both ways. I don’t think you are following me. I say the rule is meaningless because money is fungible. Any dollar given preferentially to any woman (or man, for that matter - they certainly pay for abortion services too) by the federal government could be used to fund abortion. So the congressmen voted for providing federal money to abortions in the same way that every GOP congressman did when voting for the Bush stimulus. There is absolutely nothing in PPACA that in any way changes the nature of federal funding for abortion. All it does it let poor people buy private health insurance on state-run exchanges by providing subsidies. And the insurance bought with federal dollars can’t be used to pay for abortion services. Do you acknowledge that you were wrong about MHIP? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757/26 "2011-10-25T21:36:35Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The bill he voted for was the PPACA, and the PPACA explicitly does not allow federal funding for abortions. AFAIU (correct me if I’m wrong) PPACA has no explicit wording about not allowing federal funding for abortions. Stupak amendment would have included that, but it was defeated. Any such wording is in Obama’s executive order (or was it a signing statement?) and not in the bill. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757/27 "2011-10-25T21:38:09Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Do you acknowledge that you were wrong about MHIP? Yes, I was. Yet from what I see both Maryland and Pennsylvania were forced to include that language by a campaign from pro-lifers. It was not included there to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![Drum\_God](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drum_god/32/44_2.png) [@Drum\_God](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drum_God)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757/28 "2011-10-25T21:46:10Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > If the rule is meaningless then the congressman voted for providing federal money to abortions. You can’t have it both ways. Damn, this is the maddening thing about this conservative bullshit. You have been shown repeatedly that the **Federally** funded plan does NOT include abortion benefits, yet you are determined to shape the facts to fit your narrative. You want this Driehaus guy to be guilty of baby murder, the actual facts of the situation, be damned. That’s your story and you’re sticking to it. Heck, by calling it “ObamaCare”, you’re clear in your intent to throw the president on the baby murdering pile, too. I don’t know why anyone bothers arguing with this bullshit (be it **Terr** ’s or anyone else’s). It doesn’t matter. The facts simply don’t matter. Their narrative is that Driehaus, Obama, et al did something that they simply didn’t do. If they say that the sun rises in the west, tonight’s sunset will do nothing to dissuade them. Sorry, Mr./Ms **Terr** , it’s really nothing personal. I’ve just had enough bullshit for one day. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757/29 "2011-10-25T21:50:16Z")
> [@Drum\_God](#): > > Damn, this is the maddening thing about this conservative bullshit. You have been shown repeatedly that the **Federally** funded plan does NOT include abortion benefits, yet you are determined to shape the facts to fit your narrative. You want this Driehaus guy to be guilty of baby murder, the actual facts of the situation, be damned. Huh? This is not about “Driehaus being guilty of baby murder”. This is about whether SBA has maliciously defamed him by saying that he voted for the law that would allow federal funding of insurance plans that cover abortion. Well, it’s not only SBA that said that. Planned Parenthood also says that. [http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/109071-planned-parenthood-decries-restrictions-on-abortion-coverage-in-high-risk-pools](http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/109071-planned-parenthood-decries-restrictions-on-abortion-coverage-in-high-risk-pools) Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, criticized the Department of Health and Human Services’ declaration Wednesday … “Based on the Obama administration’s statement, we are deeply disappointed that the administration has voluntarily and unnecessarily decided to impose limits on private funds used to purchase health insurance coverage for abortion care in the new high-risk insurance pools,” Richards said in a statement Thursday. “The very women who need to purchase private health insurance in the new high-risk pools are likely to be more vulnerable to medically complicated pregnancies,” Richards added. “It is truly harmful to these women that the administration may impose limits on how they use their own private dollars, limiting their health care options at a time when they need them most. **This decision has no basis in the law** and flies in the face of the intent of the high-risk pools that were meant to meet the medical needs of some of the most vulnerable women in this country.” ========================== Maybe Driehaus should sue Planned Parenthood as well? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2011, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757/30 "2011-10-25T22:44:20Z")
[This was old news last December.](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/45938.html) > [@](#): > > Driehaus, a freshman Ohio congressman, announced Friday that he was filing a defamation lawsuit against the conservative organization in federal District Court for attacks during the campaign accusing him of supporting taxpayer-funded abortions because he voted for the health care bill - but the billboards leveling the charges were halted before they went up, pending the resolution of an earlier complaint filed by Driehaus. > > That complaint against SBA List, filed with the Ohio Elections Commission, was slated to be addressed at an early December hearing, but Driehaus dropped the complaint in mid-November. > > “I have chosen to proceed against the SBA List in federal court because the issue at stake goes beyond the purview of the Ohio Elections Commission,” Driehaus said in a statement. “As more and more interests are able to anonymously spend unlimited sums of money in attempts to defame public servants and influence our elections, it is imperative that groups such as the SBA List be held to account for their behavior. Lies have consequences.” The claim is legally cognizable, but I think you’ll have to meet a pretty **high** standard of proof as to falsity, knowledge of falsity and malicious intent, to find liability for anything said in connection with an election campaign; the First Amendment weighs on the other side, and there is no dispute that protection of political speech is its primary purpose. Furthermore, it’s hard (not impossible) for Hollywood celebs to win defamation suits, just because they’re “public figures.” ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2011, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757/31 "2011-10-26T01:42:23Z")
Yeah, you’ve got to wonder what kind of people would try to resolve what should be simple political issues by suing for damages in the court system. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2011, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757/32 "2011-10-26T02:22:54Z")
> [@](#): > > AFAIU (correct me if I’m wrong) PPACA has no explicit wording about not allowing federal funding for abortions. Stupak amendment would have included that, but it was defeated. Any such wording is in Obama’s executive order (or was it a signing statement?) and not in the bill. Shouldn’t the Susan B. Anthony List have been putting up billboards against the people who voted down the Stupak amendment, then, instead of Driehaus? Meanwhile, I checked [the bill](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=patient%20protection%20and%20affordable%20care%20act&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CD4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gpo.gov%2Ffdsys%2Fpkg%2FPLAW-111publ148%2Fpdf%2FPLAW-111publ148.pdf&ei=9V2nTvD4MOaQiAKX1MDNDQ&usg=AFQjCNFpOHBJBSn7P3d7KfmBIOEHbPV85Q&cad=rja) (yes, it’s possible for ordinary citizens to do that). What it actually says is that abortion coverage is allowed or prohibited under the bill under the same rules already laid out in existing law, and that states are permitted to pass their own laws prohibiting abortion coverage. I’m not sure what the relevant existing laws would be, though-- Do any of our resident lawyers know how to search that up? It also says that they’re not allowed to discriminate against any provider on the basis of refusal to offer abortion coverage. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2011, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757/33 "2011-10-26T03:39:55Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Shouldn’t the Susan B. Anthony List have been putting up billboards against the people who voted down the Stupak amendment, then, instead of Driehaus? > > Meanwhile, I checked [the bill](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=patient%20protection%20and%20affordable%20care%20act&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CD4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gpo.gov%2Ffdsys%2Fpkg%2FPLAW-111publ148%2Fpdf%2FPLAW-111publ148.pdf&ei=9V2nTvD4MOaQiAKX1MDNDQ&usg=AFQjCNFpOHBJBSn7P3d7KfmBIOEHbPV85Q&cad=rja) (yes, it’s possible for ordinary citizens to do that). What it actually says is that abortion coverage is allowed or prohibited under the bill under the same rules already laid out in existing law, and that states are permitted to pass their own laws prohibiting abortion coverage. I’m not sure what the relevant existing laws would be, though-- Do any of our resident lawyers know how to search that up? So then when you said that the bill “explicitly does not allow federal funding for abortions”, you were wrong, weren’t you? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2011, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757/34 "2011-10-26T14:39:19Z")
Put. the. shovel. down. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2011, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757/35 "2011-10-26T15:07:29Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > So then when you said that the bill “explicitly does not allow federal funding for abortions”, you were wrong, weren’t you? Bills generally don’t operate in a vacuum. In my opinion, the question to ask is: would the end effect of the passed bill be to permit federal funding of abortions, taking into account any other relevant rules, regulations, orders, or statutes also controlling? So far as I can tell, the answer is no. Don’t feel bad. I got caught in a similar trap over the question of whether Planned Parenthood does abortions, and what percentage of their funding is used for that purpose, only to dig a little deeper and then issue a sheepish retraction. But now would be the time to stop digging. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2011, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757/36 "2011-10-26T16:20:28Z")
Hell, if the Republicans could vote every other day to forbid federal funding of abortions, they would do it. Accomplishing something isn’t the point, pretending to accomplish something is the point. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2011, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757/37 "2011-10-26T20:08:44Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > \ > 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. I understand that position, but IMHO it gives way too much leeway to liars and people who deliberately distort facts. I was a candidate for local election I ran into a well-funded buzzsaw of liars about me and I had little if any recourse against them. That I lost the election was my own fault but the liars didn’t help me any and have cost me business. I’ve got no problem with a libel suit. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2011, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757/38 "2011-10-26T21:32:29Z")
> [@](#): > > Hell, if the Republicans could vote every other day to forbid federal funding of abortions, they would do it. Accomplishing something isn’t the point, pretending to accomplish something is the point. Sadly not true: Last year, they unanimously decided to _not_ vote on an amendment to a bill to forbid federal funding of abortions, because a Democrat came up with the idea, and opposing the Democrats was more important than pretending to suck up to the pro-lifers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/failed-democrat-pol-sues-critics-over-election-loss/600757.md?page=1)