For background, read Secret ObamaCare Abortion Fees Make President a Liar and also read ObamaCare Covers Abortion & Pays Abortionists as well as Taxpayers Fund Abortions for Congress: New Ruling
Also read the saga of ex-Rep. Bart Stupak and President Obama's now-broken promise to bar taxpayer-funded abortion of ObamaCare
-- From "Ohio law criticized by high court" by The Associated Press 4/22/14
The case began during the 2010 election when a national antiabortion group, the Susan B. Anthony List [SBA List], planned to put up billboards accusing then-Rep. Steve Driehaus of supporting taxpayer-funded abortion because he voted for President Barack Obama’s new health care law. Driehaus, a Democrat who opposes abortion, claimed the group’s billboard ads distorted the truth and therefore violated the false speech law.
Driehaus filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission, an action that prompted the billboard owner to decline posting the ads. The commission found probable cause that the ads violated the law, but Driehaus later withdrew his complaint after losing his re-election campaign.
The Susan B. Anthony List then challenged the state law as unconstitutional, but a federal judge said the group didn’t have the right to sue because it hadn’t yet suffered actual harm. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati agreed.
[At the Supreme Court,] Chief Justice Roberts said that third parties such as TV stations or billboard owners are going to be intimidated by the law, preventing a group from getting its message out.
Justice Antonin Scalia said the Susan B. Anthony List intends to make the same charges against other Democrats in the next election. He said the harm is that the group fears being dragged before the “Ministry of Truth” for similar proceedings, referring to the government propaganda office in George Orwell’s novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Abortion at heart of Ohio speech case" by Paige Winfield Cunningham, Politico 4/22/14
The justices aren’t likely to decide whether the law chills free speech—although Susan B. Anthony List and even the Ohio attorney general say that it does. They’re instead being asked to decide whether SBA List has standing to challenge the law since the group was never prosecuted under it.
The argument that SBA List and other anti-abortion groups really want settled by the Supreme Court is whether the 2010 health care law actually does provide for taxpayer funding of abortion—the issue that nearly derailed the legislation before Congress passed it.
Last week, SBA List announced ads with the same abortion-funding charge against Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. But while Louisiana and at least 15 other states have political speech laws similar to Ohio’s, legal experts say that most aren’t enforced.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Supreme Court suspicious of Ohio law that criminalizes false speech about candidates" by Robert Barnes, Washington Post 4/22/14
Technically, the court was reviewing a decision by a lower court that an antiabortion group did not have the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of Ohio’s law, which is similar to ones in more than a dozen other states.
But the justices couldn’t resist giving a preview of their skepticism about what Michael A. Carvin, the Washington lawyer representing the group Susan B. Anthony List, called Ohio’s “ministry of truth” during oral arguments.
“Don’t you think there’s a serious First Amendment concern with a state law that requires you to come before a commission to justify what you are going to say and which gives the commission discovery power to find out who’s involved in your association, what research you’ve made, et cetera?” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked Ohio State Solicitor Eric E. Murphy.
Both liberal and conservative groups have filed briefs supporting the [pro-life] group. The case is Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "In Pro-Life Case Involving 'Obamacare' Abortion Funding, Supreme Court Has Free Speech Concerns" by Napp Nazworth, Christian Post Reporter 4/23/14
While some reports about the case suggest it is about whether the First Amendment protects a right to lie, SBA List argues it told the truth about abortion funding in the ACA.
"Because Congress and the White House failed to include the Stupak amendment in the ACA as it passed, the law is full of abortion funding loopholes," SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said Tuesday. "Since 2009, the SBA List has joined the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, other pro-life groups and members of Congress in pointing out the clandestine abortion funding problems in the Affordable Care Act. These abortion provisions blatantly contradict President Obama's 2009 promise that 'under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion.'"
According to [Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Casey] Mattox, Stephen Breyer, one of the more liberal members of the court, pointed out that abortion funding in the ACA is at least a disputed question. He noted that the court recently heard arguments in a case in which Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods Specialties sued the Obama administration, arguing that the ACA's birth control mandate required coverage of abortifacients.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "This Ohio Law Bans Campaign ‘Lies.’ Today Supreme Court Heard a Challenge Against It" by John G. Malcolm, The Heritage Network 4/22/14
. . . After today’s oral argument, it seems likely that the Supreme Court will reverse the lower courts and that SBA List will get its day in court to challenge the constitutionality of this overreaching law [ObamaCare].
Two terms ago, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Alvarez that even false statements are entitled to First Amendment protection. As the Court recognized, laws proscribing generalized false speech cast “a chill the First Amendment cannot permit if free speech, thought, and discourse are to remain a foundation of freedom.” Even the dissenters in that case recognized that, when it comes to “matters of public concern”—and what could be a matter of greater public concern than the election of our representatives—laws such as the one in Ohio that outlaw false statements create the potential for abuse that is “simply too great” for the First Amendment to bear.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
