Posted on 10/15/2010 11:54:15 AM PDT by topher
Friday October 15, 2010Setback: Ohio Election Board Rules against Pro-Life SBA List
By Peter J. Smith COLUMBUS, Ohio, October 15, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) A major U.S. pro-life group received a serious setback Wednesday after the Ohio Elections Commission ruled that there was probable cause to believe that ads accusing a pro-life Democrat of voting for taxpayer-funded abortion in the new health care law were intentionally misleading. The Commission voted 21 to advance the case brought by U.S. Rep. Steven Driehaus (pronounced Dree-house) against the Susan B. Anthony List to the full panel. It is expected that all seven members of the commission will meet by October 28 to discuss whether the pro-life group broke an Ohio law that forbids making false statements about a candidate in a campaign. No definite date, however, has been set yet. Susan B. Anthony List contends that Driehaus voted for taxpayer-funding of abortion when he cast his lot in with U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and eleven other pro-life Democrats to approve the Affordable Care Act in exchange for an executive order (EO), which Stupak said would prevent federal funds from financing elective abortions. One pro-life Democrat, U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski, broke with Stupak over the issue and voted against the bill saying Obamas executive order probably would not stand up to judicial scrutiny. He stated that the EO only covered the direct funding of abortion at Community Health Centers, not the abortion fees for health plans subsidized by the state-run health exchanges. Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said the ruling by the Ohio Elections Commission will allow Driehaus to fulfill his strategic objective of preventing constituents from learning the truth about his vote. We are disappointed and surprised that the complaint was not immediately dismissed, said Dannenfelser. The fact that the health care reform bill allows for taxpayer funding of abortion has been agreed upon by every major pro-life group in the country, including National Right to Life, Americans United for Life, Focus on the Family, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. National Right to Life Committee submitted a sworn 23-page affidavit to the elections commission detailing the legal reasons why the Affordable Care Act would enable federal funding of elective abortion, regardless of the executive order. (see coverage) Dannenfelser said the larger problem with the commissions ruling is a public officials attempt to use a criminal statute to silence legitimate debate on his record. She said Driehaus should debate their position in the public square and not by taking the matter to the elections board or criminal court. Driehaus filed the complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission on October 6 after learning that SBA List intended to put up four billboards across his district stating he voted for taxpayer-funded abortion. The billboards never went up as Driehauss lawyer convinced Lamar Companies not to erect the signs until the controversy had been resolved. Both sides will now take sworn depositions for the full elections panel to consider. The panel is made of three Democrats, three Republicans, and one Independent (who already voted for probable cause against SBA List). This is a big deal, said Driehaus, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. The media made a big deal about this, (Steve) Chabot calling me a liar and now the Ohio Elections Commission came out on my side. Driehaus said SBA List is targeting him not because of pro-life concerns, but as a matter of partisan politics. Driehaus faces re-election on November 2, and is trailing pro-life GOP candidate Steve Chabot, who is endorsed by SBA-List, by 12 points. National Democrats have given up on Driehauss campaign and are reallocating money to races they think they can save from the coming GOP surge in November. If the Ohio Elections Commissions rules that SBA List made a false statement in its ads against Driehaus, the board will have two options. They may either issue a public reprimand or refer the matter to the local county prosecutor for criminal proceedings. Under Ohio election law, the maximum penalty for making a criminally false campaign statement is six months in jail and/or a $5,000 fine.
Dem Candidate Charges SBA List with Criminally Misleading Ads: NRLC Responds |
Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.
Additionally, it may be good ol' boy Democrats on this board ruling the way they did...
Lawsuit time!
1. SCOTUS will not let this criminalization of speech stand.
2. ALL political ads can be interpreted as containing false statements.
3. Criminal codes that limit speech CANNOT be arbitrarly enforced.
May be just a case of a losing Democrat huffing and puffing (I believe the Democratic National Congressional committee pulled funds from this incumbent because he was so far behind in the polls.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.