[Megamel29]

http://www.marionstar.com/article/20...lock-lying-ban

A national anti-abortion group has asked a federal court to block enforcement of an Ohio law that bans false statements about candidates during elections.

The Susan B. Anthony List seeks to post a billboard shaming an anti-abortion Democrat. In a motion filed Friday with the U.S. District Court in Cincinnati, the group said the law that prohibits the billboard “chills core political speech and violates basic First Amendment principles.”

The request is the latest salvo in the SBA List’s long-running battle against the law. It comes after the Supreme Court on Monday said the anti-abortion group could mount a constitutional challenge.

The SBA List said it needs to overturn the law so it can freely criticize lawmakers who voted in favor of the Affordable Care Act without fear of being prosecuted under Ohio’s false-claims statute. The group maintains the health care law provides for taxpayer-funded abortions, a statement that is strongly disputed by the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.

Specifically, the SBA List wants to post a billboard opposing the re-election bid of U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Toledo, who opposes abortion.

The organization tried to post billboards opposing the 2010 re-election bid of then-U.S. Rep Steve Driehaus, a Democrat who opposes abortion, who was facing Republican Steve Chabot, of Westwood.

Driehaus sought a ruling from the Ohio Elections Commission to block the ads, saying they violated the state’s false claims law. The billboards never went up because Driehaus’ attorney threatened legal action.

The elections commission, after conducting a preliminary review, found “probable cause” the SBA List had violated the state law. The commission never reached a final determination because Driehaus dropped the matter after losing the election.

But the SBA List challenged the Ohio law in federal district court, arguing it violated the group’s free-speech rights. The Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes also challenged the law, saying it wanted to criticize Driehaus but was afraid to do so after seeing the SBA List go before the commission.

This week’s Supreme Court ruling dealt with whether the groups had the right to sue.

The SBA List notes that under the health care law, people can buy health insurance plans from private companies with abortion coverage. Some of those people are eligible for federal subsidies, and the organization argues that means federal tax dollars will end up paying for abortions.

Pro-life Democrats said that under the law, federal subsidies cannot be used for coverage for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or a medical threat to the woman’s life. Any insurance plan that covers abortions beyond those restrictions and enrolls people who receive federal subsidies has to collect two separate premium payments: one payment to cover the abortion benefit and one for other health care services.

Politifact.org, a nonpartisan fact-checking organization, has said the claim the health care law allows for taxpayer-funded abortions is “false.”

[invertigo]

If the only way to get your point across is by lying about the opposition, you don't have a very strong case to begin with.
What are these fools thinking?

[icheerthebull]

the source for this must be the onion or another parody site This cant be real

[Kelseecat65]

[Megamel29]

Originally Posted by icheerthebull ↗

the source for this must be the onion or another parody site This cant be real

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...st-v-driehaus/

[Megamel29]

Originally Posted by invertigo ↗

If the only way to get your point across is by lying about the opposition, you don't have a very strong case to begin with.
What are these fools thinking?

That's exactly what I was thinking. I was hoping if I posted this here someone could clarify. It seems like they are asking for permission to lie and not get sued?

[Shakey]