A federal appeals court has dismissed a former congressman's defamation complaint, ruling there was truth in a campaign billboard message proposed by a pro-life organization during the 2010 midterm elections.
The U.S. Sixth Court of Appeals on Friday dismissed the case bought by Rep. Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio, against the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List,
SBA List wanted to post billboards to expose that Driehaus' support for Obamacare included support for abortion funding. But the organization was prevented from erecting the signs because of an Ohio law that granted to state officials the authority to determine whether or not a statement is true.
Ultimately, Driehaus lost his re-election bid and sued SBA List for defamation and loss of livelihood.
SBA said the court rejected the former congressman's complaint for "failing to satisfy the first and most basic element of a defamation claim: that the statement is false."
The three-judge panel unanimously agreed that SBA List had not made a false statement when it said that Obamacare includes abortion funding.
The opinion said: "Moreover, given the debate prior to passage of the PPACA as to whether it includes taxpayer funding for abortion, the gist or sting of the statements appears to have at least some truth, to be substantially true, or to be subject to differing interpretations."
The court said Driehaus "vocally opposed the PPACA because of his concerns about federal funding for abortions but he then voted for it anyway despite the absence of his desired language (the Stupak-Pitts Amendment) in the final version."
"The executive order adds language, but is not part of the PPACA and does not alter the statutory text. In fact, debate continues over the meaning and effect of the PPACA. … For SBA List to overcome Driehaus' defamation claim, it is enough that the statements had some truth, were substantially true, or were subject to differing interpretations. Driehaus' own change of position demonstrates that they were."
The case had been delayed as the SBA List fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to have the Ohio law at issue overturned.
The Supreme Court ruled SBA List did have standing to challenge the law. At that point, Ohio District Judge Timothy Black found that Ohio could not issue judgments on what is true or false in political campaigns.
In his decision, Black struck down the state's "false statement" law.
WND reported that when the case began in 2010, Driehaus was one of the key votes for the controversial health insurance law. He had been holding out because he didn't want to support abortion funding but eventually was convinced to support the bill.
He said he didn't believe Obamacare allowed funding for abortion, although there are several ways in which such funding now is evident.
SBA List wanted to publicize his support for abortion funding but was stopped by the Ohio law. SBA List was also threatened with prosecution if it engaged in similar speech about Driehaus or other candidates in Ohio.
SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser noted Driehaus initially opposed Obamacare because he said it did not contain specific language preventing the funding of abortion.
"That never changed and to this very day, Americans are still fighting the expansion of taxpayer funding of abortion brought about by the overhaul," Dannenfelser said.
She added: "Last year the U.S. Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit affirmed our right to free speech and today the Sixth Circuit confirmed the substance of that speech. Everything we have argued and continue to argue is true. Our goal from the beginning has been to educate Ohio voters about the multiple abortion-funding provisions in Obamacare and expose those elected officials who voted for it.
"The reality of abortion-funding in Obamacare will persist as an issue in future election cycles and the SBA List will be there to speak the truth," she said.
Actually, Obamacare provides new federal tax subsidies that will finance elective abortion coverage for millions of women who did not have such insurance, expands state Medicaid program coverage of elective abortion for millions of women in dozens of states, and uses federal funds to finance elective abortion coverage for members of Congress and their staff.
The Alliance Defending Freedom and Life Legal Defense Foundation, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, said: "Five years into Obamacare, it is now evident that SBA List's warnings were true. This law is forcing Americans to pay for abortions in numerous ways, and SBA List had a right to say so."
Senior Counsel Casey Mattox said if the exposure of that fact "was part of what cost Rep. Driehaus his job, that's because his constituents, like most Americans, reject taxpayer-funded abortion."
Bioethics Defense Fund Senior Counsel Dorinda Bordlee said no group "should be subject to defamation lawsuits simply for having the courage to say the emperor has no clothes."
"Every member of Congress was repeatedly advised that taxpayer funding of abortion could only be avoided by including a specific amendment in the Affordable Care Act," she said. 'Instead, the only thing Americans received was an executive order from President Obama that has turned out to be meaningless, just as pro-life groups predicted."
WND later reported that the billboard campaign had returned.
The SBA List in the most recent election posted signs targeting Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, for her 2009 vote for the Affordable Care Act.
"Just like former Reps. Bart Stupak and Steve Driehaus, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur betrayed the unborn and her pro-life constituents by voting for Obamacare, which allows taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion on demand," said Dannenfelser at the time. "This billboard campaign is part of our renewed effort to educate all Americans about the reality of abortion funding in Obamacare. Four years later, Rep. Kaptur's constituents still deserve to know the truth."
The organization also launched a similar billboard campaign in Louisiana to expose Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's support for taxpayer-funded abortion.
Â