Roundup: Susan B. Anthony List Lied In Ohio, According to Election Commission


In an update to the lawsuits and campaign finance complaints being filed against anti-choice front groups targeting anti-choice Democrats, Rep. Steve Driehaus of Ohio won a key victory as the elections commission agreed that the group was in fact engaging in false advertising.

Via Cincinnati.com:

A three-member panel of the Ohio Elections Commission ruled in favor of U.S. Rep. Steve Driehaus today in his complaint against the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List.

The ruling angered several pro-life groups who said Ohio elections law unfairly restricts free speech.

The panel’s “probable cause” finding means there will be another hearing to determine if the group broke Ohio law that bars making false statements in campaigns. Driehaus is up for re-election on Nov. 2. In the meantime, attorneys for both sides can begin taking sworn depositions.

Driehaus, a Democrat from West Price Hill, is fighting the group’s plans to erect four billboards saying he favored taxpayer-funded abortions because he voted for the national health care bill.

Driehaus’ Cincinnati attorney, Paul DeMarco, intends to depose SBA members to find out what they consider federal funding of abortions.

“They’re actually conceding the argument that there is no new federal funding,” Driehaus said.

Of coures, the Susan B. Anthony List still claims they are totally in the right.  From Politico:

In an act of desperation and fear, Rep. Steve Driehaus is attempting to use a criminal statute to silence his critics. It is a fact that Steve Driehaus has voted for a bill that includes taxpayer funding of abortion. His own affidavit refers to an Executive order which purports to undo the harms of the actual bill for which he voted. The bill retains the language which Rep. Bart Stupak referred to as an ‘accounting gimmick’ that allows for federal dollars to go to insurance plans that cover abortion….  

We are confident that the Ohio Elections commission and, most importantly, the people of Steve Driehaus’ congressional district will see through this heavy-handed attempt to silence free speech in the public sphere. Because of these tactics, we will spend more resources to make sure that Steve Driehaus’ constituents know the truth of his vote.”

Ben Smith says that since both sides “honestly believe” they are right about the federal funding of abortion question, the Ohio Commission really can’t be the arbitrator of who’s right or wrong.  But that’s like saying since both sides “honestly believe” their views on how the earth was created, schools should have to allow creationists to have equal time in the classroom.

In the meantime, SBA accusations are not going unanswered.  According to CNN:

Last week, the group announced it is partnering with other socially conservative outfits to spend $240,000 in TV ads “highlighting pro-abortion health care votes of so-called ‘pro-life Democrats.'”

The ads target Democratic Pennsylvania Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper and Indiana Rep. Joe Donnelly.

The conservative campaign against self-described “pro-life” Democratic lawmakers has spurred a handful of relatively new left-leaning faith groups to come to their defense.

In Ohio, a group called Catholics United released a letter this month signed by 36 Cincinnati clergy and lay leaders, including 11 Catholic nuns, denouncing allegations that Driehaus’ healthcare vote begat government-funded abortion.

In Virginia, a related group, called the Matthew 25 Network, is launching a radio ad Monday on behalf of Democratic Rep. Tom Perriello – who has also come under attack by religious conservatives – that lauds his Christian faith and his values.

“These were folks who took a courageous stand on healthcare reform, who led the fight to make sure there was no abortion funding in the bill” said Catholics United Executive Director Chris Korzen of the Democratic lawmakers his group is seeking to help.

“We knew that conservative groups like Susan B. Anthony List would be after them,” Korzen said, “And we wanted to make sure there was an organized presence to set the record straight.”

Mini Roundup: Nebraska Sen. Mike Johanns is still pushing “fetal pain” regulations based on faulty science, although he admits that there’s no way congress can get an actual “pain based” ban through currently. And the so-called “fetal pain” abortion ban goes into effect today in his home state.

October 14, 2010

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • mechashiva

    “Pro-life” groups don’t actually give two shits about abortion. They only exist to drum up votes for Republicans. There are plenty of anti-choice Republicans who voted for the healthcare bill, yet no one is questioning their anti-abortion credentials. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that “progressive” pro-lifers support such Republicans saying, “Look at this guy who voted for healthcare reform only after the Stupak ammendment was added! What a champion of the cause! He cares about getting healthcare to everyone and saving babies!” What a fucking farce the whole thing is.

  • crowepps

    Saturday, April 16, 2005

    Do You Trust Women

    posted by bitchphd

    Cleis points to an essay by Katha Pollitt that mentions in passing that apparently Naomi Wolf has written an article “calling for the banning of abortion after the first trimester.”

    Lovely.

    Here is the issue. Recently, elsewhere, there was a very long discussion in which someone argued that I had said men had no right to an opinion about abortion, and that men who object to abortion do so only out of a desire to control women. Now, I never said either of those things, but the beliefs I do have could be interpreted that way, by an unsubtle or defensive auditor. Naomi Wolf gives me a good opportunity to explain, precisely because she is a feminist (though not my kind of feminist), and a woman.

    The bottom line about abortion is this. Do you trust women to make their own moral judgments? If you are anti-abortion, then no. You do not. You have an absolute moral position that you don’t trust anyone to question, and therefore you think that abortion should be illegal. But the second you start making exceptions for rape or incest, you are indicating that your moral position is not absolute. That moral judgment is involved. And that right there is where I start to get angry and frustrated, because unless you have an absolute position that all human life (arguably, all life period, but that isn’t the argument I’m engaging with right now) are equally valuable (in which case, no exceptions for the death penalty, and I expect you to agonize over women who die trying to abort, and I also expect you to work your ass off making this a more just world in which women don’t have to choose abortions, but this is also not the argument I’m engaging right now), then there is no ground whatsoever for saying that there should be laws or limitations on abortion other than that you do not trust women. I am completely serious about this.

    Let me unpack a bit, because I know this sounds polemical, since I am clearly stating a bottom line. When pro-choice feminists like Wolf, or liberal men, or a lot of women, even, say things like, “I’m pro-choice, but I am uncomfortable with… [third-trimester abortion / sex-selection / women who have multiple abortions / women who have abortions for “convenience” / etc.]” then what you are saying is that your discomfort matters more than an individual woman’s ability to assess her own circumstances. That you don’t think that women who have abortions think through the very questions that you, sitting there in your easy chair, can come up with. That a woman who is contemplating an invasive, expensive, and uncomfortable medical procedure doesn’t think it through first. In short, that your judgment is better than hers.

    Think about the hubris of that. Your judgment of some hypothetical scenario is more reliable than some woman’s judgment about her own, very real, life situation?

    And you think that’s not sexist? That that doesn’t demonstrate, at bottom, a distrust of women? A blindness to their equality? A reluctance to give up control over someone else’s decision?

    Because if you cannot see that, then I don’t care who you are. Male, female, feminist, reactionary asshole. You are acting as a conduit for a social distrust of women so strong that it’s almost invisible, that it gets read as “normal.” The fact that abortion is even a debate in this country demonstrates that we do not trust women.

  • panhandler

    There are plenty of anti-choice Republicans who voted for the healthcare bill, yet no one is questioning their anti-abortion credentials.

     

    Name them.

  • beenthere72

    As far as I can tell, there’s one:  Joseph Cao of Louisiana.

  • mechashiva

    Yeah, you caught me talking out of my ass that time. Stupid me for doing that in the first place. Won’t happen again (I dislike making my side look bad).

  • crowepps

    Sometimes, the post just writes itself: On Wednesday night, Delta Kappa Epsilon pledges marched through Yale’s Old Campus — where most first-year female students are housed — chanting, “No means yes, yes means anal!” The fraternity pledges were marched blindfolded while barking like soldiers … with marching orders of anal rape. They also threw in, “My name is Jack, I’m a necrophiliac, I fuck dead women.” A video of the initiation was immediately posted on YouTube and, what do you know, it’s gone viral.

    Now, DKE President Jordan Forney has been forced to apologize for this blatant sexual intimidation by calling it “a serious lapse in judgment by the fraternity and in very poor taste.” But this sort of hateful crap isn’t a “lapse in judgment.” It doesn’t innocently happen that you’re guiding male pledges by young women’s dorms in the dark of night chanting about anal rape. It isn’t a forehead-slapping slip-up, it’s a sign that you need major reprogramming as a human being. Student feminist magazine Broad Recognition has it right: It’s calling for Yale to take disciplinary action against DKE — where George W. Bush got his presidential training — “on behalf of its female students.”

    http://www.salon.com/life/violence_against_women/index.html?story=/mwt/broadsheet/2010/10/15/yale_fraternity_pledges_chant_about_rape

     

  • beenthere72

    That’s a new low for a fraternity.   Despicable.

  • beenthere72

    I think it’s more telling of the mission of ‘no! to everything’ (and therefore not being about abortion) that only 1 (pro-life) republican voted in favor.     Apparently he didn’t get the memo. 

  • mechashiva

    True, and I think it is stupid to suggest that voting for healthcare reform revokes a person’s pro-life credentials. Seriously, the “taxpayer money is going to abortions” thing isn’t true, and all the arguments I’ve seen supporting that statement involve a huge stretch to bypass the Hyde Ammendment and the Stupak Ammendment.

  • mechashiva

    Hm, the comments section at least is fine, for the most part. There of course are a few idiots who blame feminism, sexual assault awareness programs on campus, and Take Back The Night rallies for this sort of behavior. That’s shit I just don’t get.

  • crowepps

    ‘Didn’t hurt anybody’, ‘just a joke’, ‘oversensitive feminists looking to get insulted’.

     

    Expect to hear protestations about ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘religious freedom’ any time.

     

    These are our future ‘leaders’?  Frankly, ‘I graduated from an Ivy League college’ means something entirely different to me these days.  No longer ‘intellectual’ but ‘racist, sexist, legacy admission with vast sense of entitlement and few morals’.

     

    Certainly the Yalie running for the Alaska Senate isn’t much of an advertisement for graduates of the place.

     

  • squirrely-girl

    I didn’t realize being offended by men chanting about anal rape en masse made me a feminist… wow, who knew?!

     

    I wonder if the panhellenic council (sororities) has blackballed them from socials or formals yet…

  • panhandler

    1.) The Hyde Amendment only pertains to Medicaid, not the newly passed health care bill.

    2.) What amendment? Even though the Stupak Amendment used the exact same language contained in the Hyde Amendment, it was opposed by very nearly every women’s group on the left, so much so that it’s not there anymore.

  • ack

    Because marching in opposition to rape, or attempting to educate students about consent and coercion, is just ASKING for a knee-slappingly hilarious pro-rape march.

     

    You know, like how those drunk college women are just asking for it.

     

    Beyond despicable.

  • crowepps

    There of course are a few idiots who blame feminism, sexual assault awareness programs on campus, and Take Back The Night rallies for this sort of behavior. That’s shit I just don’t get.

    After all, sexual assault awareness and Take Back The Night rallies only tell ONE side of the ‘controversy’ and unfairly bias people against men whose ‘beliefs’ include an entitlement to sex any time they want it from whomever they want it however they can get it.

  • mechashiva

    The Hyde Ammendment is applied to more than just Medicaid. It’s language forbids any federal money being used to fund abortions. Buildings that recieve federal money cannot have abortions performed within their walls. For many years, it has been the basis for denying abortion-provision in military medical facilities.

     

    I certainly haven’t seen anything about the Stupak Ammendment being a paper-tiger. I’ve heard a lot of women’s groups argue against the Stupak Ammendment, but I haven’t heard that anything about the issue has actually changed.

     

    Edit: I’m actually bowing out of this early, since it will more than likely continue to go off-topic and I’ve actually got a lot of shit to do over the next few days, so I’m taking an e-hiatus. Ciao, ladies and gents!

  • runningshoe
  • wholesalenflstore