Breaking: ACLU backs up pro-life group against Democrat’s attempted censorship
In an amicus brief filed today, the ACLU took the side of the Susan B. Anthony List in a federal lawsuit it filed on October 18.
SBA List’s lawsuit attempts to stop the Ohio Election Commission from blocking billboards it planned to erect in Democrat Congressman Steve Driehaus’s OH-1 District stating he supports taxpayer funded abortions, this because he voted for Obamacare.
The ACLU agrees with SBA List that OH’s election law is unconstitutional:
RC 3517.21(B) is vague and overbroad, and it cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny…. The people have an absolute right to criticize their public officials, the government should not be the arbiter of true or false speech and, in any event, the best answer for bad speech is more speech.
For all of these reasons, Amicus ACLU of Ohio urges this Court to hold RC 3517.21(B) unconstitutional and grants Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Hooray for the ACLU.
Well, sort of. The ACLU isn’t saying that the SBA List’s ads are true, just that there shouldn’t be a law against running false campaign ads. Which is a claim I’d require some convincing of — we have truth-in-advertisement laws in non-political realms, right?
It’s not just that it’s a law against running false campaign ads. There’s a procedural issue here. The Election Commission is saying that if there’s any doubt as to the truth of the ad– a determination that can by highly politicized– the ad is on hold while the Commission works things through. Because the election is so time-sensitive, the practical effect is that they can’t run the ad. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Hmmm…I’m very skeptical about ACLU’s support on this.
I mean it’s great that they’re siding with pro-lifers for a change….but what’s their angle? What’s in it for them?
Fair point, Kelsey. I’m just so frustrated by all the lies that get thrown around in campaigns.
Kelsey has a good point here. When one considers the denials of scientific and medical fact at the highest levels, e.g. the denials of the link between abortion and breast cancer, denials of post-traumatic stress/post-abortion syndrome, redefinition by ACOG of conception and pregnancy as now occurring at implantation rather than fertilization, we can be effectively muzzled in ads. The opposition just needs to quote the corrupted authority figures to tie us up in knots.
“Hmmm…I’m very skeptical about ACLU’s support on this.
I mean it’s great that they’re siding with pro-lifers for a change….but what’s their angle? What’s in it for them?””
Oh, I don’t know, maybe because they like to see the Constitution upheld?
The ACLU is a left-wing smear funded by George Soros.
How do I know? Bill O’Reilly says so.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200511300007
Hal said: Oh, I don’t know, maybe because they like to see the Constitution upheld?
While that may be true – I suspect the real motivation might have more to do with one day finding their usual clients in the same position, with pro-lifers determining what is “truth”.
Hey Hal…if the ACLU is supposed to be “defenders” of the constitution…how come you don’t hear them standing up to defending the 2nd Amendment nor the “right to life” of the unborn?
Maybe there is a working brain or two at the ACLU? Could it be?
Your claimed links between abortion and breast cancer aren’t being denied Dr Nadal, they’ve been discredited. There is a difference.
I know this is off topic somewhat but Jill I have heard there are discussions by Illinois pro-life groups about voting for Mark Kirk because he did not vote for Obamacare or for taxpayer abortion funding in Obamacare, it would give immediate blocking in the lame duck session to the Democrats trying to ram through massive spending, funding for Obamacare etc.? Some say it would not be a wasted vote because of the damage Democrats could do during the lame duck session to the federal budget and the economy. Curious about prolifers thoughts on this?
“Hey Hal…if the ACLU is supposed to be “defenders” of the constitution…how come you don’t hear them standing up to defending the 2nd Amendment nor the “right to life” of the unborn?”
I don’t know the ACLU’s position on the second amendment. Regarding abortion, I suppose they agree with the Supreme Court and are more concerned with the rights of the woman to make decisions about her body and pregnancy than they are about the “rights” of the unborn. I’m just guessing, I don’t speak for the ACLU, but I do try to send them some money every now and then.
ps: The ACLU position on gun rights:
http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment