Supreme Court allows pro-life group to challenge Ohio ban on false campaign statements


The Supreme Court delivered a major victory on Monday to an anti-abortion group that sought to challenge an Ohio law that bans campaign statements deemed to be false.

The justices, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the Susan B. Anthony List can go ahead with a lawsuit challenging the law as a violation of free-speech rights.

Both liberal and conservative groups have criticized the law, saying it has a chilling effect on political speech. Even Ohio attorney general Mike DeWine declined to defend the law in court, sending his deputies to argue for the state.


Praise The Lord.


For being allowed to make false statements? Strange for a Christian organisation to be telling lies.



Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus


What I don’t understand is why Justice Thomas believes it is more burdensome to tell the truth than weave a web of lies.


The way it is now anyone can SAY it is a lie and the accused has to prove that it isn’t a
lie, via the court system. So you can lose money defending yourself and even if one proves
that the statement(s) were accurate, you have lost time and money. I hope you have had
time to read the article.


The reason that this law is so insidious is that anyone could bring a charge against what is essentially an opinion.
In this particular case, the group Susan B. Anthony List believed that the support of the Health care was equal to supporting abortion. That is debatable and they had a right under free speech to propose it. The law however made it illegal. It is not a matter of a lie but the perception of the person. It is a way to limit debate and in deed would have a chilling effect on debate.
What they said was an opinion of the law something that law should not be declaring as a “false” statement.
Your statement would fall under Ohio’s ban on false campaign statements. Did you lie? Was it more burdensome to tell the truth?


This law doesn’t penalize opinions expressed as such, but you might have a problem when those opinions are presented as facts. The Election Commission looks at objective fact vs. what has been presented as fact.


On the contrary they were being penalized for an opinion. Your own statement

What I don’t understand is why Justice Thomas believes it is more burdensome to tell the truth than weave a web of lies.

is presented as if fact. We do that when we express an opinion. An average person would recognize that what you were stating was an opinion just as an average person would recognize that they were expressing an opinion. You say they presented as fact to them it is a fact. Just as your opinion is fact for you. The law indeed puts free speech in danger including yours.


Under the current law, you could have a problem regardless of whether it is opinion or fact, because anyone who disagrees with you can make a claim. It supposes that you are guilty until proven innocent rather than innocent until proven guilty.

But, regardless, this case only decided whether or not SBA has standing to fight the law. It didn’t make a decision on whether or not the law was constitutional or not.


Well, just to be clear on the process, the Ohio Election Commission impartially investigates the complaint.


In this case, they were clearly lying. They made an ad that said that the candidate “voted for taxpayer funded abortion,” when he clearly did not. It is a demonstrable fact that he did not do anything of the sort. There is no question of opinion in this case, his voting record is public record, and he is further supported by the Hyde amendment which makes it illegal to use federal money for abortions.


Depends on how abortion is defined. :shrug:


Not true. The Hyde Amendment only applies to HHS appropriations in the omnibus bill, not the PPACA. It has been shown that CHC appropriations are not bound by any abortion restrictions. This was demonstrated prior to and after the passage of the act.

So, no, it is not so demonstrable.

(Edit: And that doesn’t even mention funding for abortifacient contraceptives through subsidies, or the shell game for subsidies to plans covering abortion.)


The laws forces me to pay for abortifiicants for my employees. At any rate We don’t need man appointed commission deciding which campaign ads can be run.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit