It’s pretty well known that former Congressman Steve Driehaus is suing the Susan B. Anthony List for allegedly lying about his record as a “pro-life” politician.
The SBA-List accused Driehaus in a series of ads that he voted for federal funding of abortion in Obamacare – an accusation that I, along with the President of Planned Parenthood who called Obama’s order a “symbolic gesture,” a Department of Justice Attorney Laurence Tribe who called it merely a “signing statement on steroids,” and with the National Right to Life and the USCCB all agree.
But as George Will wrote, “A judge has ruled that his suit against the SBA List, charging “substantial economic and reputational harm” due to defamation, can go to trial. The SBA List is challenging the constitutionality of the false statement law.”
So let’s go with the logic a bit. If Driehaus can sue for “substantial harm” due to the actions of the SBA-List, why can’t pro-lifers sue Driehaus for alleged “harm” because of his telling pro-lifers that he wouldn’t vote for abortion funding.
All those pro-lifers can argue that they donated to Driehaus specifically for the purpose of having him vote against abortion. And then he turned around and voted for federal funding of abortion, according to many.
We can also certainly argue that we’ve been hurt due to being forced to pay for abortions in the future. And hey, if we need standing in the court, we’ll just say as “former fetuses” we’re suing on behalf of the unborn who will never get a chance to sue Driehaus themselves.
After that we’ll get to Bob Casey, Bart Stupak and…