What Is Gleanings?

At Christianity Today, we’re constantly tracking important developments in the church and the world. Often we use our network of reporters around the world (and for that, visit our main site). But we also monitor other news outlets, bloggers, newsmakers’ social media feeds, and countless other information streams. Gleanings compiles the most urgent and interesting items we’ve found, explains why you need to know about them, and gives you the background you need to understand them. It’s our snapshot of what God is doing in the world, hour by hour.

Free Newsletters

« Interracial Dating Decreases with Church Attendance (Except for One Denomination) | Main | Deaths from Church Attacks Rise 36% in 2012 »

January 30, 2013

Pro-Life Democrat Loses Defamation Battle with Susan B. Anthony List

Court: People have First Amendment right to "even false speech, when it applies to politics.”

Melissa Steffan

A federal court has ruled against a former pro-life congressman, Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio), who sued the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List (SBAL) for defamation that allegedly contributed to his election defeat in 2010.

Driehaus, a pro-life Democrat, sued SBAL over an ad campaign that he said cost him his job and a "loss of livelihood." The ad targeted Dreihaus's vote in favor of the Affordable Care Act (ACA); SBAL equates support for the act with support for taxpayer-funded abortions. "Shame on Steve Dreihaus," read the ad. "Dreihaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion."

Dreihaus, part of a group of Democrats that supported a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion yet—when this provision failed to pass—still voted in favor of the final health care reform bill, argued that, given his pro-life beliefs, the ad amounted to defamation.

But district judge Timothy Black recently ruled to dismiss the case. According to Fox News, Black's ruling stated that "associating a political candidate 'with a mainstream political position, even if false, cannot constitute defamation.'"

Black also wrote that "in the area of political campaigns, where the 'principles of free speech and truth collide most violently,' truth must be determined in the 'marketplace of ideas'—not [in] the courts."

CT examined the death of pro-life Democrats as pro-life groups led the charge to halve their numbers in the House of Representatives in 2010.

posted by Melissa Steffan | Comments (4)

Share thisShare this post

Comments

It is rather degenerate to assert that the courts cannot discern truth, or take a position to support the truth. But sadly, the truth is that the Supreme Court passed Citizen's United, which is the greatest assault on our free election process to date. The court has made a mockery of our elections when it gave the wealthy, our greediest and most selfish citizens, a greater voice in politics by virtue of their incomes. If money is declared to be speech, the poor are effectively silenced.

Posted By: EK | January 30, 2013 2:07 PM

So it's OK for good Christian people to lie if the cause be "just"?

Posted By: Stephen Muehleisen | January 31, 2013 5:52 PM

If the good Rep. was so pro-life, why did he vote for a bill that mandates religions organization to provide free, the "morning after" (abortion) pill.

Posted By: J. Bob | February 1, 2013 8:32 AM

Maybe because he knows that making health care accessible to poor women and their children does more to prevent abortions than the pious political posturing of a group of religious hypocrites.

Posted By: Dan Crawford | February 4, 2013 3:14 PM

Post a comment:

Verification (needed to reduce spam):