By Matt Hadro
Washington D.C., Mar 10, 2015 / 14:34 pm
Ruling in favor of a national pro-life group, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday upheld a district court's decision to toss out a defamation lawsuit brought by a former congressman.
"Last year the U.S. Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit affirmed our right to free speech and today the Sixth Circuit confirmed the substance of that speech," stated Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List.
The group had claimed that a former Democratic congressman voted for taxpayer-funded abortion in supporting the Affordable Care Act. He later sued them for defamation.
"Everything we have argued and continue to argue is true," stated Dannenfelser.
"Five years into Obamacare, it is now evident that SBA List's warnings were true. This law is forcing Americans to pay for abortions in numerous ways, and SBA List had a right to say so," said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Casey Mattox. The legal group had filed a friend-of-the-court brief with Susan B. Anthony List.
The case began in 2010 when the Susan B. Anthony List claimed that then-Rep. Steve Driehaus' (D-Ohio) vote for the Affordable Care Act was a vote for taxpayer-funded abortion. Driehaus had promised he would not vote for the law unless it contained the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which expressly prohibited funding of abortion.
The amendment was not included as a part of the final law, but President Obama issued an executive order promising not to fund abortion through the law. Driehaus voted for the law and used the executive order to defend his pro-life record.
Critics argued at the time that the executive order was a mere gimmick that would have no legal effect over the law. Investigations since then have suggested that abortions are in fact being funded under the health care law, despite the executive order.
"The parties dispute the meaning and effect of this Order, but acknowledge that executive orders do not amend statutes," the court's judgment read.
Driehaus, upon running for re-election as a pro-life Democrat, claimed that the SBA List made a false statement that he supported taxpayer funding of abortion, and filed a complaint with the Ohio Election Commission. They ruled that a "probable violation" of election law had occurred.
The Susan B. Anthony List then sued Driehaus and the commission claiming that the state's law violated its First Amendment right, that the government was unconstitutionally reviewing and critiquing its speech about a political figure.
The case made it to the Supreme Court, which ruled last June that the group had the First Amendment right to challenge the state's election law. A federal court struck down the Ohio law in September, which the Alliance Defending Freedom argued had unconstitutionally allowed the state to "act as a 'truth commission'" in determining the veracity of statements made about a politician.
In addition, Driehaus had sued the group for defamation. A district court threw out that case, and the Sixth Circuit upheld the decision.
The judges unanimously ruled that the group's statement was not false and that Driehaus had not proven the group had malicious intent behind its statements about him. They wrote that "the gist or sting of the statements appears to have at least some truth, to be substantially true, or to be subject to differing interpretations."
The SBA List argued as much after the circuit court's ruling. "The Affordable Care Act provides new federal tax subsidies that will finance elective abortion coverage for millions of women who did not have such insurance, expands state Medicaid program coverage of elective abortion for millions of women in dozens of states, and uses federal funds to finance elective abortion coverage for members of Congress and their staff," stated Dannenfelser.
The judges pointed out that Driehaus refused to support the health care law unless the pro-life Stupak-Pitts Amendment was enacted – but even though it was not in the final version of the bill, he supported it anyway.
"The Executive Order adds language, but is not part of the PPACA and does not alter the statutory text," they added.
"For SBA List to overcome Driehaus's defamation claim, it is enough that the statements had some truth, were substantially true, or were subject to differing interpretations. Driehaus's own change of position demonstrates that they were."
The charge of defamation has five counts that must be met, the judges explained. In the decision they only weighed two of the counts: if the statement was false, and if "the defendant acted with the requisite degree of fault in publishing the statement."
The court ruled the statements were not false, and then argued that the group also did not act with the intention of making false statements.
The judges wrote, "we can find no evidence to support Driehaus' claim that SBA List 'knew' the statements were false or entertained serious doubts as to their truth.' Rather, all of the evidence supports a finding that SBA List did then, and does now, believe emphatically that the statements are true: that the PPACA includes taxpayer funding for abortions."
"Driehaus cannot show any basis by which we could find actual malice. Consequently, SBA List is entitled to summary judgment on this defamation claim," they concluded.
