filed under: that's curious

I saw an odd little bit here (link) on Steve Driehaus, Former Democratic Representative from Ohio, who has bought suit against an organization that worked against him when he lost his bid for re-election in 2010.  In the suit, he claims that the Susan B Anthony List, a pro-life group that was unhappy with Driehaus for voting for the national healthcare legislation because they argued that it supported funding of abortions, defamed him by opposing his bid for re-election with claims that he worked to fund abortion.  Driehaus apparently considers himself pro-life (link), and the court accepted his argument that the healthcare legislation did not fund abortion.  Thus, presumably, the suit goes forward based on the theory that the group lied about Driehaus and deprived him of his livelihood.

This is curious for a couple of reasons.  First, the President himself recently touted an executive branch regulation that, when coupled with the healthcare legislation, will work to effectively fund abortion (link).  And second, doesn't this move dangerously close to criminalizing political speech?

For the record, I am fiercely pro-choice.  I would argue that, not only should women have the ability to decide what to do with their bodies for the nine months following conception, but also that men should have the same choice about what to with their bodies in terms of providing child support in the eighteen years following delivery.  I don't like the state intervening in matters that effectively force choices upon others based on the moral positions held by either the right or the left.  However, I do worry about our state moving toward a position that says you can't even have a say in the political process.  Mr. Driehaus should drop his suit and move on.  And the court should go back to deciding the law, rather than attempting to drive the political debate.

Curious?  Darn tootin'.