Anti-Choice Group Can Be Sued For Defamation, Because It Was LyingIrin Carmon8/02/11 10:25amFiled to: Roe v worldSusan b anthony list defamationSteve driehausAntichoiceprochoiceAbortionAffordable care actHealth reformHealth insurance reformInsuranceHyde amendmenttweetFb56EditPromoteShare to KinjaToggle Conversation toolsGo to permalinkA judge is allowing former Ohio congressman Steve Driehaus to sue the anti-choice Susan B. Anthony List for defamation, because as he sensibly pointed out, they were lying about whether abortion is "taxpayer-funded" under the Affordable Care Act.The irony is that Driehaus is anti-choice. He did, however, vote for health insurance reform, which meant that SBA decided to run the above billboards against him. Despite the fact that abortion is never paid for by federal funds (except extremely limited cases of rape and incest victims on Medicaid) and the ACA didn't change the status quo, anti-choicers have been obsessed with insisting that it does by focusing on federal subsidies to private plans. In fact, after the fight over Stupak-Pitts and abortion nearly derailed the entire proceedings, pro-choicers were the ones wringing their hands over what Planned Parenthood called "unacceptable provisions on abortion." Those were the ones outlined in an executive order affirming the Hyde Amendment and emphasizing enforcement of existing separation of federal funds and abortion services.