Excellent! Prolife group wins SCOTUS Victory

Good news: Turns out even people who oppose child murder have freedom of speech.

Bad news: That elementary proposition had to go to the Supreme Court.

"If someone with a terminal illness were persuing euthanasia, what means would you consider acceptable ..."

Rebecca Hamilton brings the truth
"In the same way, a few homophobes in my country argued that legalizing gay marriage ..."

Rebecca Hamilton brings the truth
"What I find most worrying about all this recent talk about euthanasia is that it ..."

Rebecca Hamilton brings the truth
"About "gifts of knowledge sufficient not to build in flood zones or on earthquake faults, ..."

A reader has a question about ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • entonces_99

    The Court didn’t actually hold that they had the right to issue the ads they wanted to. It merely held that their challenge to the Ohio statute could go forward. We’ll still have to wait and see how the lower courts rule on the merits of that challenge, and only then will the Supremes get to decide whether the State of Ohio can legally censor the Susan B. Anthony List’s ads.

  • wlinden

    And it is not a matter of cracking down on them for being pro-life, but an Ohio rule against making “false” statements in election campaigns. In fact, under the statute, it is illegal for politicians to tell lies about each other!

    The Cato Institute’s brief was a hilarious defense of “truthiness, insinuations and allegations” as First Amendment rights and important parts of the political process. It noted that in striking down the “Stolen Valor Act”, the court implied that outright lies are protected speech.