- 3 - the position of SBA List and, just like then-Congressman Driehaus, asserted reliance upon an executive order to dispute the present contention of SBA List and COAST: Steve Fought, a spokesperson for Kaptur, said the Susan B. Anthony List has a political agenda rather than an issues agenda in their opposition to the executive order.
“I think these so
-called pro-life groups
I think their complaint is more with
who’s signing the executive order than the executive order itself,” Fought said.…
Fought stood by Oba
ma’s executive order.
“The executive order, any way you cut it, is a good thing if you’re against federal funding of abortion, unless you have a political agenda,” Fought said. “Congresswoman Kaptur has been consistent in her voting pattern since she’s
been a member of Congress. And she calls it pro-
) Notwithstanding Co
ngresswoman Kaptur’s assertion that her vote for the
constitute a vote for taxpayer-funded abortions, COAST directly disagrees with such a conclusion and, instead, seeks and desires to have its voice added to the marketplace of ideas on the issue leading up to the forthcoming election. For as extensively developed in the
While the press release and the article from
may, concededly, constitute hearsay, this matter is presently before the Court on a motion for preliminary injunction. As the
Sixth Circuit has recognized, “
a preliminary injunction is customarily granted on the basis of procedures that are less formal and evidence that is less complete than in a trial on the merits.'"
Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, L.L.C. v. Tenke Corp.
, 511 F.3d 535, 542 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch,
451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)). Furthermore,
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has not explicitly stated whether hearsay evidence may be considered in the context of a preliminary injunction hearing. This Court, however, and other district courts within this circuit have considered such evidence, as have
numerous other circuit courts.”
s Restaurants, Inc. v. Eileen K Inc.
, 461 F.Supp.2d 607 (S.D. Ohio 2006)(internal citations omitted);
United States v. O’Brien
, 836 F. Supp. 438, 441 (S.D.
Ohio 1993)(“[t]he Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at preliminary injunction hearings”).
And notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to the press release, it is published on an official governmental website and, thus, is appropriate for taking judicial notice.
Denius v. Dunlap,
330 F.3d 919, 926-27 (7th Cir.2003) (taking judicial notice of information from official government website). If any doubt or issue actually exists with respect to these matters, then at a preliminary injunction hearing, the presence of Congresswoman Kaptur or her spokesman can be compelled wherein they can confirm or refute these reported positions on the issue.
Case: 1:10-cv-00720-TSB Doc #: 121 Filed: 07/01/14 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 2423