A federal court ruling issued yesterday in a Tennessee case says that such tags [that say 'Choose Life' as an anti-abortion message] are legal, even though they promote only one side of the debate. Similar license plates will soon be available in Kentucky. Story. Excerpt:

quote:

"Although this exercise of government one-sidedness with respect to a very contentious political issue may be ill-advised, we are unable to conclude that the Tennessee statute contravenes the First Amendment," Judge John M. Rogers said in a 2-1 ruling.

An attempt to create a 'Choose Choice' tag failed in the Legislature in 2002.

Setting aside your personal views on abortion, do you think this court ruling is fair and appropriate?

Of course it's not fair or just, in view of the 2002 decision.

But what is the import? Anyone who would base a life-changing decision on what they read on a licence plate is simply not capable of making a sensible choice at all.

A few years ago, a Missouri Ku Klux Klan wanted to pick up the trash along an interstate highway near St. Louis. Doing so would get them a sign on the highway stating that the goup is responsible for picking up litter for the next mile (or two, whatever). The state turned them down. The group sued, claiming discrimination, and won.* I suspect that is what may happen in this case.


*The group never did pick up any trash and was removed from the program. Had it been my decision, I would have saved a great deal of time and trouble by allowing them to pick up the trash, but I would have chosen exactly which mile they would be working in.

Of course I think it's unfair, but even though I would prefer to level the playing field, I can't quite see Choose Choice !

I don't have a problem with that message. It is fine with me actually because it acknowledges that it is a choice. It would be nice if the message was "More funding for single mothers."

I do think it's ridiculous to put messages on your license plate or on your car. If people think it's meaningful in some way or that they will actually change someone else's mind... just plain stupid.

Though I disagree with the plate, I have no problem with the state producing them since the driver has to pay for them out of their own pocket. But to only allow pro-life and not pro-choice is outrageous.

Then again, do you really want to drive around with a pro choice license place? You just may drive to work one morning with your break line cut... I think I'll express my opinions in other venues.

I think RR has a point; messages of a controversial nature on your vehicle is an invitation to vandals of opposite persuasion. I don't do it.

(Frankvan: ) "I can't quite see Choose Choice !"

Yes, the anti-abortion people were brilliantly pre-emptive in creating their slogan. My favorite pro-choice slogan, seen recently somewhere on AnswerPool, is: Against abortion? Then don't have one!

I was puzzled why this story didn't make a bigger splash on the Internet news sites, until I read further into one of the articles that says, "Tennessee is the 13th state to offer 'Choose Life' plates. The others are Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Dakota...Last year the US Supreme Court let stand a lower-court ruling that said similar South Carolina license plates violated the First Amendment." So now I'm a little chagrined to have mentioned what is basically non-news.

Some of the proceeeds from the extra fee charged by Tennessee for the 'Choose Life' plates will go to New Life Resources, an anti-abortion group. Alabama, Hawaii, Maryland and Montana also donate some of the money to anti-abortion groups.

We miss so much ! No slogans on our car number 'licence plates'. Nearest we ever got to controversy was when someone got issued with the number plate :

PEN 15

By the time the licensing department had seen the potential for amusement or mischief it was too late

I'm quite certain a "pro abortion" plate would not be authorized, nor would having such a plate's fees go to Planned Parenthood. Whereas the plate, per se, is not a huge deal, it's just another example of how the religious right are moving forward, and how those that enable them are, in fact, completely two-faced when it comes to the Constitution. Like religion in public places, allowing such things is a slippery slope: one can be sure that the very people who promote it would absolutely resist statements opposite theirs. And yet, it goes on and on....

Though I am definitely Pro-Life, I have to give FrankVan some kudos here. Choose choice. That's a heck of a statement. I think it rocks. Cool Frank. Simple, concise, deep meaning.

It makes we wonder whether the courts would have ruled differently some 30 years ago, when the political landscape allowed the Roe v. Wade ruling. Or even, say, seven years ago when we didn't have such a pervasively (and perversely!) right-leaning government pandering to religious fanatics. I agree that this issue is just a mild symptom of a serious disease.