|
January 23, 2005
End Viewpoint Discrimination Now!
This seems utterly inane: Under a program begun in 2001, South Carolina drivers may pay a $70 fee to purchase license plates with the "Choose Life" message. The revenue generated goes toward local crisis pregnancy programs and may not, according to the statute that authorized the plates, go to any organization that provides or promotes abortions. I wonder if anyone will back me when I sue the state over alma mater discrimination. I'm tired of seeing Penn State alumni license plates everywhere. It makes me feel like a second-class alumnus, and I won't stand for it! The SC program actually sounds like a great idea, and a healthy one at that. I immediately thought of Thoreau. Civil Disobedience was Henry David Throeau's frustrated response to the actions of his well-meaning friends who paid his poll tax despite his efforts to challenge, on the court level, the government's use of that tax (this fundamental element of civil disobedience -- your day in court -- is missed by most protesters today who feel wronged when arrested. But I digress...). The issue of what the government does with your tax dollars is important to virtually everyone, but for those who oppose specific practices on fundamental ethical, moral, or religious principles the issue can be thoroughly vexing. This program in SC gives people who oppose abortion an opportunity to dictate the use of public funds by specifically targeting money toward organizations which work within their own ethics, and they may proudly display their participation in the program the same way one might support the Philadelphia Zoo or the wildlife refuge -- with a kind of vanity plate. One statement here strikes me both as ridiculous and frightening: Longtime Planned Parenthood lawyer Roger Evans also disputes the state's contention that the plates are a form of government speech. Noting that the 4th Circuit found it to be both government and private speech occurring in a public forum, Evans says, "When citizens display the 'Choose Life' plates, they will not be speaking as and for the government program, they will be speaking for themselves." Those who oppose the plates oppose them on the grounds that they express the beliefs of a private citizen? posted by Dennis on 01.23.05 at 09:39 AM
Comments
IIRC, didn't Florida have this argument within the last couple of years? And recently it was revealed that PP garners much of its revenue by providing abortions. It has a vested business interest in cutting off funds from alternative providers in any way possible. Darleen · January 23, 2005 01:42 PM Wait...seriously? After reading it, this sounds so upside down I don't understand. The AG is arguing for the fact that the government supports one particular position, and PP is saying that speech of individuals should align with their views only (ok, well that part makes sense). I do think it's important to note, though, in the article, they said the suit was brought in part because a "Pro-Choice" plate was denied, around the same time this one was approved. Not that whatever is painted on a little piece of metal on the back of your car will become an epic slippery slope of government censorship, but it only seems fair, if allowing political speech on license plates, to allow both of two viewpoints. A&W · January 23, 2005 03:36 PM Actually, AW, PP in So. Carolina didn't go through the normal route South Carolina, in the name of state Public Safety Director B. Boykin Rose, countered that Planned Parenthood had no standing to sue, in part because the organization had not applied for its own special license plate under a separate law that allows nonprofits to seek plates bearing their insignia for members.What PP did was Planned Parenthood defends its standing to sue in part because it did ask the state legislature to authorize a "pro-choice" plate at the same time the "Choose Life" law was enacted. That request was rejected.IMO, what SC AG has to say about governmental speech is sane: Under the 4th Circuit's ruling, he adds, the state would have to provide alternatives for those who oppose other authorized license plates that state "God Bless America" or "United We Stand."This is the insanity that says if a public school allows a "Christian club" it will have to allow a "Satanist club." It really is not an argument to be inclusive but an argument to discriminate. Akin to "zero tolerance" codes in schools that equally suspend both aggressor and victim in a fight as "co-combatants." Darleen · January 23, 2005 04:15 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
This just shows once again that Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, ACLU, and other such groups are obviously not "pro-choice" but pro-abortion. It's not enough for them that government not criminalize abortion as murder, not prohibit it, leave women alone to choose for themselves with their own money. No, they insist that government must actively subsidize and promote abortion, must see to it that as many women get abortions as possible, and must silence any dissenting opinions. "Choose Life". Is it better to "Choose Death"?