High Court Defers on 'Choose Life' Plates

[Steff]

:headshake

 

21 minutes ago

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court declined Monday to consider whether states may offer plates with anti-abortion messages, leaving lower courts divided over whether the programs in a dozen states unconstitutionally restrict dissenting views.

 

Without comment, justices let stand a lower court ruling that said South Carolina's license plates, which bear the slogan "Choose Life," violate the First Amendment because abortion rights supporters weren't given a similar forum to express their beliefs.

 

 

The high court's move means that South Carolina will either have to eliminate the specialty plates or begin offering plates with abortion-rights views. That ruling is an odds, however, with a decision by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which essentially allowed the plates because it said anti-abortion advocates didn't have standing to bring a lawsuit in the case.

 

 

Under the South Carolina program begun in 2001, drivers may pay a $70 fee to purchase the anti-abortion plates, with the revenue going toward local crisis pregnancy programs. Specialty plates with abortion-rights slogans are not offered.

 

 

Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) of South Carolina, which filed the lawsuit, had argued the program amounts to "viewpoint discrimination" by state officials since they allow expression of only one side of the abortion debate.

 

 

South Carolina countered that the plates are "government speech" that entitles them to allow a particular viewpoint without an obligation to include dissenting views. Otherwise, the state would have to allow countering views to license plates touching on any public policy matter, such as "God Bless America."

 

 

The plate is "the most recent and apparently most visible expression in a long line of statements asserting the state's clear and oft-repeated preference for childbirth over abortion," state officials argued in their filing.

 

 

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites), based in Richmond, Va., disagreed and ruled the plates were unconstitutional. It rejected South Carolina's claim that Planned Parenthood lacked "standing," or an actual injury, since it never applied for a specialty plate under a separate law allowing nonprofit groups to seek plates bearing their insignia for members. The 4th Circuit also covers Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia.

 

 

The ruling was at odds with one by the 5th Circuit, which ruled in December 2002 that Louisiana abortion rights advocates had no standing to sue that state over its anti-abortion plate. The 5th Circuit covers the states of Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.

 

 

Planned Parenthood may "base their claim of injury on the state's unequal treatment of two viewpoints in the abortion debate, specifically, its promotion of only the pro-life view," the 4th Circuit stated.

 

 

According to South Carolina's court filing, 11 other states offer driver "Choose Life" plates and lawmakers in 11 additional states are considering providing them.

 

 

States offering the plates are: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma and Tennessee.

 

 

The states that have "undertaken legislative action to some degree" on anti-abortion plates are: California, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Virginia.

 

 

The law allowing the "Choose Life" plate was signed by South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges in 2001 and included in a bill that allowed NASCAR (news - web sites) and other specialty plates. In 2003, U.S. District Judge Patrick Michael Duffy issued a preliminary injunction blocking South Carolina from issuing the plates until the case was heard.

 

 

The case is Rose v. Planned Parenthood of South Carolina, 04-429.

 

 

___

 

 

On the Net:

 

 

 

 

 

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

[JUGGERNAUT]

Generally speaking,

 

Personal income of those working in abortion clinics drawf that of those working in crisis pregnancy centers. The number of abortion clinics in the US drawfs the number of crisis pregnancy centers. The amount of government funding/spending on abortion clinics drawfs that of cpc's.

 

When that is no longer the case then I can take this insane & spiteful debate seriously. The only one hurt by what SC is trying to do are those in love with abortion. So much in love with it that they don't want to be reminded or challenged by it.

 

Specifically speaking,

As long as SC offers an individual the opportunity to put any slogan they want on their plate (incl a pro-abortion) one then this is not a violation of 1st Amendment rights.

 

The 1st Amend does not imply the right to be heard. Which in this case means that all forms of speech carry an equal weight & therefore should have equal access to the public. If it did imply that then media companies today could not exist. Instead we would have some kind of time-share management of all media outlets. So there is a firm established culture that capitalism determines the access to which any one person's speech can be heard. The elected government in SC representing the people of SC have the right to offer slogans that they feel best reflect the majority consensus of their constituents & would generate the most sales. That is how supply & demand works. Likewise if the govt in SC doesn't feel a pro-abortion slogan best relfects the majority consensus viewpoints of their constituents & would generate few sales then it makes no sense for them to burdened by the costs of the supply.

 

If SC were to refuse pro-abortion slogans under a personalized plate service then they would be in violation of the 1st Amendment. That would amount unfair & unlawful censorship. I have not read anything to that effect. If the pro-abortion advocates believe that the majority of SCians want their plates then they can call for a state referrendum on the issue.

 

In my opinion this is yet another example of a spiteful minority trying to censor the actions of the majority because they are in disagreement with them. The best name for these people is egotists. Since they do not agree with the democratically elected majority they will do everything in their power to undermine it. If you do not believe in democracy above all else then you are not an American. You are a socialist. You believe that your way of life is more important than the majority's right to choose their way of life. Since America represents democracy above all else it would be best if you just left.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Juggs, there's been plenty of other things that the majority agreed with:

 

Slavery, demanding minorities sit at the back of the bus/use seperate facilities etc., not dumping Jim Crow laws, criminalizing sexual behavior between consenting adults comes to mind.

 

To paraphrase Frank Zappa -- Just because you have a million people believe it doesn't make it right. Look at how many people supported Hitler. The amount of public support he had didn't make what he did right.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Slavery, demanding minorities sit at the back of the bus/use seperate facilities etc., not dumping Jim Crow laws, criminalizing sexual behavior between consenting adults comes to mind.

 

Specifically,

ALL OF THESE represent individualistic viewpoints NOT CHALLENGED by the majority.

When they were challenged by the majority they were overruled.

 

Generally,

You are making your argument based on a relativisitc system of individualistic morality

which you believe in. I may agree with that system but I do not agree with the general principle that any such system should ever usurp the will of the majority.

 

Democracy first, individual rights second.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Slavery, demanding minorities sit at the back of the bus/use seperate facilities etc., not dumping Jim Crow laws, criminalizing sexual behavior between consenting adults comes to mind.

 

Specifically,

ALL OF THESE represent individualistic viewpoints NOT CHALLENGED by the majority.

When they were challenged by the majority they were overruled. 

 

Generally,

You are making your argument based on a relativisitc system of individualistic morality

which you believe in.  I may agree with that system but I do not agree with the general principle that any such system should ever usurp the will of the majority.

 

Democracy first, individual rights second.

 

One more time...real slowly...W e A r e N o t A D e m o c r a c y. W e A r e A R e p u b l i c. And the systems of slavery etc. wouldn't have stayed in place if the majority didn't affirm them.

[JUGGERNAUT]

One more time we are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. Democracy first.

 

Secondly, an individualistic viewpoint supported by the wealthy will remain in effect UNTIL THE MAJORITY of the POPULATION challenges it. That is what happened with the civil war. Through the influence of books, speeches, & rights of assembly by abolitionists the majority were made aware of the issue & sought to end slavery. When they opposed the wealthy the wealthy used their resources to retain slavery. There was no avenue for a peaceful solution. The resources of the wealthy had to be destroyed so that slavery could not be retained.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

One more time we are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.  Democracy first.

 

Secondly, an individualistic viewpoint supported by the wealthy will remain in effect UNTIL THE MAJORITY of the POPULATION challenges it. That is what happened with the civil war.  Through the influence of books, speeches, & rights of assembly by abolitionists the majority were made aware of the issue & sought to end slavery.  When they opposed the wealthy the wealthy used their resources to retain slavery.  There was no avenue for a peaceful solution.  The resources of the wealthy had to be destroyed so that slavery could not be retained.

 

Its a Constitution based federal republic but who needs little pesky things like facts getting in the way of pseudo-science and quasi-fascism, right?

[Soxy]

Its a Constitution based federal republic but who needs little pesky things like facts getting in the way of pseudo-science and quasi-fascism, right?

I certainly don't need facts to get in my way. Now, get to Russia you pinko Commie!!!

Edited January 26, 2005 by ChiSoxyGirl

[JUGGERNAUT]

Its a Constitution based federal republic but who needs little pesky things like facts getting in the way of pseudo-science and quasi-fascism, right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's Constitution based on the principles of democracy fashioned around the federal system of a republic. As to your references equating democracy to fascism you should stop while you are ahead. You sound pretty stupid.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

It's Constitution based on the principles of democracy fashioned around the federal system of a republic. As to your references equating democracy to fascism you should stop while you are ahead.  You sound pretty stupid.

 

No I'm saying that an oppression of the majority is indeed fascism when there is no giving a damn about individual rights -- which is something you seem to be very apt about doing. It can be based on principles of democracy but that does not change the FACT that it is a federal republic. So your entire argumentation has been wrong.

[JUGGERNAUT]

No I'm saying that an oppression of the majority is indeed fascism when there is no giving a damn about individual rights -- which is something you seem to be very apt about doing.  It can be based on principles of democracy but that does not change the FACT that it is a federal republic.  So your entire argumentation has been wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's wrong for me to suggest you are stupid but based on what you have written I must conclude you are ignorant. We are a democratic republic. Why? Because the officials that govern that republic are elected via a democratic process. It's pretty simple stuff.

 

Now with respect to fascism since you seem to love to mirror it to democracy, I would like for you to list at least 3 historicial references whereby a democratic vote led to a fascist policy.

 

Finally if you trully believe that a person who suggests there exists a limit to individual rights is a fascists please don't bother to respond. You are becoming a waste of my time.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

It's wrong for me to suggest you are stupid but based on what you have written I must conclude you are ignorant.  We are a democratic republic.  Why?  Because the officials that govern that republic are elected via a democratic process.  It's pretty simple stuff.

 

Now with respect to fascism since you seem to love to mirror it to democracy, I would like for you to list at least 3 historicial references whereby a democratic vote led to a fascist policy. 

 

Finally if you trully believe that a person who suggests there exists a limit to individual rights is a fascists please don't bother to respond.  You are becoming a waste of my time.

 

How about 4 off the top of my head?

Hitler

Pinochet

Haider (Austria) -- believe that's how its spelled, I'm just about out the door

Papadopoulos (Greece)

 

They won the popular plebisites and elections and it led to fascist policies being implemented.

[JUGGERNAUT]

How about 4 off the top of my head?

Hitler

Pinochet

Haider (Austria) -- believe that's how its spelled, I'm just about out the door

Papadopoulos (Greece)

 

They won the popular plebisites and elections and it led to fascist policies being implemented.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wrong again. Study the historical facts. Each of them controlled the election process.

In fact they are perfect examples of individualistic will gain control of a minority group & then using the power & influence of the minority to control the majority. Simply put Hitler was a socialist. He had an egotistical vision for society & used every means at his disposal to impose it upon the majority.

[Rex Kickass]

Slavery, demanding minorities sit at the back of the bus/use seperate facilities etc., not dumping Jim Crow laws, criminalizing sexual behavior between consenting adults comes to mind.

 

Specifically,

ALL OF THESE represent individualistic viewpoints NOT CHALLENGED by the majority.

When they were challenged by the majority they were overruled. 

 

Generally,

You are making your argument based on a relativisitc system of individualistic morality

which you believe in.  I may agree with that system but I do not agree with the general principle that any such system should ever usurp the will of the majority.

 

Democracy first, individual rights second.

 

The majority certainly did not challenge sexual behavior laws. The last time I saw, it wasn't the majority challenging sodomy laws in Texas. I wasn't seeing any "job-ins" in Austin. Although I wouldn't have minded seeing one.

[Rex Kickass]

One more time we are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.  Democracy first.

 

 

That phrase Democratic Republic seemed so familiar to me and it took me a minute to figure out why.

 

Countries which used the phrase "Democratic Republic" in their names.

 

German Democratic Republic (East Germany)

 

Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)

 

And I honestly mean nothing by it. Just remembered it and, in my complete lack of being able to not shut up, I thought I'd share.

 

 

Moving on....

 

The issue here is equal opportunity to speak. If the state government grants an anti-abortion group a chance to raise money through license plates with its slogan, the state government should be obligated under the constitution to offer a similar pro-choice group a chance to raise money through license plates with its slogan.

 

Assuming an apples to apples comparison for non-profits show that both meet the same requirements, allowing one organization to peddle the plates would show a defacto state endorsement of a specific political view and would be denying the equal opportunity of expression for the other group. It doesn't matter if the issue is abortion, gay marriage, or baseball team preference. If one non-profit, meeting all requirements, is denied the same access and opportunity by the state as the other, its first amendment rights are being infringed upon.

[JUGGERNAUT]

The majority certainly did not challenge sexual behavior laws.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not true. If you look at polling & surveys that were done on the issue prior to that decision they were ready to fall. The majority of Americans had a high level of tolerance at the time the laws were struck down. If they had put that on state refs

I'm pretty sure the vote to strike them down would have won.

 

Right or wrong I respect what happened there because it demostrated how the system works. Artists within media companies used their power & resources to influence the will of the majority. They were individuals representing a minority group who sought peaceful means to influence the process. Since the time the laws were struck down there has not been any major movement to re-instate something of that nature. Generally speaking most Texans approve of the court's action. They care more about school prayer than the right to entertain an alternative lifestyle.

 

When the court ruled against school prayer the majority in those states attempted to pass a constitutional amendment protecting that right. That issue has not gone away.

In contrast when the sodomy laws were struck down there was no such movement.

That's a clear sign to me the majority accepted the decision.

 

Democracy works.

[JUGGERNAUT]

The issue here is equal opportunity to speak. If the state government grants an anti-abortion group a chance to raise money through license plates with its slogan, the state government should be obligated under the constitution to offer a similar pro-choice group a chance to raise money through license plates with its slogan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then every government dollar that goes to abortion clinics should be matched by one that goes to crisis pregnancy centers. There is no such thing as pro-choice & anti-abortion. There is only pro-abortion & pro-life. If you believe otherwise you are ignoring the monetary facts.

 

There is nothing in the US Cons that implies a state government much offer equal opportunity to raise funding through the construction of license plates. If you disagree please cite a reference. Were money, selling, & production are involved between private & government resources I defer to the defense department. They offer a bidding process to private resources to meet their needs. In the end they choose the one they feel best meets those needs. In this case the state determined the need to help assist cpc's exceeded that of the need to help assist abortion clinics.

It's not hard to come to that decision looking at the monetary situation of the two groups.

[Rex Kickass]

The Department of Motor Vehicles is not a leg up program for financially challenged non-profits. If you believe in that kind of welfare, maybe you should go to Spain with all the other socialists.

 

This is about equal opportunity. If you deny a viewpoint's ability to be expressed in the same manner as an opposing viewpoint, you are denying expression.

 

This is not an issue about reproductive rights. This is an issue of the government limiting expression. Get past the wedge and find the real issue.

[JUGGERNAUT]

This is about equal opportunity. If you deny a viewpoint's ability to be expressed in the same manner as an opposing viewpoint, you are denying expression.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is nothing in this case that shows a denial of a viewpoint. Pro-abortion persons have the right to purchase personalized license plates in SC advocating thier personal viewpoints. If the state feels there is not sufficient demand to offer a customized service for those viewpoints they have a right not to supply demand. The pro-abortion advocates have provided ZERO evidence to suggest ample demand by SC residents.

 

The rest of what you said is pure bulls***. You choose to ignore the vast disparity of monetary resources between abortion clinics & cpc's. That clearly defines you as a person who is not interested in fairness but rather in censorship of the disadvantaged

to an extent to where they can not even seek assistance through public support. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

The fact remains that on general principles it's just as illegal for government dollars to be spent on these clinics as it is for the state of SC to try & provide help to cpc's.

Only a socialist who believes their own moral relativist bulls*** doesn't stink would think otherwise.

[Texsox]

These plates are a state sponsored fund raiser for some groups.

 

I reject the linking of the causes in determining which groups have the opportunity to participate in this program.

 

Set the standards fairly and without bias, and whichever groups meet the criteria are allowed to participate. If the pro wants to participate and the anti doesn't, so be it. The pro shouldn't be held out because of the anti's decision. If the Anti group conforms to all the requirements, and the pro group cannot, again one shouldn't be linked to the other.

[Rex Kickass]

That's sort of the point to begin with. I don't know the specifics of this court case - but the principle seems pretty similar.

 

Personally, I think they should get rid of special plates anyway, and a lot of cops seem to think so too. Makes it harder to identify out of state plates.

[southsider2k5]

That's sort of the point to begin with. I don't know the specifics of this court case - but the principle seems pretty similar.

 

Personally, I think they should get rid of special plates anyway, and a lot of cops seem to think so too. Makes it harder to identify out of state plates.

 

Thing is, its an easy revenue generator. The plates aren't going to change anytime soon.

[Rex Kickass]

More revenue > better law enforcement.

 

sad.

[YASNY]

I don't suppose anybody would take into consideration the opinion of the state of SC?

 

 

Nah ... bunch of damn redneck hillibillies don't have a clue. (Dripping with sarcasm)