Federal judge rules 'Choose Life' license plates unconstitutional

Spartanburg Herald-Journal ^ | December 31, 2002 | JEFFREY COLLINS

[Captain Shady]

this article

Posted on December 31, 2002 Federal judge rules 'Choose Life' license plates unconstitutional

By JEFFREY COLLINS
Associated Press Writer

A federal court judge has ruled South Carolina's anti-abortion license plates are unconstitutional.

The plates, which include the slogan "Choose Life," violate the First Amendment because it give anti-abortion advocates a forum to express their beliefs, while abortion rights supports have no license plate of their own, Senior U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman ruled last week.

A spokesman for the attorney general's office said the state plans to appeal the decision to 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"We will let the process take its course," spokesman Robb McBurney said. "We're hopeful we're going to win in the end."

Bertelsman's decision is at odds with a ruling made by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, saying that Louisiana abortion rights advocates had no standing to sue that state over its anti-abortion plate.

The whole issue could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, especially if Bertelsman's ruling is upheld, said Peter Murphy, a Columbia attorney representing Planned Parenthood and another plaintiff.

"It's wrong for the government to provide a forum for one group and discriminate by viewpoint," Murphy said Tuesday. "The only way to address this may be to eliminate the forum."

Specialty plates are approved in two ways. Either a nonprofit group can apply to have a plate whose sale will be restricted to its members, or the Legislature can approve a special plate on its own.

The law allowing the "Choose Life" plate was signed by Gov. Jim Hodges in 2001 and included in a bill that allowed NASCAR and other specialty plates. Those plates were not affected by Thursday's ruling.

Planned Parenthood sued days after the law took effect, and a federal judge issued an injunction against issuing the plates two months later.

The ruling shouldn't prevent anti-abortion groups from having their own license plates, but it would require going through the regular approval process for other nonprofit groups rather than going through lawmakers, Bertelsman said.

"Plaintiffs or others who agree with them may utilize that scheme as well," the judge wrote.

In briefs before the court, the state had argued "there is little dispute but that the voice of the State of South Carolina expresses a preference for childbirth over abortion" and that the "Choose Life" license plates are government speech.

But lawyers for Planned Parenthood said the plates cannot be government speech because private individuals choose to buy the special tags and have to pay an extra fee.

In his ruling, Bertelsman acknowledges this decision is more contentious than most.

"This is a free speech case," Bertelsman wrote on the sixth page of his 22-page ruling. "It is not about the merits of the ongoing national controversy between the pro-life and pro-choice movements."

Bertelsman said the arguments in the case match a 4th Circuit ruling on Virginia's decision to prevent the Sons of Confederate Veterans from including its logo on its specialty license plate.

Virginia lawyers said a license plate was a statement by the state, not private speech. But the panel of federal judges disagreed.

[Captain Shady]

Got no problem with the tags myself. If you hate the car tag,don't buy it.I didn't buy it,but thats because it costs more than regular tag and I'm too cheap.Also,I value being anonymous when I travel

[firewalk]

bump to read later....

[Consort]

[Diago]

What other plates are out there?

If there are pro-enviroment plates must there be anti-enviroment plates. If there are anti-smoking plates, must there be pro-smoking plates. If there are buckle up plates, must there be "don't buckle up" plates. If there are pro-American plates, must there be anti-American plates.

This judge is a jackass.

[SubMareener]

I don't know why the South Carolina Legislature didn't authorize the "Kill Babies" plates when it authorized the "Choose Life" plates.

[doosee]

while abortion rights supports have no license plate of their own

I guess they dont want CHOOSE DEATH.

[Diago]

What other plates are out there?

If there are pro-enviroment plates must there be anti-enviroment plates. If there are anti-smoking plates, must there be pro-smoking plates. If there are buckle up plates, must there be "don't buckle up" plates. If there are pro-American plates, must there be anti-American plates.

This judge is a jackass.

[machman]

What about New Hampshire? With their LIVE FREE OR DIE on all plates (at least they used to have it on them). What are the rights for people who would gladly live under slavery rather than fight for freedom?? Where is their "voice". hehe ;^)

[RJCogburn]

The whole situation is silly. Use the plates to identify vehicles, that is what they are used for. Does everybody have to have a vanity plate that spouts some point of view? Are there not already enough ways to make ones point of view clear? Do even the most arcane parts of life have to have a political purpose?

Silly!

Live Free or Die.

[roderick]

A federal court judge has ruled South Carolina's anti-abortion license plates are unconstitutional

Okay, what section or amendment to the US Constitution was violated? This newspaper article is typical, no reference to our founding document. The editors probably acknowledge what I do not, that most sheeple couldn't care less what article or if any article of the Constitution was violated.

How did we slide so far to allow ourselves to be ruled by self appointed philosopher-kings?

[leadpenny]

The only way we will rid ourselves of these constant assaults on 'free speech' is for the individual States or the US to outlaw all theme and vanity plates. Of course that won't happen anytime soon because they are a 'cash cow'. IMO, if you want to say something by wearing it on your car, make a sticker and put it on your bumper. License plates should be just license plates and nothing else.

[Cvengr]

This judge is a jackass.

Careful,....this just in yesterday...Multiple liabilities, perhaps the judge should be enjoined as part of a class action.

A Montana man who legally changed his name to "Jack Ass" in 1997 has sued media giant Viacom Inc. (NYSE:VIA - News), claiming its stunt-heavy, gross-out TV show and movie "Jackass" had defamed his character.

[Notwithstanding]

Any government in the USA is free to contract with others in order to promote speech the state favors. A common example is when a state promotes its own seatbelt laws by hiring TV stations to air pro-seatbelt advertisements.

Another example: a state is free to promote its state universities by "contracting" with auto owners to use university license plates.

It seems that a state is free to favor choosing life (even if forced to allow the choice of death - much like a state can promote staying in school even if kids can legally drop out of school at age 16) and promote that choice via license plates.

In fact, it seems more likely to be Constitutional "state speech" in favor of choosing life when the legislature voices the opinion of the state than when some private group seeks to promote its own message through an adminstrative procedure and ends up making use of state license plates to promote a private message in the process. This would conceivably allow a pro-anarchy group to force the state to promote its anarchy message.

This judge is out to lunch as far as understanding the first amendment.

[crystalk]

I have often wished I too was a damned idiot, for then I too could be a Federal judge and make $200M a year guaranteed for life.

[Brilliant]

Abortionists have no forum in which to express their beliefs? What about the liberal media? Perhaps the judge should declare the media unconstitutional since it seems to express only on side of the issues.

[gaspar]

Judge Bertelsman, son of a judge, country-club Republican, named by Jimmy Carter, and no respector of state's rights, should have retired in 2001. To call this a "free speech issue" and then deny free speech authorized by the state seems ludicrous. Vanity plates are everywhere. I should think that peaceniks will soon sue to outlaw the use of purple heart plates, or veteran's plates. In fact, opponents of one stripe or another could find some excuse to prohibit any plate that said anything other than the state name.

[Notwithstanding]

From a US Supreme Court Opinion:

"We think it abundantly clear that HN10a State is not required to show a compelling interest for its policy choice to favor normal childbirth any more than a State must so justify its election to fund public but not private education."

MAHER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF CONNECTICUT v. ROE ET AL.

432 U.S. 464 (1977)

[leadpenny]

In theory you may be correct, but in practice the States actually do more to harm free speech. Every State has a system of vanity plates accompanied by "Censorship Committees." I would almost guarantee you that you would not be allowed to have a license plate with the letters FAAA Q, when no one could legally challenge your desire to have the same letters in the form of a bumper sticker.

There are numerous examples, here in Virginia, of people having their plates pulled because they offended another citizen. Years ago a woman in the Virginia Beach area had a plate pulled by the state because it spelled MESSIAH backwards. Someone complained because it mixed religion with the state. A friend of mine was incensed over the state doing that. A few months later I did something to prove the point even further. I was cut-off by someone in a red sports car that had the plates, U SINNR. I penned off a note to the Secretary of State in Richmond and stated that "Sinner" was defined as a violation of religious law and that I was offended by the plate. A couple of months later I received a very nice letter from the Secretary thanking me for my vigilance and assured me that the offending plate had been pulled. My friend was even more upset when I told him about it.

[Notwithstanding]

From the official syllabus of Rust v. Sullivan (500 U.S. 173, 1991, US Supreme Court):

"There is no question but that [the statute's] prohibition is constitutional, since the Government may make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion and implement that judgment by the allocation of public funds. In so doing, the Government has not discriminated on the basis of viewpoint; it has merely chosen to fund one activity to the exclusion of another."