It's well-established that U.S. governments may not engage in "viewpoint discrimination" when creating legislation which even tangentially interferes with free speech. This principle was reiterated recently by a federal judge who overturned Rep. Bob Barr's attempts to prohibit a D.C. medical marijuana initiative, and is embraced even by conservative justices such as Antonin Scalia.

In 1992, Scalia wrote the opinion for St. Paul v. R.A.V., in which the Supreme Court overturned a St. Paul statute prohibiting cross-burning. Under the statute, Scalia mused, "One could hold up a sign saying, for example, that all 'anti-Catholic bigots' are misbegotten; but not that all 'papists' are, for that would insult and provoke violence 'on the basis of religion.' St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules."

So now we have Mississippi, Florida and Louisiana teaming up to provide their citizens with the option of getting "Choose Life" (anti-abortion) slogans for their license plates. (You can see what Florida's slogan looks like here.) Under the plan, the driver would pay $25 extra for the license plate, which would in turn be used to fund "crisis pregnancy centers that advise women solely against abortions." No similar plan is, of course, in the works for "pro-choice" drivers.

This plan would be much different if these states simply decided to allow drivers to affix stickers or slogans to a certain reserved space on the license plate, which would then allow the drivers to purchase their own slogans. But for the state to step in and pre-make license plates with one political viewpoint on them -- to the exclusion of others -- seems to be a direct violation of the First Amendment.

So far we have only heard from one court on this issue, but it never reached the First Amendment issue at all; the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a lawsuit against Louisiana's program because the plaintiffs had suffered no real injury and, thus, had no standing to sue the state. (I'm imagining the result would have been different had one of the plaintiffs actually applied for -- and was declined the opportunity to get -- a "Pro-Choice" license plate.)

Of course, if any doubt exists as to whether Louisiana is indeed embracing one abortion viewpoint over another, the doubt vanishes when one examines the statute. (Skip to Appendix A of the 5th Circuit opinion, above.) Subsection E creates a "Choose Life Advisory Council" to oversee how the license plate funds will be distributed. Serving on that Council are "The president, or his designee, from the American Family Association [and] The president, or his designee from the Louisiana Family Forum [and] The president, or his designee, from the Concerned Women for America organization." Nothing but far-right extreme groups whose intellectual bankruptcy we've followed here for nearly two years. (Physicians may also serve on this Council, but this is "At the discretion of the Council.")

Now for the part that should enrage all of us as taxpayers. Choose Life has IRC s. 501(c)(3) status, which means it is classified as a charitable or non-profit organization for tax purposes. According to the IRS, an organization which qualifies for this status "may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities."

Funny how the first thing you see on the Choose Life webpage is language pleading with you to support a similar license plate program in Oklahoma. Guess that's part of how Choose Life refrains from influencing legislation. Give me a break.

-Jason

vote FOR this article vote AGAINST this article flag as spam/abuse
Log in if you are corsican for more options. 
Find similar articles