The Virginian-Pilot
©
RICHMOND
An attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia has threatened to sue state lawmakers if they don't approve a state license plate with a pro-choice theme.
Sen. Janet Howell, D-Fairfax, is carrying a bill to create a plate bearing the phrases "Trust Women/Respect Choice." Her legislation, SB704, comes one year after lawmakers approved an anti-abortion plate proposed by then-Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, the current attorney general, that reads "Choose life."
On Thursday, ACLU attorney Hope Amezquita told the Senate Transportation Committee that it is unconstitutional to permit a pro-life plate without allowing "all other viewpoints on the same subject" to be emblazoned on license plates.
Pro-life advocates have an ally in Gov. Bob McDonnell, who supports stripping Planned Parenthood of any state funding. And several budget amendments submitted by GOP lawmakers seek to accomplish that goal.
The Virginia League for Planned Parenthood receives government funds for education programs and Medicaid reimbursements for patients to whom it provides health care.
Howell's tag would be a revenue-sharing plate, meaning a portion of the proceeds from its sale would go to Planned Parenthood. A slice of the money from "Choose life" plates is routed to a pro-life organization.
Planned Parenthood policy director Jessica Honke said funds from the proposed plate would be placed in a special account used to cover nonabortion services. Cuccinelli said that didn't assuage his concerns about the possibility of state funds being spent on abortions.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Take it easy, Lefties! INHALE!!
Talk about much ado about nothing. If you liberal kooks had one bit of patience you would have notice that NOWHERE in the article is there any mention of anyone who has ANY opposition to this. All this whining for something hasn't even happened yet!
And where in the US Constitution are vanity license plates mentioned/covered? Take your time with this one.
Please.
good for the ACLU
This is what happens when right wing radicals get a hold of power. I hope the ACLU goes ahead with lawsuit, the state had no business taking sides in political issues in the first place, but since the anti-choice forces started this fight, it's coming back to blow up in their faces. Either the state approves the pro-choice plates, or its on to court.
Which "right wing radicals" are opposing this?
Any name cited in this article will do, thank you.
the door was opened
The door was opened with "choose Life" plates. You cannot have just one side of an arguement. If Choose lIfe can become a plate then anything else the people want can also become a plate. It's that simple!
Did you really think this through?
By your logic then, if we have Mother's Against Drunk Driving plates, we should have plates for those that support drunk driving. If we have integration plates, we should have segregation plates. It is not very well-reasoned to suggest that the state should sponsor plates for both sides of every argument. And again with the superflous exclamation point...
Besides, who cares? Just
Besides, who cares? Just don't get the dang plates if ya don't want them. Prolife, prochoice, or pro-nothing. Certain steps have to be involved before a theme plate can go into rotation. If the requirements have been met then start stamping them. If not then the people just don't want them and that's that.
I want one that says "Ban
I want one that says "Ban Cats"
This can be solved with the
This can be solved with the government getting out of the business of this issue. The government doesn't regulate bumperstickers. They needn't concern themselves with this issue.
Pro Life plates & Tebow Superbowl Ad
What?! One side is for Life and one is for, basically, death as a "choice". Some choice, huh. The pro-"choice" camp says its a woman's right to choose. What about the baby, what about her right, or his right ... what choice do you think she or he would make? Hmmm. We all know that it's not a potato baking in there. The fact that only a woman's body can carry a baby doesn't just give her privileges of choice and remove her responsibilities. Baby 101: it takes two people to make a baby, right, hopefully through a meaningful relationship. So, that relationship between two people carries thoughtful planning and decision making in advance of act - do we want to get pregnant. But if a pregnancy happens despite preventative measures, then there is a relationship to care and nuture that baby. Only 4% of abortions are due to rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. To use abortion as a contraceptive tool to rid an unwanted pregnancy is a baseless and unnecessary act. We do claim to be an advanced and civilized society, don't we, yet acting like ancient Greeks or Romans who threw unwanted babies off cliffs to their deaths.
To claim that abortion is an issue of a woman's privacy
part y like it's 1959
I don't think you'll find too many people who will argue with you that the ideal situation for conception is for two committed, loving partners to plan to have a child together. In the real world, however, that simply isn't always the case in 2010.
I realize there are some people who desperately wish America looked like a Leave it to Beaver episode. You know, in the 1950s and early 1960s, when everything was perfect - if you were a straight white Anglo-Saxon male, that is. The movie "Pleasantville" might be worth a look.
I also find it ironic that, in general, those most ardently work to deny a woman's right to choose are also equally passionate in their opposition to sex education in schools. Clearly the best way to reduce abortions isn't to outlaw them - it's to prevent them in the first place. People - even kids - are going to have sex. They just are. What's the harm in empowering them with the knowledge to do it responsibly?