This was debated this year in the Minnesota legislature. Our estimeed governor (former Pro-Wrester Jesse Ventura for anyone who has been living under a rock) promised to veto it if it reached his desk…his rationale (and, I think, a good one) is what is to stop other organizations for asking for license plates with similar controversial (but good intentioned and charitible) causes. For instance, here in the Twin Cities, an organization called District 202 provides services to gay teens (an admirable task, I’ve donated to them in the past). A “gay pride” license plate with the proceeds going to District 202 would be very controversial. Yet, how could the legislature pick and choose? A lawsuit waiting to happen.
Occationally, Jesse impresses me. Like GW, he is exceeding my dismal expectations.
For me at issue would be what the crisis pregnancy centers do. I’m pro-choice, but I’ve given clothes and time to a local crisis pregnancy center because I support the work they do with expectant mothers who have already decided to have their babies. It’s not like I want people who elect not to have an abortion to suffer along with no help or support. If the money goes for that, fine.
But if the money goes toward efforts aimed eliminating or obstructing a woman’s right to choose, I’d be narrowing my eyes and raising a fuss.
I think Jesse Ventura’s rationale is probably more important, though. Makes sense to me.
How about they avoid the whole issue by sticking to phrases like “Ohio… state of corn” or whatever kind of non-offensive slogans will make Ohio look good without alienating millions of people. Or better yet, why does a license plate need a slogan at all? Why not just the information necessary?
When the government puts words in the mouths of its citizens, thats just as much tyranny as “taxation without representation.”
It depends what you read into it. Would people automatically think that it refers to abortion? If so, then I agree that this is controversial.
But to me (and I’m pro-choice), its a pretty neutral term. In abortion debates, people use “pro-life” or “pro-choice”. I’ve not seen “choose life” used in a campaign by one side or the other. As Ross said, it reminds me more of “Trainspotting” more than anything else. To go further on Ross’ explanation of what this meant in the film and the book, it was a nihilist rejection of consumerism and societal values. Ewan McGregor’s character in the film states: “I chose not to choose life. I chose something else”. If you “choose life” you accept the yoke of society. I doubt the esteemed legislator who came up with this idea knows of this interpretation…
This is what makes the whole thing interesting for me. This isn’t about some religious crackpot and his hairbrained idea. This is about a religious crackpot who is just taking advantage of an existing program. We have seen the same thing with Adopt-a-Highway programs. It’s a great concept that has broad support and everybody wins until some “less desirable” organizations want to play.
Ohio either needs to discontinue the program or make sure that the rules apply evenly to all organizations and ideologies, even crackpot ones.
The choose life plates may be unconstitutional because it violates the separation of church and state. That’s assuming that the courts agree that a pro-life stance on abortion is really just a thinly veiled religious message. There is also some argument that it violates the first amendment because it only offers one viewpoint.
Just because many religious groups support the pro life position but that does not mean it’s a religious issue.
I suspect there are many people that are opposed to abortion (not the right to choose, but abortion), but are not “religious”. The church and state argument does not apply here.
In thinking about this, I have to come down that I don’t think it’s appropriate for the state to offer them. Why? Because in the absence of a commemorative plate that takes the opposing viewpoint, it seems to imply that the state has a preference in a debate that it shouldn’t be involved in. Let the legislature in Ohio debate the Ohio implications and constitutionality of allowing abortion in Ohio (and the validity of Roe v. Wade), but I don’t think the DMV-and by extension the state government-should even enter into a debate about this. It portrays them as showing favoritism towards a viewpoint that Ohioans may find distasteful, and that’s not the place of the state government.
Personally, I don’t see the need for ANY “commemorative” or personalized design plates. I realize they bring in revenue, but people can get bumper stickers if they have a philosophy that needs to be expressed via their automobile. Besides, I think it cheapens one’s philosophy if you slap it on the back of your car to be covered with bugs, roadkill, mud and salt. Just my opinion, though.
I’m stalled at the folks thinking it’s ok and done all the time that states ‘donate’ $$ to organizations.
Those monies belong to all of us. Now, a state can pay an organization (profit or non) to perform an activity or provide a service, but those are monitored things.
I’d like some documentation on states ‘donating’ $ to any organization please. I’ve never heard of it, and it strikes me as being very wrong.
[devilsadvocate] What on earth would be the pro-choice alternative to “Choose Life”? “Choose Choice”? That’s kind of silly, isn’t it? [/devilsadvocate]
This charity gets nearly a million dollars in government funds through contracts and grants http://www.deborahsplace.org/main.jsp?key=financials I know this organization and they do not do what I think of when I think of providing a service for or on behalf of the government.
Perhaps these examples are not what you think of when you think of donations but a grant is a gift of money just like a donation is.
I disagree - that’s exactly what I was talking about. my co has gotten grants all the time - we had a ‘grant’ to operate a correction center. Let me assure you that it was in no way, shape or form a ‘donation’.
With a grant, there’s a proposed offer of services, a budget for said services, a contract etc. There’s checks and balances to insure that the co is performing said services in accordance with the contract and audits are performed to insure the monies are spent in authorized manner. Much much different.
There is a difference here. Maybe I’m being hypertechnical, but the government is in the business of operating correctional centers. To “privatize” that and give a grant to a company to run one is not the same as giving a grant to a homeless organization to redecorate a homeless shelter. Yes, both may involve conditions but so do grants from foundations. Private individuals can likewise put strict restrictions on how their donations are to be used. Additionally, the charities themselves are carefully regulated by the government to ensure that the money regardless of its source goes to the purpose for which it’s intended. Having worked for the government and having been involved in a charity that receives government funds as well as private funds, I don’t see the difference.
Just FYI, here in Colorado, we have a “Choose Life” plate. I’ve seen a couple so far. There’s an added twist here, however. Plastered on the front of the plate is a big Columbine, which I guess lends dual meanings to the slogan.
Also, we can get plates for the University of Colorado, but not Colorado State University.
Guadere, I too would – not surprisingly – get a “Choose Death” plate if I could. I doubt I’d have trouble finding 1000 people to sign a petition for one, but 1000 new sales a year might be iffy…
I’m not willing to hijack this further. My non profit operates totally on grant funds through (mostly) governmental sources. They are fundementally different than a donation, and certainly much different than what is suggested by the OP.
