home
RSS
'Choose Life' license plates ruled unconstitutional in North Carolina
December 11th, 2012
01:13 AM ET

'Choose Life' license plates ruled unconstitutional in North Carolina

By Joe Sutton, CNN

(CNN) - A federal judge ruled that North Carolina's new "Choose Life" license plates are unconstitutional because the state does not offer a pro-choice alternative.

"The State's offering a Choose Life license plate in the absence of a pro-choice alternative constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment," U.S. District Court Judge James Fox wrote in the ruling Friday.

The ruling was praised by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had filed a lawsuit in 2011 to stop the specialty plates.

"This is a great victory for the free speech rights of all North Carolinians, regardless of their point of view on reproductive freedom," said Chris Brook of the ACLU. "The government cannot create an avenue of expression for one side of a contentious political issue while denying an equal opportunity to citizens with the opposite view."

Republican state Rep. Mitch Gillespie, who sponsored the bill for the "Choose Life" plates, said he would push for an appeal of the judge's decision, CNN affiliate WRAL reported.

The bill for the license plates passed in 2011, and the legislation also mandated that money raised from the sale of the specialty plates would go to a nonprofit that supports crisis pregnancy centers, WRAL reported.

During the fight to get the bill passed, North Carolina lawmakers voted down amendments that would have created pro-choice alternatives such as "Trust Women. Respect Choice," the affiliate reported.

The "Choose Life" plates are available in 29 states, according to Choose Life Inc., a nonprofit that helps states that want to sell these specialty plates.

- A. Hawkins

Filed under: Abortion • Courts • North Carolina

soundoff (3,213 Responses)
  1. Tom

    It's a sad commentary on our times when two simple words, "Choose Life," stir so much hate and controversy.

    December 11, 2012 at 9:58 am |
    • FreeFromTheism

      what's sad is that the state attempted to push more propaganda and cultural indoctrination

      December 11, 2012 at 10:02 am |
    • ItsJustMe

      Then why not approve the alternative for those who want to have a Pro-choice license plate? Why so unfair?

      December 11, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • EStev

      It tells you something about how people have misappropriated these simple words.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:12 am |
    • Saraswati

      @ItsJustMe, It's always going to be unfair because on things there aren't just two positions. There are hundreds, or thousands, of positions. This practice favors government sanctioned speech for those groups whose ideas are both simplistic enough to fit on a license plate, and who have the size and money to push the plate through all the loops. Additionally, certain opinions will NEVER be approved by the state, and others will be relatively unusable because people who expressed their opinions would have a valid fear for their life and property (yes, I know people who've had their cars damaged and been harassed by cops for certain window and bumper stickers...they sure wouldn't risk plates).

      If you want to express yourself use a bumper or window sticker or a plate frame. Pretending you can't do this is just flat out dishonesty for political gain.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:15 am |
    • Sick of these plates in Florida

      It's a sad commentary that people are able to push their agenda on a controversial religious issue on a state issued license plate, and people with the opposing view are prohibited by that state to also do so.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:50 am |
  2. True pro choice

    They should offer pro-choice plates. So then they can fund abortions with money from people who approve instead of using tax dollars from those who don't. Real choice should include my choosing not to have my tax dollars pay for abortions.

    December 11, 2012 at 9:58 am |
    • 999 Plan

      good point.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:59 am |
    • putty

      Unfortunately, government does not work like that. You do not have a huge say in where your tax dollars go. Not only that, but there is little transparency in where they are going, too.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:01 am |
    • Mrs. Pepperpot

      No tax dollars go for paying for abortions, and never have.
      A common myth that is total fallacy.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:05 am |
    • MMM

      Fortunately, your tax dollars don't pay for abortions. Please get informed.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:05 am |
    • JohnQuest

      I believe execution are Barbaric and I'm heart Broken that my tax dollars are used by the State to Kill its citizen, I should not have to pay for something I am 100% against.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:06 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      First off, you tax dollars DON'T pay for abortion. Second: I don't want my tax dollars used to pay for unjust wars.

      You don't get a line-item veto. Get over it.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:07 am |
    • Saraswati

      Personally I'd like to see my tax dollars paying for free birth control.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:09 am |
    • wally

      By that logic I could say that I want to specify where each of my tax dollars goes or does not go. And while I might like to pick and chose (and there are some things the government spends our money on that I too would really like to say no to) it doesn't work that way. Unfortunately we have been conditioned now to expect simple solutions to complex issues, and we refuse to discuss them in a meaningful way and consider different views as evil, stupid, ignorant, etc etc so instead we get nowhere.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:09 am |
    • wally

      @True Pro Choice

      By that logic I could say that I want to specify where each of my tax dollars goes or does not go. And while I might like to pick and chose (and there are some things the government spends our money on that I too would really like to say no to) it doesn't work that way. Unfortunately we have been conditioned now to expect simple solutions to complex issues, and we refuse to discuss them in a meaningful way and consider different views as evil, stupid, ignorant, etc etc so instead we get nowhere.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:10 am |
    • Opinions are not Facts

      Your tax dollars don't pay for abortions and absolutely never have (just because Rush said it doesn't make it true). What your tax dollars do pay for? All those unfunded births and ER visits. Those food stamps you probably hate. All those programs for low income people who you'd rather just see wither and die *outside* the womb. Personally I'd rather my tax dollars pay for birth control and *prevent* unintended pregnancies, but I bet you're against that too...

      December 11, 2012 at 10:11 am |
    • putty

      I think his point was that his tax dollars support facilities that perform abortions, and he'd rather they go to women's health clinics that do not perform abortions. I'm hoping it's common knowledge that by law tax dollars cannot fund abortions. I'm pro-choice, but I do understand not wanting your money to go towards supporting something you're ethically opposed to. I don't think you're ever going to have complete health care for women at a facility that does not fully support reproductive medical care and mental health – telling a woman with a serious health or mental issue to just wait it out for nine months is not health care. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that point.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • Anti Stupidity

      ..and those that pay for Choose Life plates should entirely fund the food stramps, section-8 housing, Medicais, free school lunches, and incarceration costs for these unwanted kids. I betcha the pro-choicers come out financially on top.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:17 am |
  3. N.Shapiro

    The anti-abortion "Life" argument is a fake anti- Biblical lie.
    A fetus is not human life according to the Bible, see / compare
    'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense
    Human life begins at birth, the anti-abortion people are wrong!.

    December 11, 2012 at 9:57 am |
    • fiftyfive55

      Funny but we were taught life begins at conception and that's when we are to be responsible for another human being's life,so sad how many people fail at preservimg life,our most valuable wealth.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:02 am |
    • peter piper

      Exodus 21:22-24
      New International Version (NIV)
      22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,...

      December 11, 2012 at 10:05 am |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      Everything in the bible is true because the bible told me so. At least one of the many versions did anyway…

      December 11, 2012 at 10:11 am |
    • Rich

      @fiftyfive55: taught that by the Bible, or taught that by your church/family/community? There's a big difference.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:19 am |
    • CavPilot

      Sorry, you extrapolate nonsense from those verses.. try these...

      Isaiah 49:1
      "[ The Servant of the LORD ] Listen to me, you islands; hear this, you distant nations: Before I was born the LORD called me; from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name." - Only something alive can hear.

      Jeremiah 1:5
      “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” An assignment is not given to a lifeless thing.

      Hosea 12:3
      "In the womb he grasped his brother’s heel; as a man he struggled with God." If he is not alive, how come there is movement?

      Luke 1:44
      "As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy." How can something "not alive" experience emotion?

      December 11, 2012 at 10:23 am |
  4. Jeff

    Let me first preface this and say that any woman that is a victim of r.a.p.e or i.n.c.e.s.t or any other crime is free to choose as they see fit.

    For all the other women out there, you need to face the result of the CHOICE you made 9 months prior. The best advice I can give if you don't want a child is to not have s.e.x. If you don't follow that advice, that's cool...but you don't get a mulligan if you become pregnant.

    December 11, 2012 at 9:56 am |
    • Huebert

      "but you don't get a mulligan if you become pregnant."

      Why not? Medical science has progressed far enough so that there is no reason for a woman to have a child she does not want. Why do you want to bring more unwanted children into the world?

      December 11, 2012 at 10:03 am |
    • fiftyfive55

      VERY well said,absolutely true.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:03 am |
    • Saraswati

      @jeff, have you actually thought this through? Do you want a woman to prove she was a victim of ra p.e or inc.est before she gets an abortion? How exactly would she do this in a timely manner? How would a woman, or 14 year old girl, who fears for her safety do this? How would you ensure that a desperate woman didn't falsely claim ra .ped to get an abortion, ultimately leaving an innocent man in jail? This kind of exclusion simply doesn't work in practice.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:03 am |
    • karl-Heinz

      Jeff, what a woman does with her body is her bussiness.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:04 am |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      Jeff is the same type of person that complains the gubment is intruding in our lives. Then turns around and wants to use the gubment to control over people’s lives.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:13 am |
    • Jeff

      @Huebert...are you really saying that removing a child because you don't want it is cool? Do you not think a woman is capable of responsible action? If she CHOOSES to be s.e.x.u.a.l.l.y active, she needs to be aware of what possible outcomes are out there.

      @fiftyfive55...thank you. Common sense I think!
      |
      Saraswati...I understand your points, but now you're talking about specific instances. My post is an "in general' type of thing. There do need to be better methods in place for victims...both of r.a.p.e and of the accusation of said crime.

      @karl-Heinz...I agree, but with the caveat that what she did 9 months prior has a consequence. If she doesn't like what that looks like, she needs to rethink her s.e.x.u.a.l activity.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:16 am |
    • Jeff

      @Third Eagle of the Apocalypse...what the hell are you talking about? Your post doesn't even make sense...are you sure you meant to reply to me?

      December 11, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • myweightinwords

      So a woman is on birth control, being responsible for her body and her life, but the birth control fails (none of them are 100%).

      She is still in college, has no income, has no means of supporting a child, and for that matter has no means of obtaining pre-natal care for herself and the fetus. You would force her to carry that child to term and deliver, knowing it will derail her education, likely lead to her dropping out to get a job, resigning her and that child to a life below the poverty line?

      Or a married woman with four kids who has started menopause who discovers herself pregnant on the one month out of six that she ovulates. Her husband just got laid off and she's working for minimum wage at Wal-Mart, no health insurance, one special needs kid already, barely scraping by. She should be forced to carry that child to term and deliver? Then what?

      Who is going to pay the medical bills? Who is going to keep the roof over their heads and food on their table when WalMart lets her go in her eighth month, claiming seasonal lay offs?

      Abortion is not a black and white thing. There are many more reasons than rape or incest for which a woman would choose to have one.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:26 am |
    • Primewonk

      First of all, it's a fetus, not a child.

      Secondly, how nice that you have appointed yourself as the judge of who is and who isn't "worthy" of a medical procedure.

      Finally, in many areas (see red states) it is illegal to teach actual sèx ed to students. And additionally, many ignorant fundiot nutters want to limit/prevent access to effective birth control.

      Sorry.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • Jeff

      @myweightinwords...the bottom line to me is this...did the woman CHOOSE to have s.e.x? If yes, then all of your arguments are void in my mind.

      If a college student does not want a child to interfere with her education, she should be mindful of the CHOICES she makes while still in school. Your point that birth control is NOT 100% is common knowledge. If a woman CHOOSES to have s.e.x while on the pill, she should be well aware of the fact that no birth control is 100%. Your married woman scenario is pretty unique...I guess I'll give you credit for creativity. It doesn't change the fact that if my wife and I have s.e.x, pregnancy is possible...however unlikely it may be.

      Abortion is absolutely a black and white thing in my mind outside of the crimes I referenced in my original post.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:34 am |
    • Jeff

      @Primewonk

      First of all, it's a fetus, not a child.

      ...then why does it need to be aborted?

      Secondly, how nice that you have appointed yourself as the judge of who is and who isn't "worthy" of a medical procedure.

      ...yeah, I was pretty happy to elect myself. It was a landslide too if you want to know.

      Finally, in many areas (see red states) it is illegal to teach actual sèx ed to students. And additionally, many ignorant fundiot nutters want to limit/prevent access to effective birth control.

      Sorry.

      ...see red states? Really? So you're telling me that there is an entire group of people out there that don't know that having s.e.x can get you pregnant? LOL! I knew democrats were dumb, but even I gave them more credit than that!

      December 11, 2012 at 10:37 am |
    • Huebert

      @Jeff

      Are you really saying that removing a child because you don't want it is cool?
      I think it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to remove a fetus because she does not want it to grow into a child.

      Do you not think a woman is capable of responsible action?
      I think that sometimes abortion is the responsible action.

      If she CHOOSES to be s.e.x.u.a.l.l.y active, she needs to be aware of what possible outcomes are out there.
      Everyone above the age of seven knows where babies come from. Do you really think it is appropriate to force a woman to have a child in order to teach said woman a lesson?

      December 11, 2012 at 10:38 am |
    • Saraswati

      @jeff, all unplanned pregnancies are "specific instances". You can't make a policy around an ideal that doesn't exist. We're talking about real people with real lives.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:45 am |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      @Jeff
      Of course it doesn’t make sense to you. If it did we wouldn’t be having this converstation.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:57 am |
    • Jeff

      @Huebert... we're talking about extinguishing a life because someone finds it inconvenient. I am baffled that anyone can call that a viable solution.

      @Saraswati...I understand your point, but I simply cannot advocate for anyone stopping a life because it doesn't happen to fit with where they're at in their life. Again, I'm not talking about the crimes I listed in my first post. S.e.x. is a choice.

      December 11, 2012 at 11:02 am |
    • Huebert

      Jeff

      I don't consider a fetus a life anymore than I consider an acorn a tree.

      December 11, 2012 at 11:04 am |
    • Jeff

      @Hubert...I asked it above of another poster, but I'll ask it of you as well:

      If it isn't alive, why does it need to be aborted? That acorn will grow into a tree and that fetus into a child.

      December 11, 2012 at 11:06 am |
    • Huebert

      @Jeff

      Also you still haven't answered my questions.
      1) Why do you want to bring more unwanted children into the world?
      2) Why do you think it is appropriate to force a woman to have a child in order to teach said woman a lesson?

      December 11, 2012 at 11:06 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, Jeff, you must have missed the memo. Women do NOT have to "face the consequences" by giving birth.

      You can stomp around and fume, but that's all you can do.

      If you don't like abortion, then wear a rubber. That's the extent of your say, dude.

      December 11, 2012 at 11:09 am |
    • Jeff

      @Hubert

      Also you still haven't answered my questions.
      1) Why do you want to bring more unwanted children into the world?

      ...I don't. That said, life should not be elimnated because it is not wanted. There are so many families unable to have children that there are alternatives to abortion. Before you balk at that, yes, I am absolutely aware that there are significant issues with that system. Let's fix those issues...

      2) Why do you think it is appropriate to force a woman to have a child in order to teach said woman a lesson?

      ...you'd rather just extinguish the "inconvenience" then?

      December 11, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Cracks me up when zealots like Jeff pontificate about what women have the right to do-he doesn't really give a sh!t about the fetus. If he did, then ra pe and incest would have no bearing on the right to choose. Why should it, if the fetus is what you care about?

      What Jeff and men like him are REALLY all about is punishing women for "getting pregnant." As if they do it on their own....

      Morons, every one of you.

      December 11, 2012 at 11:11 am |
    • Jeff

      @Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son...missed you Tom...finally a worthy advocacy!

      No, Jeff, you must have missed the memo. Women do NOT have to "face the consequences" by giving birth.

      If they don't like the possible outcome, they shouldn't have s.e.x! As intelligent as you are, I would think you would understand this.

      You can stomp around and fume, but that's all you can do.

      ...no stomping around at all. Outside of crime, I have no idea how anyone can advocate for abortion. According to your plan, nobody should ever have to face any consequences, right? Just go to the doctor and take a mulligan on last Saturday night!

      December 11, 2012 at 11:15 am |
    • Jeff

      @Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Cracks me up when zealots like Jeff pontificate about what women have the right to do-he doesn't really give a sh!t about the fetus. If he did, then ra pe and incest would have no bearing on the right to choose. Why should it, if the fetus is what you care about?

      ...r.a.p.e and incest are criminal Tom. Come on man, you're better than that. I do care about the fetus, but I will not ever tell a victim of a violent crime what she must do. That is between her and anyone else she involves in that choice.

      What Jeff and men like him are REALLY all about is punishing women for "getting pregnant." As if they do it on their own....

      ...life has consequences for everything Tom...s.e.x is no different. I'm an advocate for women that aren't getting support from dead beat dad's. You don't like the laws as far as the consequence for dads, then let's change it and go after them. I'll be right there with you.

      December 11, 2012 at 11:19 am |
    • Huebert

      @Jeff

      You answered one of my questions so I will answer one of yours.

      "If it isn't alive, why does it need to be aborted? That acorn will grow into a tree and that fetus into a child."
      If a fetus will grow into a child, then a fetus is not a child. after all how could something grow into what it already is? As far as why it might need to be aborted, there are a verity of reasons, to truly know you would have to ask the woman undergoing the abortion.

      Now please answer my other question. Why do you think it is appropriate to force a woman to have a child in order to teach said woman a lesson?

      December 11, 2012 at 11:24 am |
    • Jeff

      @Huebert

      If a fetus will grow into a child, then a fetus is not a child. after all how could something grow into what it already is? As far as why it might need to be aborted, there are a verity of reasons, to truly know you would have to ask the woman undergoing the abortion.

      ...any health risk or criminal activity surrounding the abortion is justifiable...anything else is a matter of convenience. Your explanation from fetus to child would be no different than me saying it's justifiable to extinguish my 7 year old boy's life because he has not yet hit puberty and is not a man yet. Just silly...

      Now please answer my other question. Why do you think it is appropriate to force a woman to have a child in order to teach said woman a lesson?

      Gladly and I'm sorry I didn't above! My reason is simple...I don't view it as teaching a woman a lesson, I see it as allowing a life to be born. Could the woman...and even society...view that as "teaching a lesson" to them? I suppose. That is not my goal though. My goal is to advocate for the unborn. Why is that argument met with the idea that I'm hostile toward the woman? I think she should have counseling. I think she should have all the prenatal care needed...provided by the state if need be. I think society needs to come alongside of that woman and walk with her...from her peers to the government, she should not be alone. But outside of violent crime or medical concerns, abortion should not be considered in my mind...

      December 11, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • Huebert

      Jeff

      Your argument is met with such hostility because you insist upon forcing an enormous burden on someone who has no desire to bear such a burden. You would react with hostility if you were forced adopt a child against your will.

      Now if the services you desired existed I might see your point. But the simple reality is there is very little societal as.sistance available to young, low income single, women. Your position is only valid in a fantasy world.

      December 11, 2012 at 11:50 am |
    • Jeff

      @Huebert...you make my point for me! Society would rather eliminate the life than fix the bigger issue...how jacked up is that?! Maybe expecting society to do the right thing is just fantasy...

      December 11, 2012 at 11:55 am |
    • Huebert

      Jeff

      What if the problem is that there are to many human lives?

      December 11, 2012 at 1:15 pm |
    • Jeff

      @Huebert

      Jeff

      What if the problem is that there are to many human lives?

      ...don't know. I do know that other species have s.e.x and nature has kept their numbers in line in spite of no abortion clincis in the animal kingdom. To your question, I suppose I would have to say that life would figure it out just like it has for the last billion or so years...

      December 11, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
  5. RedskinsFan

    It's a shame this wasn't voted down in Virginia. Here we've had these "Quilt and Shaming" Choose Life License plates for a few years now (seriously, they are Post-It Note Yellow so they stand out... its terrible). I kind of wish they would just get rid of all the personalized plates and go back to the old ones where every state had a color scheme. It would solve all of these issues.

    December 11, 2012 at 9:56 am |
  6. Larry

    So instead of actually offering a Pro-Choice alternative, they are just taking away Choose Life plates. Seems to me it's more of a way to silence the Pro-Lifers than it is anything else.

    December 11, 2012 at 9:48 am |
    • GAW

      I didn't hear of any attempts to ban bumper stickers.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:50 am |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      @Larry
      Read the article genius. The ‘choose lifers’ voted down the alternatives. But let me guess.. you’re one of those who believes there is a war on Christmas?

      December 11, 2012 at 9:54 am |
    • Saraswati

      Wow, maybe I was wrong in my previous comments. I'm starting to wonder if anti-choice folks really are too dumb to know how to buy a bumper sticker?

      December 11, 2012 at 9:54 am |
    • Rich

      It was the pro-lifers who created the predicament by not proposing a pro-choice alternative. It is not the jurisdiction of the court to demand a pro-choice alternative, but the ruling leaves room for that alternative to be created. If a pro-choice alternative is offered, then this ruling that the pro-life plates violate the First Amendment would no longer apply. I'm not sure why this is a big deal, just offer the other side of the debate their fair share and then people can choose the plates that reflect their views. It's up to the state of North Carolina to do this, not the court.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:55 am |
  7. MT1962

    This is the correct legal decision because there is no corresponding license plate for the pro-choice side. If the only license plates available were pro-choice instead of pro-life, I'll bet most of the posters here could understand why this was the correct decision. As a country we would do well to educate our children with critical thinking skills so the average person can understand these decisions and not just lawyers.

    December 11, 2012 at 9:48 am |
    • CitizenForSanity

      Unless people have adopted a number of crack babies or unwanted children they should just shut up. It's very easy to be judgemental and impose your beliefs on others when you don't have any stake in the game. People want to tell others what to do? Then be part of the solution – you get to use this license plate only when you've taken in a few damaged children.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:55 am |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      If we raised our children with critical thinking skills in place of religious indoctrination this wouldn’t be an issue.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:55 am |
    • Saraswati

      On a complex issue like this there are hundreds, if not thousands, of distinct positions. We can't cater to every one of them and should just get out of the business. The bumper sticker and plate frame people are more than happy to fill the gaps. You can order up your own bumper sticker from dozens of companies that says exactly what you want. This is a trivial issue except for those who want to force the state to regurgitate their words to make a point.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:57 am |
    • itsmeto

      CitizenForSanity-

      Thank you! I said that once to a pro-life person in my office and he just looked at me like I was crazy.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:01 am |
    • Michael

      @CitizenforSanity, I agree and disagree. I am a pro-lifer. My wife and I do have the desire to adopt and seriously plan to. I'm willing to bet that, while maybe not all, a vast majority of pro-lifers have the desire too. Here is the flaw your logic though. Adoption is not as easy as playing just saying, I want this one and this one, done. Adoption is a long, expensive and emotional process with sometimes no guarentee of actually getting the child in the end until the courts make it legal.

      In my wife and my case, we are planning to adopt, but trying to get finances in order. Most adoption agencies are not going to give a child to someone they don't view as financially stable. There are a lot of qualifications. So, while you will find that a lot of pro-lifers want to adopt and may have even taken steps toward adopting, it doesn't mean that I have to already have an adopted child in order to have an opinion.

      Also, if my 76 year old grandmother is pro-life, I don't think it fair to say that she has to adopt in order to have a valid opinion.

      So, I agree with you that we as pro-lifers should work harder at adopting to help be a solution to the problem and I promise you that there are a lot more pro-lifers out there doing just that then you will probably give credit for, but to say you have to adopt in order to have a valid opinion is ridiculous at best. That would be like telling someone who says that murdering your ex is wrong and being told my opinion wasn't valid, because I didn't have an ex. Really?

      December 11, 2012 at 11:37 am |
  8. GAW

    No big deal. If Pro-Lifers still want to voice their stance there's still bumper stickers.

    December 11, 2012 at 9:48 am |
  9. Moe

    I used to be proud to be from North Carolina but now it is an embarrassment. This license plate is an example of the lurch to the right and includes concealed carry laws, pretending that global warming and a rising sea level do not exist and the assault on poor people. This is led by the Christian Tea Baggers but I guess Jesus would not be impressed.

    December 11, 2012 at 9:47 am |
  10. Seasurfer

    Alabama and many other states have the same issue. I hope the American Civil Liberties Union addresses these cases also!!! If we who have a different opinion have to view Alabama's political statement "Choose Life" then others should have the opportunity to view a plate "Pro Choice" also!!! It's bad enought having to live in the state of Alabama due to a job transfer but to view the Alabama propaganda is demeaning!!!

    December 11, 2012 at 9:43 am |
    • fiftyfive55

      @freedom for all-also would add that practicing abstinence is 100% successful.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:56 am |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      @ fiftyfive55
      Except it’s not. After all Marry was a virg!n right?

      December 11, 2012 at 10:16 am |
  11. fiftyfive55

    Every one of these women who gets an abortion will have to spend eternity in the afterlife with the child they killed.

    December 11, 2012 at 9:43 am |
    • Kandric

      Good thing there is zero proof of an afterlife, so it probably doesn't exist.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:45 am |
    • Dan

      No they won't! Your death cult is fake. Get over it.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:45 am |
    • Reality

      @fiftyfive55 – here's the thing about that... you aren't God. You aren't a judge, and your horrible, anti-Christian sentiments are as unwelcome here as your bogus interpretation of God's laws. Have a lovely day.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:46 am |
    • sam stone

      blah, blah, blah, 55.....

      December 11, 2012 at 9:46 am |
    • drito

      Too bad there is no afterlife, grow up.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:46 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      So you believe that unborn children go to Hell?
      What if the mother dies gloriously in battle and ascends to Valhalla?
      What if foetus goes to the highest level of the Celestial Kindgom but the mother, as a non-Mormon, winds up in the Terrestrial Kingdom?

      December 11, 2012 at 9:47 am |
    • Meriska

      God is an alien.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:47 am |
    • Tim

      There is no god so your point is moot. This is not a Christian nation. Nor will it ever be. Get used to it or get out.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:48 am |
    • GAW

      Troll Alert!

      December 11, 2012 at 9:49 am |
    • freedomforall

      Your a right wing idiot. We live in a free country where every person should be allowed to choose what they want for their future. The woman's right to choice is better than letting a couple of idiots with banjo's decide the fate of a woman. Unless you personally are offering to help support a child? Instead of forcing women whose situation you know nothing about to have a baby, why don't you adopt the thousands in orphanages around the world and provide them with a loving and nurturing home?

      December 11, 2012 at 9:50 am |
    • Saraswati

      One would assume the aborted fetus' soul goes right to heaven, so you are saying a woman who has an abortion goes to heaven to live with the child she saved from suffering on earth and allowed to experience immediate eternal joy?

      December 11, 2012 at 9:50 am |
    • fiftyfive55

      @reality-what anti christian rhetoric did I use ?
      @ the rest of ya-you all "assume" that I'm wrong but have no proof that you are right either so I'm ready just in case.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:50 am |
    • fiftyfive55

      @freedom for all-I realize that by your account,anybody can do anything to anybody and it's nobody's business,how wrong.
      Also,if men shouldn't have a say,why do they take men's money for this stuff ?

      December 11, 2012 at 9:54 am |
    • Kathy0715

      @ the rest of ya-you all "assume" that I'm wrong but have no proof that you are right either so I'm ready just in case.

      It is so cute how you have religion as an insurance policy.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:54 am |
    • Rich

      Spending eternity with an angry, dead, half-formed baby sounds blissful compared to spending eternity with a judgmental Christian.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:58 am |
    • fiftyfive55

      @Kathy0175-it's called a conscious by some ,morals by others,I call it both

      December 11, 2012 at 9:59 am |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      @ fiftyfive55
      “the rest of ya-you all "assume" that I'm wrong but have no proof that you are right either so I'm ready just in case.”

      Sorry buddy it doesn’t work that way. If I told you Big Foot was real and he ruled our lives you would rightfully ask me for proof. Proof is the burden of the person making the claim. If I were you I’d g00gle Pascal’s wager.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:01 am |
    • Guy

      Hey 55
      Originally I thought 55 refered to your age, of course the more you post I realize it is your IQ.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:04 am |
    • fiftyfive55

      @thrideagle of the apocalypse-If someday you acqire a thing called faith you'll understand but if someone like you doesnt believe in anything sight unseen then there is no reason to talk to you.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • Buck

      Actually, 'afterlife' is no even in the Bible. In fact, one will search in vain for such a concept (which is man-made). The truth of the matter is this, when we die, we die and return to dust and are alseep in the grave. Since Christ is the ultimate sacrifice for the sin of the world, and since He is the Resurrection and Life, He will resurrect everyone (John 5:25 & 28, Acts 24:15). It's after the physical resurrection of the dead when we will face judgment and be rewarded accordingly, as the Scriptures plainly teach. FYI all children are Kingdom bound, no exceptions as Christ confirmed.

      If you are a Christian professing that there is an 'afterlife', you are spreading a non-bibllical false doctrine.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:12 am |
    • Rich

      @fiftyfive55: serious question for you. Do the aborted babies go to Heaven? Surely so, yeah? So you're saying the mother will be with the baby in Heaven. And Heaven is a place of paradise, peace, happiness. So where does the anguish come in again? Plus, couldn't they they just abort a hundred babies, repent later, and be all good? Sure, sure, you're going to say that their repentance has to be genuine, but assume it was genuine? After all, they made it into Heaven.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:18 am |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      @fiftyfive55
      Faith by definition is belief without proof. In other words make believe. When an adult bases their life on a make believe world…we tend to call them insane.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:18 am |
    • Reality

      The comments from Reality are not from the original Reality.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:25 am |
  12. Chanel

    But those are tax-dollars being used to fund a religious facility..... Odd they wouldn't offer an alternative plate for Pro-Choice and the tax-dollars go to Planned Parenthood.

    December 11, 2012 at 9:42 am |
  13. Lynn

    Where are the plates that say the environment doesn't need government help, or hate your pets. It doesn't have both sides to an issue. If someone went to the ACLU with those problems, the ACLU wouldn't take it on. All plates have to stop to keep both sides at bay. On the true status of what many call tumors, there are healthy humans born at 26 weeks. If it can be partially born and have its brains sucked out, why can't women terminate it two minutes later?

    December 11, 2012 at 9:42 am |
    • Kathy0715

      Lynn, why do the anti-choice crowd love the fetus so much, but hate the child once it is born? All these unwanted fetuses should be born, according to the anti-choice crowd, but we should not provide them with food, safe homes, good schools, health care, or any other assistance. The fetus is good and should be protected, the child is evil and is on their own. I just can't understand the thinking of the anti-choice crowd.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:47 am |
  14. Doc Vestibule

    The more accurate phrase for most of these people is "Choose Birth".
    Once the child is born, it's quality of life is no longer a concern to the right wingers who don't believe the government should provide social services.

    December 11, 2012 at 9:41 am |
  15. irunner

    The way most of the Choose Life plate holders drive in Florida, it might as well say Choose Death!

    December 11, 2012 at 9:41 am |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      lol..so true.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:03 am |
  16. Kathy0715

    I wish everyone would get over the label of pro-life. These people are not pro-life, they are anti-choice. If someone is really pro-life they would need to be anti-capital punishment, anti-war, anti-guns, etc. Face it, the two sides are pro-choice and anti-choice.

    December 11, 2012 at 9:40 am |
    • fiftyfive55

      the problem with your staement is what you left out.the examples you gave are for people with a choice in life,unborn babies aren't given that chance.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:47 am |
    • Kathy0715

      55: Do you think the thousands of children killed in Iraq and Afghanistan had a choice? You and the other anti-choice crowd members are all for war and guns. Do the children killed every year by parents who never wanted them in the first place have a choice?

      December 11, 2012 at 9:50 am |
    • peter piper

      you a typical liberal , if these welfare mommies would just get sterilized we wouldn't have abortions, if the liberal school boards would demand learning from the students , then abortions among teens would decrease 90%, if the liberal's in government insist on people being more self reliant and responsible for their actions, then less pregnancy's ..LIBERALS are so STUPID, they actually hold down people in a form of liberal slavery beholden to the government.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:52 am |
    • peter piper

      Big Difference, between sucking the brains out of a living baby in a mothers womb, and dropping a few bombs on a reported enemies position...Big Difference between using a vacuum to rip apart a baby's limbs in a mothers womb, and executing someone who killed someone in a planned attack. liberals are SOOOOO STUPID.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:58 am |
    • John

      I agree with you that the two names should not be Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. But I differ in your final conclusion as to what they should be. Using your own argument of how the two sides should be named, it is obvious that they should be Pro-Life and Pro-Death. Simple as that. Hiding behind the name Pro-Choice is just an abbreviation for "Pro-Choosing Death for Defenseless Children". You try to glorify your cause by trying to persuade people that a mother should be allowed to "choose" what she wants to do with her body, but everyone knows that the choice really centers on whether death is administered to the innocent baby.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:02 am |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      @peter piper
      Whats the harm in sucking a baby’s brain out? I mean… it didn’t seem to change you much.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:06 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      petey, the day you learn to write like an educated person, alert the media. Until then, it isn't liberals who are "stupid." It's morons like you who can't even figure out how apostrophes work.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:10 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "mother should be allowed to "choose" what she wants to do with her body"

      Are you saying that once a woman is pregnant, she no longer has the same right to bodily integrity you do? Since when? Women DO have the right. They have had it for decades. They've had it for more years than not, idiot.

      Your approval isn't necessary, dear.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:12 am |
    • Kathy0715

      Big Difference, between sucking the brains out of a living baby in a mothers womb, and dropping a few bombs on a reported enemies position.....

      So apparently to you and your fellow anti-choice members, only babies in the USA matter, as those being killed in war, help they are just unlucky not to be in America, after all we are only "dropping a few bombs".

      December 11, 2012 at 10:15 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And like all anti-choice zealots, John thinks the government and the church are better qualified to tell a woman what to do with her body and her pregnancy than she is. Get a clue, John-boy. You don't have that say. PRO-CHOICE means exactly what it says: the WOMAN who is pregnant has the choice, regardless of what that choice may be. She is the one who decides whether to carry the pregnancy to term or not. Pro-choice simply means that we believe the choice is hers, not yours or that of any other third party.

      Unless you want the state too force you to have that vasectomy, donate that kidney to your great-aunt, or give blood against your will?

      Same principle. Live with it.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:16 am |
  17. Mr. Moderate

    License plates should be used for identification purposes only, no political messages of any kind including "In God we trust" which was not our national motto until the 1950s during that last great hysterical lurch to the right. So you can't say it's what the Founding Fathers intended.

    December 11, 2012 at 9:36 am |
    • John

      You are correct that it wasn't until the 1950's that it became an official motto. YoBut your implication is that it has no historical backing prior to that and for that you are incorrect as "In God We Trust" has been on our US Currency since back in the 1800's.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:10 am |
    • John

      You are correct that it wasn't until the 1950's that it became an official motto. But your implication is that it has no historical backing prior to that and for that you are incorrect as "In God We Trust" has been on our US Currency since back in the 1800's.

      December 11, 2012 at 10:12 am |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      @John
      He implies it’s a “modern” movement and not the intention of the founding fathers…and he is correct. Christians are trying to rewrite history

      December 11, 2012 at 10:22 am |
  18. mvoci

    Free speech? What the hell are we talking about here? Can't a choose life advocate freely speak?

    December 11, 2012 at 9:33 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Of course, as long as the state gives the same option to those who value the reproductive rights of women to make their own decision.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:36 am |
    • drkent3

      These are state sponsored plates, so the state has to remain neutral by offering an alternative voice. Shouldn't the question be "What, can't a pro-choice advocate freely speak?", which is what the court asked.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:40 am |
    • theboosh

      Yes – w/ personal stickers, etc. but NOT anything Government issued. Religious Right hates Government interference but always cries for help with religious oppression of others.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:43 am |
    • Saraswati

      Sure,buy a bumper sticker. Paint a slogan across you car, buy a license plateframe. There are lots of options to express oneself. Thenumber of messages available on a license plate is tightly controlled and requires government approval. This makes is inherently biased. Given the easier, and usually cheaper, options already available the only reason to insist on govt. plates is to make a point about the acceptance of your position by the government. Claims to the contrary are't fooling anyone. No one is so stupid they don't know howtobuy a bumper sticker.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:46 am |
    • Zeibodique

      When your "Freedom Of Speech" goes one way, it's not Freedom. If I decided to have a plate on my car that says "Pro-Choice" or "Choose Death", you flat out tell me that you wouldn't protest such a plate. If you say you wouldn't, you're a liar. FREEDOM of SPEECH works both ways, not just when it is your ideal.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:56 am |
  19. ArthurP

    Abort.ions are primarily the result of unwanted pregna.ncies.

    Unwanted pregn.ancies are primarily the result of lack of readily available se.x education and contrac.eptives.

    The lack of readily available se.x education and contrac.eptives is the primarily the result of fundamentalist religious dogma.

    So then that means that it is fundamentalist religious dogma that is the primary cause of abor.tions.

    Who knew?

    December 11, 2012 at 9:32 am |
    • nolapearl

      And red states have the highest percentages of abortions so your statement is correct!

      December 11, 2012 at 9:45 am |
  20. Dung Shooken

    "The "Choose Life" plates are available in 29 states,"

    Not for long.

    December 11, 2012 at 9:31 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why? As long as the state in question offers a license plate that is 'pro-choice', then it is offering another option for those who wish to express the opposing view.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:35 am |
    • Linda

      I'm in SC and we have these plates, but they do have the alternative plates as well.. won't have an impact here

      December 11, 2012 at 9:44 am |
    • 999 Plan

      That's probably not true.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:58 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.