Subscribe
E-mail
Posts
Comments

The sponsors of the “Choose Life” license plate are not buckling under to pro-abortion censorship, according to the June 3rd Courant:

A pro-adoption foundation that sponsors special “Choose Life” license plates on Connecticut cars says that it will file a federal lawsuit against the state if officials do not reinstate the group’s plates.
More than a week ago, the state Department of Motor Vehicles stopped issuing further “Choose Life” plates for The Children First Foundation, a New York-based pro-adoption group opposed to abortion, while it investigates with state Attorney Richard Blumenthal whether the group qualifies under DMV rules to be a sponsor of such plates. The DMV granted that status in 2003…

[Children First Foundation President Elizabeth] Rex said her group “should keep the plates while they do their investigation.” She said she applied lawfully for the plates and repeatedly gave updated information to the DMV over three years, so it is wrong for the DMV to stop issuing the plates and remove the group’s plate-application information from the department’s website. “It’s called due process. I haven’t had an opportunity to respond.”

One gets the impression from the article that even Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is not sure about the basis of his actions:

[Blumenthal] said other groups are under scrutiny, too. Asked why only Rex’s plates are blocked during the inquiry, he cited “evidence” such as “absence of a significant [Connecticut] presence, at least on the facts known initially.” Asked what constitutes a “significant presence,” he said “part of what we’re doing is examining the potential need for a more precise and clear” definition.

As even the Courant noted in a June 6th editorial:

…state officials can’t escape the appearance that questioning the organization’s eligibility is merely a pretext for gagging the New York-based pro-adoption group’s opposition to abortion.

The blogger that I linked to when this story first broke has taken exception to my description of her as pro-abortion. “i’m NOT PRO abortion, i am PRO choice,” she wrote. But the effort to censor this license plate is a good example of why those who say they are pro-choice really are pro-abortion. Consider this excerpt from Rep. T.R. Rowe’s letter in the June 3rd Courant:

The Children First Foundation qualified for these plates in 2003, and the DMV has thoroughly investigated and affirmed eligibility on at least three separate occasions since then – and for good reason. This organization has a well-established track record of supporting pregnancy centers and “safe havens” efforts in this state, giving out more than $10,000 in grants to adoption and safe haven charities. That these accomplishments were done on such a limited budget is remarkable.

By supporting government censorship of these plates “pro-choicers” are showing that the only “choice” they really support is abortion. Nothing about these plates would make abortion illegal; their purpose is to raise money for alternatives to abortion. If our opponents are truly “pro-choice” shouldn’t they support all the choices, including adoption and safe havens?  

Too often, those who say they are “pro-choice” channel all their activism into abortion and actually work against alternatives. We are seeing this again in the effort to censor these license plates. It is yet another example of why “pro-choice” seems to us to be a polite euphemism for “pro-abortion.”

Leave a Reply