c. 2005 Religion News Service

(UNDATED) Drive the nation’s highways and you see state license plates touting “I am an animal lover,” “NASCAR,” “Friends of the Smoky Mountains,” “Florida Panthers,” and “Scouting teaches values.”

State governments have discovered they can raise millions of dollars in revenue by offering license plate logos and slogans while drivers have learned they can communicate their passions on their vehicles.

But two passions _ abortion, and to a lesser extent, adoption _ have caused problems, raising thorny legal questions about where personal freedom of expression ends and state endorsement of religion and other controversial beliefs begin.

On Monday (Jan. 24) the U.S. Supreme Court refused to settle the issue, at least for now, when it declined to take a case involving a license plate battle in South Carolina. That leaves the country in a state of legal confusion over the issue of abortion and license plates.

Eleven states allow plates saying “Choose Life:” Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Hawaii, Montana, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Connecticut, and Maryland. Legal injunctions have blocked such plates in two states, Tennessee and South Carolina. And one state, Ohio, has passed legislation for “Choose Life” plates but the governer has not yet signed the bill.

In New York, the state determined that a plate saying “Choose Life” was offensive and denied a request for it. In Florida, a three-year battle resulted in the approval of a plate saying “Choose Life” while an amendment in a legislative bill for another saying “pro-choice” was rejected. In Tennessee, the state legislature approved a “Choose Life” plate but turned down proposals for a similar plate by abortion rights activists.

The Tennessee American Civil Liberties Union challenged that decision in court, alleging viewpoint discrimination. A judge agreed, issuing an injunction preventing production of the anti-abortion plate.

“The state opened a forum for speech and was excluding one view point,” said Tennessee ACLU Staff Attorney Julie Sternberg.

In South Carolina, the legislature had approved the specialty tags, with revenues from the $70 fee designated for “crisis pregnancy centers” that discourage abortion. But a circuit court struck down that effort because supporters of abortion rights were not offered a plate of their own.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take that case, the lower court ruling stands. The court could take a similar case from another state in the future.

A core question in all these cases is whether individuals and states have the right to pick and choose what goes on their plates.

(OPTIONAL TRIM BEGINS)

“It is difficult to argue that you are entitled to your view on a state license plate,” said Ira Lupu, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

Lupu said license plates are unlike a public forum such as Central Park where someone can say whatever one wants.

“When someone puts a message on a license plate, it becomes a state message,” he said. “A state does not have to be even handed with its own messages.”

Exceptions, he said, are when the state treats the license plate like a bulletin board or when it issues a license plate that everybody with a car must put on a vehicle.

Others see the issue differently.

The specialty plates question is best solved out of court and inside the “political arena” said Ted Jelen, author of “To Serve God and Mammon: Church-State Relations in the United States.”

“I am strongly pro-choice and I don’t like this idea (of the “Choose Life” plates) but they are legal,” he said. “The solution is more speech. The idea is not to suppress Choose Life plates, it is to get the idea of abortion rights out there through legislatures.”

Jelen said the government does not have to remain “neutral” on an issue unless it is supporting religion.

He cited Wooley vs. Maynard, a Supreme Court case that found a New Hampshire license plate with the words “Live Free or Die” violated George Maynard’s rights. Maynard argued the plate was contrary to his religious and moral beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness.

“The difference is that all New Hampshire plates had that message,” Jelen said. “And they (Maynard’s lawyers) argued successfully that the government was forcing the message on them. In the case of specialty plates, that is not happening. It’s not like people are being forced to endorse the pro-life position on abortion.”

(OPTIONAL TRIM ENDS)

License plate activist Elizabeth Rex of Eastchester, N.Y. says she’s pro-choice about “Choose Life” plates.

“If somebody wants a plate that supports abortion, I’m not stopping them,” said Rex. “But they shouldn’t stop me from getting my plate.”

A personal experience motivates Rex’s crusade. She and Charles Rex married when they were both 40. Unable to conceive after four years, the couple adopted twice, from women who were experiencing difficult pregnancies.

“We have adopted two children and are just grateful to the courageous mothers who chose adoption,” she said.

The Rexes volunteered to organize benefit concerts for a New York crisis-pregnancy center that discourages abortion and promotes adoption. Wanting to do even more, they established the Children First Foundation.

Their “Choose Life” license plate campaign began when Elizabeth Rex read that “Choose Life” license plates in Florida had raised $3 million for adoption and anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers since 1999.

Wanting to avoid the legislative route, the Rexes applied to department of motor vehicle custom plates programs in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

While the Connecticut plate was approved in 2003, Rex’s applications hit a roadblock in New York and New Jersey. She received a letter from New York explaining the application was denied because the plate’s message is “patently offensive.” New Jersey’s rejection cited a regulation against slogans on license plates.

Rex’s Children First Foundation filed federal lawsuits, alleging a violation of First Amendment rights by the New York Department of Motor Vehicles and the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission. New York filed a motion to dismiss that suit, but it was denied. The lawsuit is still pending.

Rex said that although she would prefer the cases be settled out of court, the nation’s highest court may have to intervene.

“We may have to go to the Supreme Court to decide if there should be specialty plates,” said Rex, who insists her goal is “freedom of speech for all.”

MO/JL END RNS