Judge Clears Way for Pro-Life Intervention in Plate Case
New Life Resources to Argue Constitutionality of ‘Choose Life’ Plate

March 3, 2004—Nashville: U.S. District Judge Todd J. Campbell cleared the way today, March 3, 2004, for pro-life advocates to directly intervene as party to the suit filed by pro-abortion groups against the recently enacted ‘Choose Life’ specialty license plate. The ACLU had strongly opposed such intervention and filed briefs in District Court urging that New Life be prevented from joining the case.

Attorneys for New Life Resources will argue that the establishment of the “Choose Life” plate is an appropriate expression by the Legislature favoring childbirth over abortion. “Federal courts have routinely held that while states may not criminalize abortion, legislatures may embrace and advocate the protection of human life as a matter of public policy,” said Brian Harris, president of Tennessee Right to Life which lobbied for the enactment of the plate. “The ACLU’s opposition to the plate may represent their private opinions but has no basis in recent court precedents,” said Harris.

Beginning with its 1977 decision in Roe v. Maher, the U.S. Supreme Court plainly ruled in favor of the principle that “a state may make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion.” Going farther, the Court held that such public policies could be supported by “the allocation of public funds.” In so ruling, the Court found that “a state is not required to show a compelling interest for its policy choice to favor normal childbirth” and further stated that such polices exist to show the state’s “strong and legitimate interest in encouraging normal childbirth.”

In 1989 the Court again “emphasized that Roe v. Wade implies no limitation on a State’s authority to make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion” (Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.) If any further clarification was necessary, the Court recalled its previous rulings again in 1993 that “a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion is proper and reasonable enough to be implemented by the allocation of public funds” (Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic.)

“At its heart, the overwhelming, bi-partisan passage of the “Choose Life” plate is a constitutional expression of a value judgment that advocates the state’s legitimate interest in the protection of human life,” said Harris. By votes of 80-14 in the state House and 26-4 in the state Senate, the Tennessee Legislature has acted upon their constitutionally protected prerogative. By returning applications representing all 95 counties in a shorter amount of time than any other Tennessee non-profit, pro-life Tennesseans are exercising their right and responsibility to provide real care, concern and choices to women and families throughout this state.

Oral arguments on the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss the ACLU suit are scheduled for Thursday, March 11, 2004 at 10:00 a.m.