Choose honesty

Ah, history, it’s so fun to revise!
As quoted by Eric Zorn in his Chicago Tribune column today, Rep. Jack Franks would have us believe that his epiphany to single-handedly halt approval of specialty plates in Illinois came coincidentally when the Choose Life license plate bill was introduced in 2002.
pet friendly 5.gifThen Franks should explain why he voted for these specialty plates during the two years prior: Pan Hellenic (yes, that’s right), Coal Mining, Union Member, West Point Bicentennial, Chicago and NE IL Dist. Council of Carpenters, Black Fraternity, Lewis & Clark Bicentennial, Hospice, Marine Corps, Army Combat Vet, Paratrooper, Park District Youth Program, Professional Sports Team, September 11, Korean War for Motorcycles, and Pet Friendly.
Rep. Jack Franks would have us believe that with hundreds of specialty plates from 49 states and foreign countries on Illinois roads, along with 78 different types of Illinois’ own specialty plates that have been offered for 67 years (the first one being by the General Assembly for themselves), it was only coincidentally when Choose Life was introduced that he decided it was time to stop the specialty plate madness.
And my dear pro-abortion friend Eric concurs, reminding us in his column of the state’s insulting argument inferring that only upon seeing Choose Life plates would the minds of Ku Klux Klan members and Nazis be triggered to get their own plates.
I am still amazed at the depth of hate toward the pro-life movement, in this case, hate that would rather stop a multitude of wonderful charitable giving programs sponsored via these specialty plates – alleviating the tax burden in some instances – than see the culture of life and adoption promoted.
The fact is the other side doesn’t want a competition, which is where they know this will lead if Choose Life plates are approved and they keep whining.

9 thoughts on “Choose honesty”

  1. ZORN REPLY (from his blog) — I’ll assume, then, Jill, that you would be supportive of any effort to create a “Choose Choice” or “Women for Reproductive Freedom” plate?

  2. ZORN REPLY (from his blog) — Then we agree again, as I’m sure we agreed on Lisa Madigan’s move late last week. And I believe you and I agreeing three times in one week is a sign of the apocalypse.
    Uh oh.

  3. Those who have a problem with the choose life plate aren’t pro-choice, they are pro-abortion. Why else would they object to one of the choices every woman has who is confronted with an unwanted pregnancy.
    The reason the “choose abortion” plate would never be made is the same reason that the KKK or Nazi plates would never be made. I believe most states require you to pre-sell around 10,000 of them before they ever go into production.

  4. Tony, what choice do pro-choice people object to for women confronted with an unwanted pregancy? I the pro-choice people I know think she should have a choice to 1) have the baby, 2) put the baby up for adoption, and 3) have an abortion. Are there other choices?

  5. Eric,
    Yes, one commenter on Rich Miller’s blog noted, “And as for Zorn, funny how he decided to chime in on the plate issue once the choose life ones were approved – wow, I sound like Stanek! YIKES!!!”
    So the conversions have begun! As Rod Stewart sang the old spiritual:
    People get ready
    For the train to Jordan
    Picking up passengers
    From coast to coast
    Come on board, Eric.

  6. ZORN REPLY (from his blog) — I hope you, with your experience in journalism, Jill, set this poster straight about what a news peg is and why commentators weigh in on topics when they do. And I also hope you noted that I did NOT editorialize against the “Choose Life” plate when it was proposed and when you began to litigate for it. Nor am I in particular opposition to it now. I have always been open to dialogue and airing views of those I disagree with, including you (I really regret that our debate on IDE got swallowed up in some re-programming decisions at…would gladly repost it if anyone has a copy) and that to accuse me of wanting to silence anyone’s views is infamously false.
    Like I say, I hope that. But I look on your blog and I see the same tired whining and accusations of hypocrisy from you.

  7. I hope you, with your experience in journalism, Eric, understand it’s your job to set posters straight about your commentaries, not mine.
    As to whether you, like Rep. Franks, had an epiphany that there were too many specialty plates on Illinois’ roads only coincidentally at the same time Choose Life plates came on the scene, well, ok, if you say so.

  8. ZORN REPLY (from his blog) — That’s between you and Jack Franks, though I can’t see why he or anyone would have thought it changed the legal lay of the land one way or the other once you tried to introduce “Choose Life” plates. It certainly wouldn’t have changed your legal argument one iota if Franks had or had not allowed, say, the Boy Scouts or any of the other organization who applied after you (I gather) to have their plates. Those would have been just more of the same. The argument against your proposed plate — again an argument I do not buy — is not that it’s one too many plates, but that it contains too much self expression and implies an endorsement of your cause by the state. So your point is that Franks felt that he could help the state’s legal case and/or justify denying “Choose Life” by denying less controversial plates, even though this idea clearly makes no sense. Well, as you say, if you say so.
    Regarding your post and its innuendo about my intentions, I was simply urging you to be fair to ME in your blog postings.

Comments are closed.