71.   Opponents argued that it was a bureaucratic impediment that would strangle progress and limit potential technological benefits to patients.

72.   Opponents argued that its language could have also allowed for public funding of religious schools or other religious activities.

73.   Opponents argued that Republicans have suffered from the public perception that in calling for abolition of the Department of Education, the party is anti-child and anti-education.

74.   Opponents argued that such restrictions are a violation of the free speech guarantee under the Constitution.

75.   Opponents argued that the local community does not want the name changed.

76.   Opponents argued that the measure was unfair to victims of defective products.

77.   Opponents argued that the Supreme Court had already indicated that such efforts would not pass constitutional muster.

78.   Opponents argued that the testing unfairly targets students who even the officials acknowledge are unlikely to use drugs.

79.   Opponents argued that they were unconstitutional, stifled creativity and research or threatened privacy and competition.

80.   Opponents argued that violent crimes should be universally prosecuted without regard to the motives of the assailant or the background of the victim.