home
RSS
My Take: On Komen controversy, media told half the story
The author says the news media took Planned Parenthood's side in the Susan G. Komen Foundation controversy.
February 7th, 2012
12:44 PM ET

My Take: On Komen controversy, media told half the story

Editor's Note: Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a media critic at GetReligion and editor at Ricochet.

By Mollie Ziegler Hemingway, Special to CNN

Faced with a deluge of media opposition and pressure from lawmakers, the Susan G. Komen foundation amended its decision to cut off funds to Planned Parenthood last week. Afterward, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and NBC’s Andrea Mitchell complimented each other on getting Komen to buckle under pressure.

Mitchell’s hostile interrogation of Ambassador Nancy Brinker, Komen’s CEO and founder, was widely viewed as a key moment in Planned Parenthood’s campaign against Komen.

“I thought you did such an interesting interview with the ambassador yesterday,” Boxer said to Mitchell during a televised discussion, “which I think helped bring this about, if I might say.”

Mitchell later returned the favor: “Sen. Barbara Boxer, thank you very much. Thank you for everything you’ve done on this.”

Some claims of media bias are overwrought. But here, the media wasn’t even trying to hide its advocacy on behalf of Planned Parenthood.

And in so doing, the media only told half the story.

Half the political story.

The media bought Planned Parenthood’s public relations campaign hook, line and sinker. Planned Parenthood argued that Komen’s decision to stop funding was “political.” This was the way most media outlets framed the entire story. But logic dictates that it’s not more political to stop funding Planned Parenthood than it is to keep funding it.

We’re talking about the country’s largest abortion provider, an organization that performs 330,000 abortions a year. According to Gallup polls from recent years, about half the American population identifies as pro-life while half identify as pro-choice. If you don’t have a sense for how controversial abortion is, you simply shouldn’t be in journalism.

Planned Parenthood receives nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer funds, including from Medicaid payments. Along with its political arm, it spent at least $1.7 million on lobbying at the federal level last year. Its political expenditures for the 2012 cycle have swung 100% for Democrats and against Republicans. Its political web site ranks a series of Republicans as “chumps.”

The notion that such a huge partisan player could be characterized as apolitical is laughable.

Half the reaction.

Media outlets certainly captured the outrage of Planned Parenthood supporters, which led most newscasts and articles. But was it an accurate reflection of how everyone reacted to the news? Hardly.

To explain, Komen had a serious fundraising problem due to its engagement with Planned Parenthood. Though its grants to the organization were around $600,000 a year, a relatively small snippet of either group’s budget, the relationship kept many people who oppose abortion from donating.

By ending its relationship with an abortion provider, Komen would likely be able to broaden its base of support to include donors who strenuously oppose abortion. But in most media accounts, these people were completely invisible.

This is part of a disturbing pattern where the media downplay stories of importance and interest to pro-lifers, such as their annual March for Life in Washington or the Obama administration’s recent mandate that religious organizations provide insurance coverage for abortifacients.

The way the media presented the views of women and breast cancer survivors in particular was even worse, as if they unilaterally supported Planned Parenthood when about half of American women identify as pro-life.

Charmaine Yoest, the head of Americans United for Life, had called on Komen to stop working with Planned Parenthood. After Komen’s initial decision, she said, “As a breast cancer survivor, I was always troubled with this whole idea that the nation’s largest abortion provider was enmeshed in the breast cancer fight when they weren’t actually doing mammograms. I look at this as smart stewardship.”

Half the investigation

Even after Komen backed down, the media have continued to attack. What was once widely presented as one of the most unifying charities in the country is now being thoroughly investigated by reporters.

“Komen spends lavishly on salaries and promotion,” The Washington Post announced, highlighting Brinker’s $417,000 salary heading the group she founded 30 years ago. Nowhere in the article, however, did we learn what Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards makes ($354,000) or that her predecessor reportedly earned $900,000 in 2005.

While Komen will now be raked over the coals, will the media similarly investigate Planned Parenthood? It’s doubtful.

The media coverage has been so fawning over the years that conservative activists have recently gone undercover to raise doubts about whether Planned Parenthood actually performs mammograms. These independent journalists have also produced evidence suggesting that some affiliates have failed to report instances of sexual abuse, sexual trafficking and rape.

“There’s no question that the media,” said Daily Beast media critic Howard Kurtz, “have been approaching the whole narrative from the left.”

When the media tell only half the story, they become effective partisans, and they do so at the expense of accuracy, accountability and fairness.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mollie Ziegler Hemingway.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Abortion • Opinion

soundoff (1,171 Responses)
  1. Jennifer

    I guess that having the surname "Hemingway" doesn't automatically make one an effective journalist. I opened this article expecting a deluge of shocking new information and only got the same old story with some meaningless statistics (is there a source that says 50% of all American women are pro-life?), ancillary finger pointing (how much money these CEOs make is a moot point), emotionally charged language ("Abortificant" instead of "contraceptive"?), and misleading information (they don't perform mammograms, therefore they don't do breast exams? So you're telling me there is no other way to screen for breast cancer?). Go home, Mollie. You aren't ready to chase the big fish.

    February 9, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
    • Marie

      I'm asking a serious question here, so I'd appreciate answers to the question instead of rhetoric. Has anyone ever received a bill explicitly stating that it was for a breast exam? I'm not talking about a mammogram or an ultrasound, I'm talking about a manual exam. My manual exams are performed when I go for my yearly Pap test. My bill/explanation of benefits says "cervical screening" or something similar. It has never mentioned manual breast exam as a screening. Only my mammograms mention that. So while I acknowledge that a manual exam does screen for breast cancer I can't understand why it would need its own funding. Can anyone in the health profession/insurance profession explain?

      February 9, 2012 at 1:11 pm |
    • Annalee Perez

      Marie, the funds aren't solely for manual breast exams but for followup visits/tests for lower income women who detect a lump. Planned Parenthood refers those women to labs and/or doctors who will do mammograms, biopsies, chemo, etc. The funding goes to help pay for those followup visits. Cancer treatment is expensive. Either tax dollars pay for it when these women seek help at emergency rooms, the women don't seek help because they cannot afford it OR places like Planned Parenthood use grants and public donations to assist them. In Planned Parenthood's case, their attention is not strictly focused on screening for – or assisting those with – breast cancer, but also cervical, prostate and more. THAT is why Planned Parenthood is such a vital organization for women – and men – in this country.

      February 9, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
  2. Switters

    ABORTION – something that conservative, white males find abhorrant

    That is, until their daughters come home from that first year of college 'knocked-up' by their non-white boyfriends.....

    February 9, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • Credenza

      Sources >>>.....Proof>>>>>>>> otherwise, best keep quiet, eh?

      February 9, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
  3. Christina

    I appreciate that this article speaks clearly without fear of reprisal or bullying by Planned Parenthood. It is clear to see after recent events, that Planned Parenthood is willing to stop at nothing to get their funds. They are even willing to destroy the foremost cancer research group!

    February 9, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • Furby

      Well, for starters, Komen is not any kind of "cancer research group." You'd do well to at least learn the facts of whatever you decide to run your mouth about in a national venue. LOL!

      February 9, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
    • Switters

      Only 39% of the contributions to Komen go to 'service' or 'research'

      61% of the contributions go to 'administrative costs'

      Nancy Brinker draws a $459,000/year salary from the contribution pool

      February 9, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
    • Annalee Perez

      Komen is not even close to being involved in cancer research. In fact, Komen isn't even as interested in prevention as it is in early detection and treatment. Want to know why that is? Do some research of your own and once you learn who their major sponsors are, you'll see the pervasive conflict of interest that guides this "foundation".

      February 9, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
  4. Switters

    I agree – watching FAUX News – I only heard 'HALF OF THE STORY"........

    February 9, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
  5. Elizabeth

    Thank you, Ms. Hemingway, for your fair treatment of this hot topic. It is clear to see that you have good will and want the facts to speak for themselves. Thank you CNN for publishing this piece.

    February 9, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • Furby

      Fair?! Oh, you must mean in the same sense that Fox News if "fair and balanced," right?

      February 9, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • Credenza

      And thank you Elizabeth for your comment. God Bless.

      February 9, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
  6. Sue

    It doesn't matter whether Americans support abortion 49/51 % or any other percentages. The FACT is, it's a legal medical procedure in America in 2012. So, blah blah candidates, I don;t hear you. If you want to talk to me about how you want to cease
    federal funding for abortions, fine I'm listening. That's something you can do something about. But if you want to pout because organizations give money to non-profits that provide a legal service? No respect. Stop whining and try to change the law. If the service is legal, and the organization is legal and the donation is legal, shut the hell up.

    February 9, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
  7. Christina

    Excellent article! Thank you for bringing some objective insight into this important event.

    February 9, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • The Paron

      Objective? You must be talking about some other story. On the face of it this is simpering, amateurish trash.

      February 9, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
  8. Marie

    An excellent op-ed piece. Komen's organizational goals are targeted toward breast cancer, and they were losing donations because of their grants to PP. Unfortunately, because only the PP side of the story was told Komen stands to lose more money than it stood to gain. PP does not perform mammograms. The grants were for mammograms. I am decidedly pro-life (in the truest sense, not simply anti-abortion) and I would've had no problem with the grants had PP actually performed mammograms. I see no reason to assume that the grant money would've been used for any other purpose. However, given that PP doesn't perform mammograms, and was referring patients out to other providers and then paying the providers from the grant, I was/am against the grant. Why? Because it makes the process unduly complicated. Good stewardship would require both Komen and PP to have a process to ensure the grant money was correctly used. When third parties are involved this makes it more complicated to ensure/prove. It's simply a matter of too many cooks spoil the soup.

    February 9, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • max

      the money was for breat cancer screening. mammograms are just one type of screening. i see way to much repeated from the hannity show and passed off as intelligent here

      February 9, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • Furby

      Rubbish, Marie. You'll believe whatever your "pastor," Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Rick Santorum TELL YOU TO BELIEVE. You no more care about the health of poor women than flying to the moon. LOL!

      February 9, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • Marie

      Your comments point to something that is very wrong in our country. I have my OWN opinion. I don't watch Fox New – can't stand it – and am actually a registered Democrat. I'm just all for keeping the process as uncomplicated as possible. As for mammograms being only source of detection, yes, that's true. If your mammogram shows a mass, as mine did, then you go for an ultrasound. Those aren't performed at PP either.

      February 9, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
    • Credenza

      Max – abortion is a cancer risk. PP carry out 330,000 abortions a year. Then they send their 'clients' for mammograms to track the number of camcers they have caused. And of course, YOU think that's ethical!!!!! Strange.

      February 9, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • Cricket11

      There is NO factual, concrete, scientific evidence in any major medical journal showing that abortion causes breast cancer. None. It's one of the many lies PLers like to use in their propoganda. There was ALSO a recent strudy in Demark showing women did NOT suffer higher instances of mental illness (depression, PTSD, etc) following an abortion.

      February 9, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • GodPot

      "PP carry out 330,000 abortions a year. Then they send their 'clients' for mammograms to track the number of camcers they have caused."

      You do realize how crazy you sound right, like JFK was killed by aliens theorist crazy. You are implying that a womens health care group is knowingly giving patients a terminal disease so they can make more money off check ups? You confirm to me there is no God because if there was he would be so ashamed of the ignorance and lies spouted in his name that he would strike you all down. But since he lets you go on being such mindless, selfish, egotistical windbags then he either doesn't exist or isn't "all knowing".

      February 9, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • GodPot

      Some things you may not know about Planned Parenthood:

      — Most of its services — 71 percent — are for birth control and testing and treatment of s e xually transmitted diseases. Abortions made up 3 percent of its services in 2010. Cancer screening accounted for about 15 percent.

      — Most of Planned Parenthood's clients are too young for breast cancer screening under most guidelines, although they are prime age for cervical cancer screening. About 80 percent are under 35.

      — Planned Parenthood doesn't follow the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, which do not endorse clinical breast exams and recommend mammograms only every other year starting at age 50. Instead, Planned Parenthood does a physical breast exam on any woman of any age as part of a regular physical, and refers for mammograms any women 40 and older.

      — Komen paid for just 170,000 of the more than 4 million clinical breast exams Planned Parenthood performed nationwide over the last five years, and just 6,400 of Planned Parenthood's 70,000 mammography referrals in that time.

      — The government has long paid Planned Parenthood for services related to cancer and s e xually transmitted diseases. The group gets federal and state money for breast cancer screening service through a program for poor and uninsured women.

      source: The AP 2/4/2012

      February 9, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • GodPot

      So the long and short of it: Pro-life = Holding 97% of many womens needs hostage because 3% want something you are unwilling to allow. Cutting off your nose to spite your face as it were. I would just laugh and make fun of your ignorance if you weren't causing real harm to people, so those with brains that have not been addled by religion must continue to fight for womens rights.

      February 9, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • Credenza

      Cricket111 – don't make wild assertions. I just had 21 mammograms over a period of 6 months. After talking to an EXPERT in breast cancer who quoted recent research – I have been exposed to a REAL risk. of breast camcer with far LESS than 21 mammograms. The same research showed that abortion carries a similar risk.
      So don't pontificate to ME about said risk. You don't actually KNOW what you're talking about so do us all a favour and shut up

      February 9, 2012 at 3:20 pm |
    • Cricket11

      LOL Oh Credenza. How cute. So because you claim some medical "expert" told you something that means that it's true.?Silly. That's what's called "anecdotal evidence" and it amounts to NOTHING in a debate. My doctor (and expert) told ME that there's no link. See how that works? That's why hearsay is often not used in a court of law – you can't prove it. It's also amusing that you demanded links and proof from someone on the opposing side of this discussion yet here you are, unable to present the "facts" you so eloquently claim. Oh, I'm sorry. I might be overstepping here – did you WANT to have a intelligent debate? Or just come here to post that "abortion is the debil !!!"?

      February 9, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
    • Credenza

      Cricket – My advice was backed up with facts shown from the MEDICAL PROFESSION in a report on the internet – not just one doctor [who'll usually tell you something you WANT to hear.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
    • Cricket11

      Links please Credenza? Because I call BS. NO major medical association can find a link between the two. Not the Amer. Cancer Society, not the WHO, none. Your "doctor" should go back to medical school or stop getting medical information from pro-life websites.

      February 13, 2012 at 8:39 am |
  9. The Paron

    Mollie, if you really want to be a Christian, you need to learn to check your hate at the door.

    February 9, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • Credenza

      Paron – given your reaction and the other nasties on here who show REAL hatred for Catholics who are obeying the Commandment "Thou shall not KILL" You're backing a loser, mate, quit while you're ahead.

      February 9, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
  10. dvm42

    hilreal: Now you judge what is best for the child? I don't condone abuse, but there are other ways to deal with abuse than to say a person shouldn't have been born. How many things in life do you wish had not happened to you? Everyone goes through parts of life they wish they didn't have to experience. My heart goes out to the abused children. But just because you were/are abused does not mean you were an unwanted child initially. Sometimes people are abusive to their children because of something else going on in their life and they take out their anger and depression on their kids, and it's wrong, but that doesn't make them unwanted necessarily. The USA has SO MANY RESOURCES for people! I don't always agree with the SRS, but they do a lot of good I think. Also going to centers that support women in pregnancy and see it through and have couseling and/or adoption help. There are ways outside of abortion. If the statistic is true, the equivalent population of my hometown is aborted EVERY YEAR by Planned Parenthood. That blows my mind. And it breaks my heart.

    February 9, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • max

      you assume that women are too stupid to understand the decision without mandated counseling. its not your decision to make.

      February 9, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • Credenza

      What a great post dvm42 – God Bless you.

      Max – your so-called "mandatory counselling " tells young women that they're not killing a baby – it,s ONLY a blob of cells dear. But you might get a little depressed afterwards, that's QUITE normal!. Give me a break, what planet are you on!

      February 9, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • Cricket11

      Credenza, you say "God bless you" to all those you agree with and directly insult the intelligence and character of those you don't. Why is that? Do only those that see things YOUR way deserve God's blessings and everyone else is an idiot? That's pretty much demonstrating the close-minded hatred from the "Christian" side most are talking about here. God would be disappointed.

      February 9, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
    • Credenza

      Cricket111 – you're really not very bright are you? Do you honestly expect me to ask God's blessing on people who willingly and systematically murder children and offend against His Commandment "Thou shall not kill" ??????

      That is not hatred, it's common sense. If I blessed them I would be condoning their actions and that is not possible. I can tell you what I DO, I pray for abortionists that they have a change of heart, for God's sake – not mine. I don't judge – I disapprove strongly and I don't hate. That's YOUR interpretation and YOUR mistake. Don't shuffle it off on me.

      February 9, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
    • Cricket11

      I'm not very bright? Laughable. I can see why we can't connect on this one – we're thinking of two different Gods. Yours is one of spite and fear, mine is one of love and understanding. Now it makes sense. True Christians pray for everyone, not just those they agree with.

      February 9, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
    • Keith

      Cricket11, You've created a god in your mind. You've selected him from a smorgasboard of attributes that appeal to your liking. That's called idolatry. In reality, your god does not exist. How about just letting the whole counsel of God speak for itself? Fair enough?

      February 10, 2012 at 8:51 am |
    • Cricket11

      Interesting view Keith. Now, I've been raised to believe that God loves us and allows us to choose our way in life. So, because that's not the way YOU view it, it's not "reality"? How...sad. I'm very sorry you live you live your life in fear and can't make decisions for yourself without consulting the Bible first.

      February 10, 2012 at 9:00 am |
    • Cricket11

      Also, Keith, I think you're misusing the word "idolatry" here.

      February 10, 2012 at 9:05 am |
    • Cricket11

      One last question Keith, while we're getting to know each other: What's your take on gay marriage? I'm genuinely curious.

      February 10, 2012 at 9:20 am |
    • Keith

      Cricket11, Hbr 13:4 Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whor-emongers and adulterers God will judge.

      February 10, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
    • Cricket11

      That's very nice Keith but it doesn't answer my question. Are you capable of having your own thoughts? If so, what is YOUR take on GAY MARRIAGE. I don't care what a bible verse says.

      February 13, 2012 at 8:40 am |
  11. max

    this article is poorly written garbage. cnn should refuse to accept stuff that should be on the edit room floor

    February 9, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • Credenza

      On the contrary – it's a fantastic article AND it's true. But don't let your inability to recognize great journalism, due to your failed education system, stop your inane and worthless comments.

      February 9, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
  12. Mattens

    Liar. The real story here is the effort of right wing anti-abortion fanatics to turn the story to abortion, and damn the health of women.

    February 9, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
  13. Bill Mars

    Thank you Mollie for trying to get the truth out. You are a brave and rare journalist.

    February 9, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    • Furby

      She's a journalist? Yeah, well maybe so...IF YOU CONSIDER RUSH LIMBAUGH A JOURNALIST. lol...

      February 9, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • Credenza

      Bless yoou Bill. excellent comment.

      February 9, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
  14. Gail Stiles Brown

    The focus of this story is not about abortion. It is about the detection and treatment of breast cancer. The grants to Planned
    Parenthood were only for the detection and information regarding breast cancer. No funds from the Komen foundations were
    used to fund any of the many other services that Planned Parenthood provides. By eliminating these grants it meant that women, especially women with limited resources, would have fewer available facilities for detecting and treating breast cancer. If a potential donor to the Komen foundation has a problem with that it is because that donor has a larger political
    agenda. The Komen foundation has recognized their error and is striving to refocus on its critical goal of detecting, treating and finding a cure for breast cancer.

    February 9, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
    • Credenza

      It IS about abortion. Abortion is one of the listed causes of breast cancer. and since that is a MEDICAL, not Catholic, fact – how many women who had 330,000 abortions last year do you think have contracted cancer???? PP can tell you – they use to track their clients with Komen funding for mammograms.

      February 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Cricket11

      There is no proven link between breast cancer and abortion. Many, many major medical organizations have studied it extensively and have come up with the same conclusion: abortion is not a cause of breast cancer. Please don't say its one of the the "listed causes of breast cancer." IT'S NOT.

      February 9, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
  15. Aegless

    Keith,

    You obviously believe in a Fairy Tale... save your guilt and shame for your pastor. Your keyboard courage is laughable, your messages are nothing but hate and spite and you are a Christian? I realize you probably are incapable of real personal insight, but your example here is anything but Christian.

    I will keep you in prayer.

    February 9, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • Keith

      By the sounds of it, I'd rather you not pray for me to your "god" as it seems to be some "god" you made up in your head to suit your needs. That's idolatry. I'm only interested in the God of the Bible.

      February 9, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
  16. Annalee Perez

    The fact that the word, "abortifacients", and not "contraceptives" was used in this right-winged opinion piece shows the level of understanding and consideration the author has for the whole story. It's clear the 'whole' story is only what the author believes. Komen's defunding of Planned Parenthood WAS political. It's a fact that cannot be denied whether you like the Komen CEO interviewer or not. The Komen Foundation's response was that their new policy forbid them from funding any organization under investigation and so they stopped funds to Planned Parenthood. And yet, they have not pulled their $7.5million grant from Penn State – which is in clear violation of their policies of 2008 when the grant was negotiated. Added to that is a counter-balance to Planned Parenthood's donations to democrats which was stated in this article as if it were a shocking secret. The counter-balance is the donations made by Nancy Brinker (Komen founder) of more than $200,000. to republicans. Komen stripped Planned Parenthood of its funding because the anti-choice leaders of Komen thought they'd finally found a loophole they could wiggle through. Instead, they wound up stuck with their panties in a knot. That's the whole story. Like it. Or not.

    February 9, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
    • denver2

      Zing!

      February 9, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
  17. Aegless

    Mollie Ziegler Hemingway's opinion piece is trash.

    "Karen Handel says she resigned as a vice president for Susan G. Komen for the Cure because she had become "too much of a focal point" in the controversy surrounding Komen’s decision to cut its funding to Planned Parenthood - a decision that, after a torrent of public outcry, was reversed within days." Fox News

    Sorry, Karen you were fired for your actions, dishonesty and ignorance.

    February 9, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
  18. John Bell

    The facts of actual behavior show that "50% of Americans are pro-life" just like Rick Santorum: they bitterly oppose abortion unles someone they really care about needs one - like Karen.

    February 9, 2012 at 11:13 am |
  19. hilreal

    And Fox News is fair? Catholic Church is apolitical? Pro Lifers get no press? Give me a break.

    February 9, 2012 at 9:13 am |
    • Keith

      hilreal, this may come as a surprise to you but I don't think Fox News is fair and balanced at all. They are the right wing propaganda machine of the Republican party-much like cnn, nbc, cbs, abc are the same thing to the Democrats. In order to advance your agenda, you should have a powerful propaganda wing. It is essential to the special interests. You and I have to see through it all and think for ourselves.

      February 9, 2012 at 1:15 pm |
  20. Keith

    I can't help but imagine these people in the photograph standing there on Judgement Day holding up their silly little signs, showing them to the Creator of the lives they snuffed out.

    February 9, 2012 at 7:50 am |
    • Cricket11

      And I can't help but imagine that IF God exists and you face him someday he'll be less than happy about your hatred and judgement for your fellow man. Why not go out and actually DO something rather than showing off your ignorance on an opinion blog on CNN.com? That's not helping one bit. Oh, that's right – It's easier to force your beliefs on others and point the finger because it deflects from your hypocrisy. If you don't like abortion, don't get one. It's simple. But don't take away the rights of others simply because YOU think it's wrong. I think eating animals is wrong but I don't want it made illegal. My son eats meat. Because I DON"T FORCE MY BELIEFS ON HIM. Free will, Keith. Free will. It's what your God stands for. Worry about yourself, I'll worry about me.

      February 9, 2012 at 9:08 am |
    • Keith

      Their signs could say "over 50 million killed since 1973". Congratulations. You've now equalled the slaughter of WW ll.

      February 9, 2012 at 9:10 am |
    • hilreal

      My caring loving God will thank these people for not bringing more unwanted children into the world to face abuse and an unloving family. Work in foster care for a few years and you will encounter many children that would have been much better off never being born. There is a fate worse than death. PS: Before you criticize, be sure to tell us how mant of these unwanted children you have adopted in the last 10 years? There are hundreds of thousands in the US waiting on adoption roles, just think if we added those millions more that were aborted.) I also bet you are the first to vote for GOPers that want to cut funding to Children's Services, food stamps to feed these children, etc. I am sure God will be pleased with you.

      February 9, 2012 at 9:17 am |
    • Cricket11

      Thank you hilreal. My point exactly. "Save the fetus!" but then once born, they're just S.O.L. Seems to be the mentality of a majority of the PLers.

      February 9, 2012 at 9:19 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Gotta love apocalyptic schadenfreude.
      It's so very Christian of you, Keith.

      February 9, 2012 at 9:20 am |
    • govspy

      Hey Keith.

      If God doesn't like people having abortions, why don'y you let HIM handle that. if God doesn't have a problem with people exercising their free will, why do you?

      February 9, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • The Paron

      Well said hilreal. Thanks.

      February 9, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • Keith

      hilreal, you ASSume much about me. You know nothing about me.
      doc vestibule, you know nothing about Christianity.
      Cricket11, you value the life of a chicken or cow more than that of a human being-that pretty much says it all about you.

      February 9, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • Keith

      govspy, be careful about which god your talking about. You obviously know nothing about the God of the Bible and how He operates. Khamheni's allah would wipe the Jews from the face of the earth-but I suppose that's okay with you.

      February 9, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • Furby

      Keith, you're a Christian and "know" the god of the Bible? I don't think so. Much hate in you I sense. 😉

      February 9, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
    • Keith

      Furby, Unfortunately, the term "Christian" has been muddied up very much by people like the Episcopalians. Christ will reject these false churches. The real Christians are rapidly becoming a thing of the past much to the delight of many of you on this blog. If you don't like something....simply re-define it. Then demonize the original-quite a clever strategy really-one that's straight from hell.

      February 9, 2012 at 1:03 pm |
    • Keith

      50 million killed in America alone. Staggering. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin would be jealous of Planned Parenthood.
      Hell, that doesn't even count Canada-well Doc vestibule, since you want to stick your nose in this-how many have been slaughtered north of the border?

      February 9, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
    • Keith

      Furby, furthermore, I DO hate evil. Abortion if evil.
      Jhn 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly.
      Satan is that thief. He steals the very life from you and worse yet, has you mother do the job for him. How's it make you feel to know that Satan is using you as a pawn?

      February 9, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Keith
      Blastocysticide is not infanticide.
      Regardless, here's a few instances of God Himself condoning, commanding or committing abortion:
      Hosea 9:11-16 in which Hosea beseeches God to make all of the women of Ephraim miscarry, which God does.
      Numbers 5:11-21 outlines a ritual to rid an adulterous woman of another man's child.
      Numbers 31:17, in which Moses command the slaughter of any woman who "hath known man by lying with him". So, kill potentially pregant women and therefore their unborn children as well.
      Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”.
      In 2 Kings 15:16, God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah to be “ripped open”.

      You say I know nothing of Christianity – and yet did not refute my statement regarding apocalyptic schadenfreude – which is exactly what you're revelling in!
      In your first post, you gleefully asserted that you can't wait to see all those people be condemned to hell (in so many words).

      February 9, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • Cricket11

      Oh Keith, Keith, Keith. You've missed the point so many people have been trying to make, no matter how much they dumb it down for you. I'm not shocked. Luckily, I know that if there really is a God, he's loving, forgiving, and knows what's really in someone's heart. Sounds like YOUR heart is full of hate. God knows that and you might have to answer to him someday. What about Christian love?

      February 9, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • Credenza

      Cricket111 – God gave us unconditional free will AND 10 Commandments to guide us. We can accept "Thou shall not kill" or not as we wish. At the end of the day it's God we answer to. And no amount of statistics or backup from like minded people will be there to support us when we stand alone before God and give an account of our lives.

      Please feel free to believe or disbelieve what I say. Your privilege. But Jesus in the New Testament tells us this for a fact.

      February 9, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
    • Keith

      Doc Vestibule, where do you get off putting words in people's mouths? Do you have a comprehension problem? Is the English language a challenge for you? Just because you can copy/paste a few verses from some atheist website doesn't make you a theologian. You never did answer the question of how many babies have been slaughtered in Canada. Perhaps you can show me(and everyone else) where I'm gleefully watching people being condemned to hell? What's the matter Doc, guilty conscience?
      This is why people are condemned:
      Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

      Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

      Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

      Jhn 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

      February 9, 2012 at 7:27 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Keith
      I inferred your schadenfreude from the following observations.
      1) You believe that God will judge everyone
      "... these people in the photograph standing there on Judgement Day "

      2) You believe that abortion is a mortal sin
      " Abortion if evil."

      3) You fantasize about people facing God's wrath
      "I can't help but imagine these people in the photograph standing there on Judgement Day "

      4) You belittle those who you think will face eternal torment.
      "silly little signs"

      Canada's annual abortion rate is about 100,000.

      February 10, 2012 at 9:05 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Keith
      And since you're so adept at playing semantics, ("how many babies have been slaughtered"), I would like to reiterate that a blastocyst is not a baby.

      February 10, 2012 at 9:08 am |
    • Keith

      Doc Vestibule, I take no pleasure from people being condemned to the lake of fire. The sad thing is that they choose to go there.
      Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

      Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

      February 10, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
    • Keith

      hilreal, don't lay this "how many have you adopted" crap on me. The people engaging in the act need to take personal RESPONSIBILITY for themselves. If not, then maybe they should keep their legs closed, huh?

      February 11, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.