home
RSS
'Choose Life' license plates ruled unconstitutional in North Carolina
December 11th, 2012
01:13 AM ET

'Choose Life' license plates ruled unconstitutional in North Carolina

By Joe Sutton, CNN

(CNN) - A federal judge ruled that North Carolina's new "Choose Life" license plates are unconstitutional because the state does not offer a pro-choice alternative.

"The State's offering a Choose Life license plate in the absence of a pro-choice alternative constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment," U.S. District Court Judge James Fox wrote in the ruling Friday.

The ruling was praised by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had filed a lawsuit in 2011 to stop the specialty plates.

"This is a great victory for the free speech rights of all North Carolinians, regardless of their point of view on reproductive freedom," said Chris Brook of the ACLU. "The government cannot create an avenue of expression for one side of a contentious political issue while denying an equal opportunity to citizens with the opposite view."

Republican state Rep. Mitch Gillespie, who sponsored the bill for the "Choose Life" plates, said he would push for an appeal of the judge's decision, CNN affiliate WRAL reported.

The bill for the license plates passed in 2011, and the legislation also mandated that money raised from the sale of the specialty plates would go to a nonprofit that supports crisis pregnancy centers, WRAL reported.

During the fight to get the bill passed, North Carolina lawmakers voted down amendments that would have created pro-choice alternatives such as "Trust Women. Respect Choice," the affiliate reported.

The "Choose Life" plates are available in 29 states, according to Choose Life Inc., a nonprofit that helps states that want to sell these specialty plates.

- A. Hawkins

Filed under: Abortion • Courts • North Carolina

soundoff (3,213 Responses)
  1. Kathy0715

    Tell me, Rocky, can you read? Did you actually read the article?

    December 11, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • Akira

      No, no he didn't, as the other 80% of the people commenting also show...

      December 11, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
  2. Doc Vestibule

    “The country and culture commonly known as "America" had had a badly split personality all through its history. Its overt laws were almost always puritanical for a people whose covert behavior tended to be Rabelaisian; its major religions were all Apollonian in varying degrees-its religious revivals were often hysterical in a fashion almost Dionysian.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

    December 11, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
  3. Whome

    My guess if they had put choose abortion on the plates it would have been ok.

    December 11, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • davidp

      Actually, not. If you read the article (and it was pretty short) you would've seen where it said that one of the reasons it wasn't okay was because there wasn't a pro-choice option of a license plate (second parageraph).

      December 11, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • Bet

      Ugh, another idiot who didn't bother to read the article.

      December 11, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
  4. Captain Tom

    Most "pro-life" people are only "pro-life" while the life is in the womb. After they are born they no longer matter to many on the "right". Have a great day!

    December 11, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • Madtown

      Yes sir, after they're born they then transform into moochers looking for their government handout.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • cdarnold2

      You know, I was just thinking the same thing. Just got done reading an artical about the Trayvon Martin case and so many comments in short referred to him as a thug who got what he deserved. Want to bet how many of those people are also so-called "pro-life"?

      December 11, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Most of the pro-lifers are the same people who vote against every measure taken to extend healthcare for infants and children and who refuse to restrict the flow of guns that end up killing our kids. They're just parroting lines the local pastor fed them to get them fired up for whatever he was pushing.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
  5. Kathy0715

    How about we hear from the woman in Ireland who was denied an abortion last month, oh we can't because she died of an infected, dead fetus inside of her. Maybe Karen Santorum would respond to you, she had her abortion when she was 19 weeks pregnant.

    December 11, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • Captain Tom

      Well put!

      December 11, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      As much as I am pro-choice and think Rick Santorum is a sanctimonious piece of sh!t, I place a higher value on truth and facts. So, Kathy0715, please provide your sources for your claim about Karen Santorum, or admit that you are propagating bullsh!t.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • sortakinda

      A terrible tragedy. IN IRELAND. What about the FIFTY FOUR MILLION abortions in the United States between 1973 and 2011? Why not ask the children who never became scientists, doctors, teachers whose lives were taken from them, and the contributions to society that will never be enjoyed?

      December 11, 2012 at 3:10 pm |
    • Bet

      @ sortakinda

      Why don't you ask the millions of real, living, unwanted and unloved children who live in unspeakable poverty and abuse how they feel about their lives?

      December 11, 2012 at 3:15 pm |
    • sortakinda

      Bet

      How "wanted" does a child have to be for you to let him/her live? How wealthy does he/she have to be at birth? Who decides? You? More meaningless blather. Come to terms with your thinly veiled eugenics.

      December 11, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • Primewonk

      @ sorta I ad – the proto typical Christian version of a god claims both omnipotence and omniscience. As such, he KS personally responsible for all the spontaneous abortions – most of which happen in the first days of pregnancy, long before the woman even knows she is pregnant. This amounts to 50% of all pregnancies is worlwide. This 200,000 abortions caused by this god EVERY DAY. Get this sick putz to knock it off. Then we'll talk.

      December 11, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • Bet

      @sortakinda

      I'm not trying to decide for someone else whether to have a baby or to have an abortion, so your eugenics label isn't valid. I'm saying that it's an individual choice. You brought up all the "lives" that never really existed, I'm simply pointing out that there are millions of living children who are unwanted and unloved, as opposed to nonexistent ones.

      Of course that's the "Pro Life" way, isn't it? You fight for a clump of cells, but once the baby is born, you couldn't care less what kind of life it has. You promote cuts to services and health care that these children desperately need, because then it's just a moocher who is draining your tax dollars.

      December 11, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
    • Sorta kinda

      If the fetus isn't "alive" why are you killing "it?" If an abortion is nothing, why does looking at a picture or reading about the tearing, scraping and crushing the skull of a fetus bother anyone? Because you know abortion is wrong. Not that you think it is wrong, but that it is absolutely wrong.

      December 11, 2012 at 6:06 pm |
  6. Rocky

    If the pro-choicers didn't want to put up an alternative, thats their loss. Why should the pro-lifers be prohibited from free speech because the pro-choice maniacs didn't want to put up the alternative. There was a method to the pro-choice madness– their lawyers told them not to put out an alternative so that "life" will be dead on the license plate. How evil can you get. Millions of babies have been killed since the 70's. Animals have more emotional feeling to protect their young than humans. Puppies are safer than babies these days and I love puppies, but human life is not sacred, how can this be that babies are murdered and not allowed to live and grow and enjoy and do all the things that their mothers do? What right do people have to destroy millions of lives? And now we have a baby-killing President who has no character, no empathy or feeling or sympathy for babies.

    December 11, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • Huebert

      Read the article

      "During the fight to get the bill passed, North Carolina lawmakers voted down amendments that would have created pro-choice alternatives such as "Trust Women. Respect Choice," the affiliate reported."

      December 11, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • READ THE FVCKING ARTICLE

      During the fight to get the bill passed, North Carolina lawmakers voted down amendments that would have created pro-choice alternatives such as "Trust Women. Respect Choice," the affiliate reported.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • sam stone

      rocky: read the article. the pro-choice plate was voted down by the legislators

      December 11, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • sam stone

      rocky: abortion is not murder according to the law of the land. all your blather about it will not change that fact.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • sam stone

      how about the previous president, rocky? how about a long line of previous presidents who did not end abortion? why just pick on one?

      December 11, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • Which God?

      Rocky+ reading comprehension fail +5th grade education+rocks for brains=moron.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • Rebecca

      Excellent choice of words Rocky! You Rock!

      December 11, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
    • davidp

      Yeah, at least GWB outlawed abortion.....wait, no he didn't..can he join the baby-killer club too??

      December 11, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • Bet

      Another babble banger with no reading comprehension skills.

      December 11, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Rocky wrote, "And now we have a baby-killing President who has no character..."

      This, of course, is fucking bullshit Rocky. From 2000 to 2006 you fundiot nutters had the perfect storm. You owned the White House, Senate, House, and Supreme Court. Explain to us why you nutters didn't repeal Roe then?

      December 11, 2012 at 3:35 pm |
  7. Miki

    How odd. I have seen this tag in other states many times and it never dawned on me that it was an anti-abortion reference. I just took it as some soccer Mom message...choose family, health, no drugs type of thing. I'm completely pro-choice but have never felt the need to post it on my car. I wish people would keep their beliefs in their head and their own home. I think its silly to post on a license plate, but really, it's not offensive. Personally, I think there should be no messages on cars...bumper stickers, fish, sayings on tags, as it just adds more distractions to drivers. You don't need someone rear ending you as they try to read the message under your stick figure family or contemplate why you put Team Jacob on your car.

    December 11, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • Saraswati

      It would be interesting to see some stats on how often people with stickers/odd plates etc. are rear-ended compared to others. I suspect you're right.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • lol??

      Socies are always broke, err worse than broke. It comes from spreading responsibility around. Usurping, so to speak.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • Bet

      @LOL??

      What are these "socies" that you keep referring to?

      December 11, 2012 at 3:10 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Bet, He referred to "socialists" once. No, it doesn't make any sense.

      December 11, 2012 at 9:33 pm |
  8. Scott

    I've got an idea for a pro-abortion license plate.

    Baby-Butchers-Я-Us

    Scott

    December 11, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • Saraswati

      #209.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • sam stone

      Wow, Scott....that sure is clever.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • aergern

      Well, be happy they missed you.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Which God?

      Yes Sam, and he's so tolerate too. Pray your wife doesn't need medical help for an ectopic fetus. You would just have to tell her, too bad, you must carry until it dies, like they did in Ireland.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
  9. Jeff

    I've always wanted a "Separation of Church and State" vanity plate

    December 11, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
    • sortakinda

      Too many lettres. Try "No God," iif that works for you.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • lol??

      So why did the state "take over" by incorporating them? I can't imagine Paul begging for permission to preach from Caesar. Socies are tricKY.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • Mohammad A Dar

      if you can come up in 5 or 6 letters meaningful name, I am sure you can get it

      December 11, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
  10. sortakinda

    Hey, this is all anonymous, so you're not telling anyone your "business" in a way that compromises your privacy, every woman who has a comment, please first state how many abortions you have had, and then proceed with your comment.

    December 11, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • sortakinda

      Let's stop dealing with this as an abstract discussion. Let the women who can speak from experience speak. Everyone else is just posturing.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • Huebert

      To you have to try to be this big of a sh!t or were you just born that way?

      December 11, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • Akira

      I know...first admit how often you masterbate with your blow-up doll first.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • Scott

      Good one Sortakinda. You've got the baby butchers' skivvies wadded up on this one, e.g. Huebert & Akira ;)

      Scott

      December 11, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • Saraswati

      And this would show what about the validity of the commenter’s argument? Do some college freshman level readings on fallacious arguments and get back to us.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • Huebert

      Scott

      Would you like to make an argument or do you just want to sit there and act smug?

      December 11, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • sgurdog

      No! Next idiot please.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • sam

      LOL Akira

      That's the only kind of response this idiot deserves.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • Kathy0715

      How about we hear from the woman in Ireland who was denied an abortion last month, oh we can't because she died of an infected, dead fetus inside of her. Maybe Karen Santorum would respond to you, she had her abortion when she was 19 weeks pregnant.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • sortakinda

      Huebert
      When you have nothing good to say, be yourself. A name caller.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:41 pm |
    • sortakinda

      Correct me if I'm "wrong"-has anyone responded to the invitation to speak from experience? Just a lot of jabber from people who like the idea of having an abortion. No one who has had an abortion.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
    • sortakinda

      Sam, Akira, I bet you both agree that if men could get pregnant, they'd get abortions, too. On this planet men don't get pregnant. And if you are going to insult someone, check your spelling. You'll seem smarter.

      December 11, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • Bet

      First, if you think the internet is really anonymous, you're an idiot.

      Second, why do you think having had an abortion makes someone's comment more or less valid?

      December 11, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
    • sortakinda

      Bet
      The point of validity is someone speaking from EXPERIENCE rather than hypothetically. Do you think you can speak with any real credibility of what it was like to have walked on the moon compared to someone who has? If you think you can, you delude yourself. Anyone who has not had an abortion can only guess what it's like. And the "pro-choice" voices on this page generally haven't a clue what it is like but it doesn't stop their ponticfications. And name calling.

      December 11, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
    • Bet

      You have really taken the "if you can't convince them with facts, dazzle them with bullshyte" to heart, haven't you?

      Please explain why you need to hear from someone's personal abortion experience in order to decide the validity of their viewpoint?

      December 11, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      You want experience? How about taking a 14 year old neighbor in to a clinic to have an abortion because her step brother told her that she couldn't get pregnant the first time before he plied her with beer and "seduced" her?

      How about holding the hand of a mother of two, who wanted her baby more than anything, but knew that it would kill her to carry to term, then holding her while she sobbed for hours after?

      Self righteous men who can not get pregnant need to keep their noses out of our bodies.

      December 11, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • sortakinda

      There is not a single person on this blog that I have seen admit that she had an abortion. Many are men who couldn't have one biologically. And the women who have had one (or more) are not testifying that it changed their life for the better. The 14 year and the step brother (if the story is true–not hyperbole) did not have all of her problems miraculously cured by the abortion–just another proble to deal with in terms of guilt, ability to get pregnant later in life, her dealings with men and the list goes on. So, BET, you have done nothing here but posture and name call. Have someone read you a book. At this point if someone "testifies" to first hand abortion experience, I fully expect it to be some troll or someone whose imagination supports his/her position--But BET or Prime Wonk or the rest of the Planned parenthood crowd will have to invent a new tag to try and sell the refreshing results from an abortion.

      December 11, 2012 at 4:49 pm |
  11. SMARTER THAN MOST

    Simple, if you don't like make another choice. They have more than one kind of plate available. Then we all have a choice.
    Mine is I would buy it, but live in another state, but will request it to be available here.

    December 11, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • Jeff

      Is English your first language?

      December 11, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • the AnViL

      try reading the article first....... then comment.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • cmc

      Actually, the second to the last paragraph states that they do not allow the option for a pro-choice plate. It was voted against. That's why they didn't win this court case.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • ME II

      Smarter than most what? house plants?

      December 11, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • PaganScorp

      Based on your grammar, I'm not so sure that you are "SMARTER THAN MOST".

      December 11, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • Saraswati

      The opposite side of the argument does not have a plate, nor is there any possible way to accommodate all views. Buy a bumper sticker.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • Bet

      @ (not) smarter than most

      An alternative WAS proposed, and the legislature voted it down. Did you not read the article before posting your not so smart comment?

      December 11, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
  12. Dave

    Dumb decision. The message 'Choose Life' actually affirms both sides of the argument, doesn't it? It affirms the right to choose, and advocates how to use that right. Or does is really need to be balanced with 'Choose Death'?

    December 11, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • lol??

      That'd be cool.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • Scott

      Colorado also has a "Choose Life" license plate with the state flower, Columbine, on it. This plate came out right after the mass murders at Columbine High School. However, the pro-abortion crowd had a fit over it "claiming" that it espoused anti-abortion views, BUT in our case no judge ruled against it.

      By the way, the Colorado "Choose Life" license plate has become a de factor anti-abortion plate ;-)

      Scott

      December 11, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • Saraswati

      #208.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • Akira

      READ THE ARTICLE!!!
      They pro choice plate was rejected at the same time this one was voted in...which is why the court ruled as they did.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • Fred

      Scott, there is no "pro-abortion" crowd. Nobody urges women to have abortions. One side respects women enough to allow them to control their bodies, and the other side thinks the government should control women's bodies.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • sgurdog

      No it doesn't. What if I'm terminally sick and want the freedom to end my life with dignity? Why would I choose life? Why not "MY CHOICE". That would actually satisfy all arguments.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • Longmont

      Scott.....The columbine plate is "Respect Life".....not "choose life". I don't think it was intended as an anti-abortion statement (but I could be wrong)

      December 11, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • PaganScorp

      To Scott:

      "By the way, the Colorado "Choose Life" license plate has become a de factor anti-abortion plate"
      no sh.t sherlock..ya think?

      To Dave:

      If there was a "choose death" plate you can bet the right wingnuts would be running around naked with their hair on fire freaking out about it too

      December 11, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Dave

      My point is that in using the slogan 'Choose Life', the anit-abortion crowd seems to be conceding the traditional argument to the pro-abortion crowd by agreeing that a pregnant woman has a choice. Am I missing something?

      December 11, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • PaganScorp

      Well yes actually you are. First of all the "choose life" slogan has been the anti-abortion slogan ever since christ was a cowboy. Second, (as Fred pointed out) there is no "pro-abortion" group. None of us walk in a circle in front of a church chanting "have abortions now!, have abortions now!". We simply believe that women should be able to choose on their own what is best for them. If there is a god, then he or she will deal with the woman who had the abortion. It is none of your business what she does with her body. BTW I happen to be a male in case you were wondering.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
    • Bet

      #208

      Also, "Choose Life" promotes both viewpoints just like "Choose Chevrolet" promotes buying Ford.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • Dave

      "Choose Chevrolet" says you have a choice. Is the formerly 'pro-choice' lobby now moving beyond pushing for a woman's right to choose and advocating that she make a specific choice? If you're really pro-choice, you shouldn't care which choice an individual makes as long as the ability to choose is not taken away.

      December 11, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • Bet

      You are deliberately misunderstanding my words. "Choose Life" promotes a specific choice, as does "Choose Chevrolet".

      My personal viewpoint is that a woman has the right to choose any alternative.

      December 11, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
    • Dave

      Let's continue with your analogy. I submit that if GM wants to advertise 'Choose Chevrolet', that's fine. However, if GM wants to make every other car illegal, that's quite different. If your only concern is to see that choice is protected, 'Choose Life/Chevrolet' is not objectionable. Objecting to that message is objecting to the specific choice advocated, not protecting choice.

      December 11, 2012 at 7:46 pm |
  13. Ted

    In Indiana, we already have scores of specialty license plates; but the Legislature decided a few years ago to offer a no-extra-cost "In God We Trust" plate as an alternative to Indiana's standard plate. It was a very blatant religious move. But of course, we're a state where elected officials are trying once again to have creationism taught in the public schools.

    December 11, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • lol??

      Haggard, go write a book about kweers.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • Mysteryman

      Should be plates like Buddha or Bust...or Atheists Are Awesome....or something like that.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • Akira

      They were forced to make a plain version, too, lol.
      I chuckled at that.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • ME II

      Unfortunately, "In God We Trust" gets a pass because it is the National Motto.

      Yet, another reason to get that changed!

      December 11, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • jslicer

      Same here in KS. Manufacture subsided by the gov't while other designs are not. In God We Trust, indeed.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • James PDX

      Funny, I don't trust god at all. He purposefully created a race of flawed beings and then decided to punish them horrifically for those imperfections. He's kind of a jerk.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Unbelievable. Whole giant frightening swaths of this country I would avoid living in.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • lol??

      James PDX, your paraphrasing is wanting for a little light.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • lol??

      "Saraswati
      Unbelievable. Whole giant frightening....."...."Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and wh re mongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.".....Better luck next time you pick up a bat.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • What IF

      lol??

      What makes you think that things in that old sci-fi, horror, fantasy book (Revelation) are real?

      December 11, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • Bet

      @lol??

      Your babble book of horror stories and fairy tales has no relevance.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
    • Primewonk

      I moved to one of the more fundiot nutter parts of Indiana a couple years ago. When I went to the BMV to get new plates for the cars they asked if I wanted the "in god we trust" plates. I said sure. On one I want "In Bumba" we trust, and on the other I want " In Amma we trust". For the record, these cretins have no sense of humor. I was lucky to make it out alive.

      December 11, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
  14. TJ

    My immediate thought was to have Rep. Gillespie introduce a bill offering plates that say “Choose Abortion” or “Choose Killing Babies” to calm Judge Fox’s concerns. After all allowing the other point of view to be expressed is what the First Amendment is all about.

    I'm sure I will be dismissed as a religionish bigot but I assure that is not the case. It's just that I have a hard time accepting the word "choice" as a rationalization for murder.

    December 11, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • Madtown

      Wow. This post is an excellent reminder to us all, that people like TJ actually are out walking around among us. Be careful out there...

      December 11, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • Huebert

      Abortion is not murder.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • Kathy0715

      NC legislature could have avoided this by not turning down the pro-choice plate "Trust women, respect choice", instead of just going with the anti-choice crowd.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • Scott

      Agreed TJ. Obviously this ріmр (judge) must be pro-abortion. So long as the state hasn't denied baby butchers their license plate, then how can this ріmр rule against the anti-abortion license plate?

      Scott

      December 11, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • James PDX

      TJ, when you walk across a field of grass, youl kill all kinds of living things. These things are fully developed creatures who suffer, whereas, a clump of cells has no thought, emotions or nerves, and has takes absolutely no notice of its demise. So which is truly closer to murder?

      December 11, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • Scott

      OOPS! I stand corrected, they did turn down the pro-abortion plate. My bad.

      Scott

      December 11, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • WhatIsLife

      Huebert: the unborn child has human dna. It is living in the womb, growing. Abortion kills the unborn child. It is murder.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • Fred Evil

      And others of us have a hard time classifying something as murder that truly isn't. I'm no fan of abortions, but forcing women who know they are not ready for motherhood to have the baby only creates resentment and a harder life all around. Not to mention we (the royal 'we') often end up having to pay for much of the youngin's upbringing. Not that I am opposed to doing that either if it is necessary, but it seems ridiculously counter-productive.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • Mysteryman

      How 'bout a plate that says keep your e f f ing religious righteousness out of my face? I'd get that.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
    • Saraswati

      #207.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      If the believer crowd is so concerned about abortion, why do 700,000+ believers have an abortion each year in the USA, accounting for 70% of all abortions? Seems to me, if believers really want to do something about abortion they would get their cult members to follow their own rules and excommunicate or stone anyone that does get an abortion. In othe words, believers should clean up their own backyard and apply their cult's rules to their members before trying to tell others what to do.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • Huebert

      @what is life

      A fetus is not a child, It will be a child if left undisturbed, the same way an acorn will become an oak tree if left undisturbed. But an acorn is not an oak and a fetus is not a child.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • WhatIsLife

      Huebert: "But an acorn is not an oak and a fetus is not a child"

      I disagree. An acorn is an oak – it has oak dna. It is not a fully developed tree, but it is an oak. The only difference is its level of development. Same as with a fetus. It is less developed than a newborn, which is less than a toddler, child, adolescent, and adult, but all are human.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • Huebert

      @what is life

      I guess we just disagree then. You are free to keep your opinion and I am free to keep mine. I won't force you to have an abortion as long as you don't prohibit me form getting one.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
    • sam stone

      it's not murder according to the law of the land

      December 11, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • Bet

      @whatislife

      An embryo has the potential for a human life, it is not a human. Having human dna doesn't make it a human, my fingernail clippings have human dna in them too.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • WhatIsLife

      @Bet: "An embryo has the potential for a human life, it is not a human"

      What are the characteristics of a human that the unborn child does not have? What defines it as a human worthy of the protection of the law?

      December 11, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • Bet

      An embryo is a cluster of cells, not a human being.

      Adam did not become human until god "breathed" life into him. So according to the bible, a person becomes a human with his/her first breath outside the womb. However, your god doesn't seem to care much about babies even after they are born, since he killed so many of them for no other reason than that he was pis.sed about something.

      December 11, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
    • WhatIsLife

      Bet: Interesting that you bring religion into the conversation. I have not mentioned anything from a religious perspective, so how can you assume you are speaking of "My God". And, since from your post, it seems very apparent that you do not believe in God or the Bible, your use of God breathing life into Adam as defining where life begins strikes me as a very invalid argument. So, leaving God out of the equation, when does the embryo change from a cluster of cells to a human being worthy of protection?

      December 11, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
  15. chad

    REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: AGI SURVEY

    93% of the reasons given were due to irresponsibility of the mother
    Health reasons:
    1% r.a.p.e or in.c.est
    3% mother has health problems
    3% possible fetal health problems

    irresponsibility reasons
    21% unready for responsibility
    11% is too immature or young to have child
    0.50% woman's parents want her to have abo.rtion
    12% has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood
    1% husband or partner wants her to have abor.tion
    8% has all the children she wanted or all children are grown
    21% can't afford baby now
    16% concerned about how having baby would change her life
    1% doesn't want others to know she had relations or is pregnant
    3% other

    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abo.rtion/abreasons.html

    December 11, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • Mohammad A Dar

      So!

      December 11, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Kathy0715

      We can get rid of abortions completely if men kept their pants zipped.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Huebert

      All of your "irresponsibility reasons" seem perfectly valid to me.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      Really? "irresponsibility of the mother"

      And the father had nothing to contribute in the 'responsibility' department?

      Unless of course you are talking about mythical immaculate conceptions here.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • Akira

      Women who obtain abortion represent every religious affiliation. 43% of women obtaining abortion identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic; and 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians.
      Clearly, religion has nothing to do with abortion, either.
      It's none of your business, chad, unless you can get pregnant...and then it's still your choice...

      December 11, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • lol??

      GOPher, fathers have been "ruled" out, simpleton.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • Dave

      Yes. And in 99% of those cases. If the child had been born , they would be in a bad situation. Abortion should be the choice parents based on in they feel they can bring up a child in a good home.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • chad

      @GOPer; you are absolutely correct. Amended to
      "93% of the reasons given were due to irresponsibility of the mother/father"

      December 11, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • chad

      @Dave "Yes. And in 99% of those cases. If the child had been born , they would be in a bad situation. Abortion should be the choice parents based on in they feel they can bring up a child in a good home"

      =>so, now we're killing humans if we judge their lives not worth living?

      December 11, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • James PDX

      Kathy0715, way to step up and take responsibility for your own actions.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
    • Guy

      chad
      Since you see abortion as murder what are you going to do to/with the aproximate 1.2 million women that you say commit murder every year?

      December 11, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • ME II

      @chad,
      "so, now we're killing humans if we judge their lives not worth living?"

      Who said anything about killing humans?

      December 11, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • Madtown

      =>so, now we're killing humans if we judge their lives not worth living?
      -----
      Are they humans? This is the crux of the argument. I'm honestly not sure where I stand about it. You obviously believe an unborn is a human. Assuming you're a christian, do you find it at all interesting that the churchs' official position used to be that life began at birth? This has only recently begun to change.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • Chris in TN

      so chad you would rather a child be born into a home where it isn't wanted or can't be supported than for the woman to simply make the smart choice and not have the child? If that is your take then you can't be taking the "I'm for the children" route, unless you are willing to start adopting babies most people think all those reasons are A-OK for having an abortion

      December 11, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • chad

      @Chris in TN , not wanting a child is a crappy reason to kill it.

      If I dont want you, do I get to kill you?

      December 11, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • Bet

      @HangingChad

      It is your opinion that those are "irresponsibility reasons", nothing more. You do not get to decide it for others, no matter how loudly you thump your babble book.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • Guy

      chad
      You ducked thequestion, what do you think should be done to/with the 1.2 million women that get abortions, murder according to you, every year?

      December 11, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
    • chad

      abortion needs to be illegal
      anyone having had an abortion is a sinner, like me (for other reasons, murder is perhaps the only sin I havent actually committed) and needs the sacrificial atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
    • Guy

      chad
      I think I am begining to understand you do not live in the real world but in the delusion that your faith has created, scary.
      Redzoa
      "He (chad) is either hopelessly ignorant or hopelessly disingenuos." I agree but would replace or with and.

      December 11, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
    • chad

      An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent's argument.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy,[2][3][4] more precisely an irrelevance.

      Ad hominem is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument

      December 11, 2012 at 3:35 pm |
    • Madtown

      needs the sacrificial atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross
      -------
      "Can I get the benefit of Christ's sacrifice if I've never heard of him?"

      – signed,
      someone who lives in an area of the world where christianity doesn't exist, but is still human

      December 11, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
    • chad

      @Madtown "Can I get the benefit of Christ's sacrifice if I've never heard of him?""

      http://www.gotquestions.org/where-was-Jesus.html

      December 11, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Who are you to decide that the unwanted pregnancy was due to irresponsibility? Birth control fails. Things happen. Sometimes a mistake is just a mistake.

      December 11, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
    • Madtown

      http://www.gotquestions.org/where-was-Jesus.html

      -----
      Oh thanks, that just answers everything. You may as well have written that web page. No thanks, we'd prefer "real" and truthful answers, if there were any. LOL!!!!!!!!!!

      December 11, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
  16. Kathy0715

    Isn't it about time for the War On Christmas?

    December 11, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      That was last week.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      wont be long before we have the first fool claiming 'its christmas, not xmas!'
      I do love those ignorant types

      December 11, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • Madtown

      I will enthusiastically support a war on Valentine's Day. What a stupid Hallmark holiday.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
  17. John Public Senior

    This is a just ruling. We now need to see this case played out in other States with the same intensity.

    December 11, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
  18. Colin

    Anything that conservative Christians or Evangelicals disagree with is OK by me.

    December 11, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • James PDX

      If only they practiced what they preached, you might have a point. But nothing that hypocrites say is Ok with me, unless it's "I'm sorry, I was a complete fool."

      December 11, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
  19. Sly

    No brainer – discrimination is illegal in America.

    Simple solution: Have the State offer a Pro Choice alternative.

    Then y'all can stop all your whiny blogs.

    December 11, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • Dave

      'Choose Life' IS a pro-choice message. It says you have a choice.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
    • James PDX

      Actually, this is the message of people who want the choice to have an abortion removed by law. Were you serious with that post, Dave?

      December 11, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • Bet

      @Sly

      The state WAS presented an alternative, and voted it down. Hence the lawsuit.

      December 11, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • Dave

      Entirely serious. By selecting the message 'Choose Life', which is clearly directed at pregnant women considering options, the anti-abortion lobby is implicitly recognizing the right to choose. As long as the message is limited to 'Choose Life', the pro-choice group should have no objection – the right to choose is not being challenged. Now, anyone who thinks that another choice is better, or that 'life' should be thought of differently, feel free to sound off. But objecting to the phrase 'Choose Life' is not an argument in favor of choice, but an argument against something else.

      December 11, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
  20. Colin

    Great news!!

    Maybe we can drag North Carolina into the 21st Century, where people no longer believe that Ironze Age Palestinian sky-faries watch over us.

    December 11, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
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.