Supreme Court to hear abortion clinic case
The Supreme Court hears a contentious case about abortion clinics on Wednesday.
January 15th, 2014
09:50 AM ET

Supreme Court to hear abortion clinic case

By Bill Mears, CNN

Boston (CNN) - Outside the Planned Parenthood Clinic in Boston on a recent winter day are the regulars - a small, devoted team of anti-abortion activists, handing out fliers and urging patrons to hear their message: "Save that child." "Every life is precious, protect that life within you." "Please change your mind." Several people pray silently nearby.

Clearly marked on the sidewalk, nearly 12 yards from the front doors, is a painted boundary, a line the protesters cannot cross. By state law, their First Amendment rights stop there.

A metaphoric line - testing the competing limits of what has become a constitutional fight between free speech and public safety - will now be surveyed by the nation's highest court.

The justices on Wednesday will step back into the larger national debate on abortion, when it holds oral arguments on a challenge to a Massachusetts law that established tighter buffer zones around facilities that perform the procedure.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Abortion • Courts • Culture wars • Ethics • Women

soundoff (792 Responses)
  1. GILT

    "Supreme Court to hear abortion clinic case"

    Yes, the only voice that won't be heard when you discuss the case is the deafening silence of those aborted babies.

    January 21, 2014 at 8:41 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      A foetus' vocal chords aren't fully developed until 6 months into pregnancy and cannot be used in utero, regardless.

      January 21, 2014 at 11:28 am |
      • Sheri

        If you had a point Doc, it wasn't in this post.

        January 21, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Reread it and the point will be clear.

          January 21, 2014 at 8:07 pm |
    • Mary Elephant

      Would these be the same voices you ignore after they're born? The ones you consistently ignore now?
      Forcing births by legislation can also be forcing abortions by a different legislation. Be careful what you wish for from the governing bodies.

      January 21, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
      • Sheri

        People generally ignore my voice, I'm still happy I survived long enough to have one.

        January 21, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
        • Mary Elephant

          How nice. Use it to help instead of repression of the rights we already have.

          January 21, 2014 at 9:24 pm |
        • Jen

          She is standing up for human rights, the unborn are humans.

          January 22, 2014 at 7:46 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      Hello GILT, are you there? Waiting for your response.

      January 21, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
      • Sheri

        He probably logged off, but not to worry lots of people read CNN and can pick up where he left off.

        January 21, 2014 at 7:59 pm |
  2. Reality # 2

    Recommended reading: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2012/february/27/five-questions-health-law-mandate-birth-control.aspx

    One interesting item: Regarding contraceptives, only women are covered by the ACA i.e. vasectomies are not covered. nor are men's condoms.

    January 18, 2014 at 11:43 pm |
    • Reality # 2

      And some other nitty-gritty:

      "Twenty-one states offer exemptions from contraceptive coverage, usually for religious reasons, for insurers or employers in their policies: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan (administrative rule), Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia."


      January 18, 2014 at 11:49 pm |
      • People have told you that

        And if you ever went to your doctor and asked him for a prescription for condoms, I would hope he referred to a mental health expert because condoms have been over the counter forever...if they ever required a prescription in the first place. You seem to have difficulty differentiating what can only be prescribed by a doctor.

        Vasectomies are an elective surgery; men's health isn't compromised by NOT getting one.
        A woman's health CAN be compromised by getting pregnant too many times, which is why TL is covered.
        And doctors won't perform a TL on a woman who has never had kids unless there is mega extenuating circu.stances involved.

        Again, what you find noteworthy really isn't...unless you are a man who understands nothing about women's reproductive systems.

        January 19, 2014 at 11:59 am |
        • Reality # 2

          Obviously, you did not read the information referenced above. One more time, please read


          January 20, 2014 at 12:20 am |
        • People have told you that

          What I did get wrong? I read it long ago and have told you in the past that condoms weren't covered. Now you finally get the memo, and *I* am the one who didn't read it ?

          What did I get wrong? Be specific instead of snarky because *you* were wrong in your previous posts.

          January 20, 2014 at 11:31 am |
        • People have told you that

          How is it discrimination? Are you unaware of what the terms prescription only and over the counter means?
          BC pills are prescription only. That means they are not available over the counter. Condoms are available over the counter. That means no prescription necessary.
          Understand now?

          January 20, 2014 at 11:38 am |
        • Reality # 2

          Female condoms are covered by the ACA. And as noted previously, the male condom coverage is a bit murky. No doubt the SCOTUS will take up the issue since not having men covered would be discriminatory as noted in the referenced review. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2012/february/27/five-questions-health-law-mandate-birth-control.aspx

          And the updated ACA, again based on the review, will cover any prescribed contraceptive male or female.

          January 20, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
        • Reality # 2

          "2) Are over-the-counter products like female condoms, spermicides, sponges covered by the rules and, if so, will they require a prescription and how will insurers reimburse policyholders for purchases at retail stores?

          Products that must be covered without cost-sharing include over-the- counter contraceptives when they are prescribed by doctors, the HHS official said Friday. But getting a prescription for such items raises other issues, say advocates and insurers.

          Insurers wrote HHS in September that "it is unclear what specific over-the-counter products are to be included."

          In addition, the letter warned that requiring a prescription for such items "would increase the burden on an already over-burdened primary care system and drive up administrative costs."

          Insurers wrote the industry has no simple way to track and reimburse policyholders who purchase those items at retail stores. Setting up such systems, "could cost tens of millions" and exceed the cost of the products themselves."

          Requiring a prescription should definitely not be required, says Lichtman, who said such a move would make using contraception more difficult and expensive for women.

          January 20, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
        • Destra

          Working in a gyny office like I do, I asked how often they prescribe over the counter items for patients. Answer: never. Never have, and the ACA is not compelling them to start.

          Please cut the crap and your appeals to authority. You look absurd, Reality.

          Now please answer the question People had asked; where in his posts is he wrong? Because you never did answer it; only posted an appeal to authority instead of actually formulating an answer on your own.

          Most doctors, gynys included, will not write a script for something available over the counter.

          BC pills are prescriptive because there is not a one size fits all pill.

          Get it?

          January 20, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
      • People told you long ago..

        So your complaint is that you can't get condoms for free? You can. Go to PP and get them.

        Or is your complaint that women are treated differently than men when it comes to contraceptives? Do you possibly think that could be because only women can get pregnant??!

        Your complaint would be more legit if a) men could get pregnant, or b) condoms were a prescriptive item.

        Can you respond using your own words, please? Using copypasta over and over doesn't make your position any clearer.


        January 20, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • Reality # 2

          One goes to the sources of the information i.e. those responsible for the ACA i.e. the HHS and the health insurance industry and in this case the referenced review. And men are not part of contraception/pregnancy equation? Give us a break !!!

          Once again from the referenced article:

          But Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Insti-itute, a reproductive health research group, says the language is unclear, and it would be foolish to exclude vasectomies. For one thing, he says, they are less expensive and pose a lower risk of complications than female surgical sterilization methods. Plus, he says, waiving co-payments for services for one se-x but not the other raises issues of discrimination.

          “I can’t see how it would be in anyone’s interest to treat them differently,” says Sonfield.

          And for the new members of this blog:

          Condoms are available over the counter. Make the Pill (type dependent on doctor’s evaluation) available over the counter and there will be no more debate. Planned Parenthood can offer free condoms or deep discounts for those who say they cannot afford said protection.

          Or better yet, put a pack of condoms and a box of Pills in cereal boxes. Unfortunately, that would not ensure the condoms and/or Pills would be used. Based on Guttmacher Insti-tute data, said condoms and/or Pills are currently not being used as they should. (one million abortions/yr. and 19 million cases of S-TDs/yr. because either the daily Pill was not taken or a condom stayed in the pocket.)

          Maybe selling Pill-enriched sodas??? Hmmm?

          Condom-fitted briefs for men?? Hmmm?

          And then there also in the Gates Foundation challenge for developing a new type of condom.


          The door is open for other ideas!!!

          January 21, 2014 at 12:16 am |
        • People have told you...

          Again and again that vasectomies are an elective surgery, and your appeal to authority from some guy at some insti.itute doesn't change that.
          Is a man going to die because he doesn't get a vasectomy? NO! But a woman CAN die if she doesn't get a TL. You're comparing spelled to oranges again. Give ME a break!

          Sure, men are a part if the contraception process. Who said they weren't?
          Again, you're ignorant idea of putting a pack of pills in cereal boxes is silly because THERE IS NO ONE SIZE ALL PILL THAT EVERY WOMAN CAN TAKE. That's why they ARE prescribed.
          You've been told this repeatedly. Save your hyperbole. Learn something about the physiology of women, Reality.

          It sounds as if you have an axe to grind about the ACA itself, and not just the WOMEN'S reproductive health portion.
          Be honest enough to admit it, and stop throwing red herrings, mmmmkay?

          January 21, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • People have told you...

          Or best yet, leave the famed ACA alone, as it provides everything a woman needs, and it has beef debated endlessly. You cannot make the pill over the counter, and if it's dependent on a doctor's recommendation, write a script just goes along with it..
          Sometimes it takes 3-5 different pills over many months to find which one is best for any one woman.
          The pill is prescribed for other uses besides prevention of pregnancy.
          That you don't know anything about women's bodies doesn't surprise me at all.
          That you continue to throw out hyperbolic "fixes" doesn't, either.

          January 21, 2014 at 2:05 pm |

        • As long as so many different formulations affect so many women differently, it will NEVER be over the counter.

          And that's the Reality of the situation.

          January 21, 2014 at 4:08 pm |

        • "Condoms are available over the counter. Make the Pill (type dependent on doctor’s evaluation) available over the counter and there will be no more debate. Planned Parenthood can offer free condoms or deep discounts for those who say they cannot afford said protection."

          Yes. They are. Which is why they aren't covered by the ACA.

          January 21, 2014 at 4:10 pm |

        • "For one thing, he says, they are less expensive and pose a lower risk of complications than female surgical sterilization methods."
          TL is done fore many other reasons besides just birth control. Read about it at other sites that are dealing with something other that your abhorrence for the ACA. Anti ACA sites give you a biased view, but I suspect that you're biased against it, not BC.

          January 21, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • Reality # 2

          Actually, the ACA is a good law but it needs some improvements to include coverage for men in the area of contraceptives. No doubt, the SCOTUS will bring it up to Consti-tutional standards.

          As a reminder for the new members of this blog:

          The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":

          – (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
          – (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)

          Followed by:

          One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
          Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
          The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
          Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
          IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
          Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
          Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
          Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)

          Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).

          January 22, 2014 at 12:31 am |
    • People have told you that

      Time and time again about condoms not being covered. About time you got the memo. And guess what? That's why that part of the ACA is called WOMEN'S reproductive health coverage. It also covers a Pap smears.
      SMH at what you think if earth-shattering.

      January 19, 2014 at 11:50 am |
      • Reality # 2

        Once again, read:


        And the SCOTUS will no doubt weigh in on the ACA contraceptive issues in the near future with it being discriminatory as one said issue.

        January 20, 2014 at 8:09 am |
        • People have told you that

          Point out where I'm wrong. Be specific.

          January 20, 2014 at 11:42 am |
  3. mgc

    As you all know in your heart of hearts, the double penetration dildo is the answer to the conundrums of reproductive behavior. All praise be to Allah for its invention.

    January 18, 2014 at 10:08 pm |
  4. Madam Deidi

    If you don't want abortion don't have one.

    January 18, 2014 at 6:13 pm |
    • Trent

      Hey Madam, how about this?

      Get pregnant, get an abortion!

      January 18, 2014 at 6:17 pm |
      • Justinian

        Is that what she said? Obviously not.

        January 18, 2014 at 8:43 pm |
    • חכם

      If you don't want a child, don't get pregnant!

      January 18, 2014 at 6:28 pm |
    • My fellow man

      Spend more time on your knees. The prayer part is optional.

      January 19, 2014 at 5:49 am |
  5. Cherilyn B

    For those of you who want abortion to remain legal, safe and RARE: we are making progress in that direction. It is estimated that there were 2 million LEGAL abortions per year in the U.S. in the 1890's. The estimate for 2008 is 1.21 million. I will get back to you on population stats but for now, let's just say that as the pop has risen over 110 years, the abortion rate has been cut almost in half. BTW, abortion was LEGAL until the late 19th century. It was criminalized as a backlash to the women's suffragette movement. The thought was if women were kept pregnant and in the kitchen then they would not have time to vote.

    January 17, 2014 at 11:27 pm |
    • Cherilyn B

      U.S. population in July 1900 was just over 76 million and in July 2008 it was just over 304 million per the census. You can look up the abortion numbers as they relate to population of females of reproductive age if you like. My point is that with more reliable birth control methods the abortion rate has fallen even as the pop has risen.

      January 17, 2014 at 11:49 pm |
  6. lunchbreaker

    I went to a Christian high school. Once I had to write a paper, citing Bible verses as to why God is against abortion. I cited the verses where God ordered His chosen people to slaughter everyone in a city, including pregnant women. Specifically to cut them open and killing the unborn. I argued that by killing both born and unborn humans, God considered them equal, therefore abortion is wrong. I got an A.

    January 17, 2014 at 8:15 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      Please tell us the school you went to. This way we can keep our kids from that school.

      January 17, 2014 at 8:19 pm |
      • lunchbreaker

        Well it was in Alabama. But I will tell you, sending your kid to a private Chrisrian school is a goodway to make sure they do not stay Christian into adulthood.

        January 17, 2014 at 8:56 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          After reading what you wrote. I would think so.

          January 17, 2014 at 9:21 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @lunchbreaker........................Yeah god considered them equal. An equal piece of sh1t.

      January 17, 2014 at 8:24 pm |
  7. Arguing your points

    While we are on the subject of abortion I would like the new healthcare to legalize euthanasia. If you want to cut down on populace you should start with those who are willing to go, not with the ones who have not made the choice. If you want to end suffering, start with the people who are telling you they are suffering.

    January 17, 2014 at 7:30 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      I agree with you. If an individual is in terminal condition and of sound mind, they should have the choice. As you know some countries allow that. This may sound callous, but an additional benefit is the cost savings of keeping someone alive.

      January 17, 2014 at 7:44 pm |
      • I'm Ennery The Eighth I Am

        Having cared for a couple of people that died slowly of cancer, I mean being there day in, day out, yeah, if I was in for that and I knew it, I'd rather go that route.

        January 17, 2014 at 9:02 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          I'm a registered organ donor. I've told my family the under no circ.umstances that I be kept alive by machine. If I'm in that condition, pull the plug and gut me like a fish to help others. This is my idea of being pro life.

          January 17, 2014 at 9:20 pm |
        • I'm Ennery The Eighth I Am

          I drew up a legal document explicitly stating that.

          Did you know they did a survey of doctors and found a remarkable majority would not do all the chemo and machines to extend life if they were certain to die? Which is what they do for patients?

          January 17, 2014 at 9:23 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          Yeah i have read that. Being around terminal ill people gave them a new persprective. They felt instead of your final days be spent zombied up on drugs. that you spend it lucid and be able to connect with your loved ones.

          January 17, 2014 at 9:28 pm |
    • Mandible

      What is this, freaking Logan's Run?

      January 17, 2014 at 7:46 pm |
  8. Hear The Truth



    January 17, 2014 at 7:03 pm |
  9. Ken Margo

    Let me be clear. I'm not happy when I hear a woman has an abortion. One of the ways to solve this is provided by the ACA. (Obamacare) The ACA is providing birth control for FREE. Why? To cut unintended pregnancies, which in turn will cut abortions. Amazingly the catholic church is AGAINST birth control now because "they don't want to interrupt the natural process". This has to be the biggest bunch of crap i've ever read anywhere. You "pro lifers" Should be front and center on making birth control available. Sadly, you want to people to have s3x "only" when married and "only" to make children. Good luck with that! You'd think people are farm animals based on that logic.

    January 17, 2014 at 6:59 pm |
    • Arguing your points

      I agree with you strongly here Ken. Birth control is the best thing going. It is paramount.

      January 17, 2014 at 7:24 pm |
    • Cherilyn B

      Of course readily available birth control along with instruction on how to properly use it will lower pregnancy rates and hence abortions. But all methods we currently have can fail. When a woman finds out an embryo is sharing space in her uterus with an IUD, then she has the right to a safe and legal abortion if she so chooses.

      January 17, 2014 at 9:42 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        Oh I agree.

        January 17, 2014 at 10:17 pm |
    • Rodents for Romney

      The huge Pontifical Commission of Paul VI recommended that bc be lowered to an "unimportant matter". Bishops and cardinals and theologian were on it. The idiots rejected their OWN report.

      January 18, 2014 at 9:40 pm |
  10. Ken Margo

    To the pro lifers out there: Where's your plan to help these children? In this country millions of people go to bed hungry. The homeless population is increasing. Less than half the kids in country don't graduate HS. Repubs want to go back to the old system of healthcare when 40 million were uninsured. How is ADDing more people going to solve these issues?

    Don't give us prayers. We know that don't work. Give us a plan. I'm pretty sure 99% of the kids won't be rich.

    January 17, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Let the children be slaughtered. While we are at it, let's kill off the really old people. No way to really take care of them.

      If the quality of life is a reason to not let kids live...then it's a good reason not to let old people live as well.

      January 17, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        You are really clueless. You sound like a dumb republican. You offer no solutions to the problems I mentioned. The reason. YOU DON'T CARE. You just like to mind everyone else's business. I feel sorry for anyone you happen to take care of because if problems arise, you'll stick your head in the sand looking for others to lead.

        January 17, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • Arguing your points

          Multistep process, I recommend you look below for "some" answers to your questions.


          January 17, 2014 at 6:32 pm |
        • lol olio

          Nice...but the idiots in DC will block every damned plan to actually help children after they are born, arguing personal responsibility even as they neglect the hungry infant. They are pro forced birth.

          January 17, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          @arguing.....................I don't want SOME answers. I can't tell a kid that goes to bed hungry "Don't worry kid, I got SOME ideas to feed you"

          January 17, 2014 at 6:45 pm |
        • Aruing your points

          Lots of places to volunteer, Ken. Lots of ways to do food rescue, clothing donation and the rest.

          January 17, 2014 at 7:07 pm |
        • Shar

          And yet children go to bed hungry and neglected, abused and hurt...how is charity addressing this?
          Charity isn't the sole answer, although Ryan approves.

          January 17, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          I got new for ya arguing..................People are already doing that stuff. Guess what? It ain't enough. The people that used to give food to food pantries are now on line themselves asking for food. Trust me, I would love to cut abortions to ZERO. Sadly that is not reality. On the other hand, extremists positions of not allowing any is a bit delusional.

          January 17, 2014 at 7:15 pm |
        • Arguing your points

          I find that you looking to extermination as a solution to hunger is extreme. Foraging and urban gardens are a better option. Life has never been easy since it began.

          January 17, 2014 at 7:20 pm |
        • Arguing your points

          I want to add to that, life gives no one guarantees, only a fighting chance at survival. It has always been so.

          January 17, 2014 at 7:25 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          @arguing..............Saying extermination is delusional. If i felt that way I would kill AFTER they are born also.

          January 17, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
        • Lars

          Outlawing abortion isn't going to prevent women from getting them.
          Forcing births isn't ensuring that the infant is going to be loved and cared for.
          Orphanages are full of kids nobody wants to adopt, so that answer as a solution to abortion is somewhat flawed.
          Birth control is key to dropping the number of unwanted pregnancies, but they aren't infallible, and many of our citizens are firmly against that, as well as many of our lawmakers and churches...

          What is the answer? Damned if I know.

          January 17, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          @Lars...............How the church feels should not matter. Separation of church and state ensures that. According to polls 90% of catholic women use birth control so they don't care about the church either. As far as politicians are concerned, vote them out!
          Citizens that are against birth control, raise their taxes and make them pay for the kids when the parents can't. Lower pro choice people taxes so we don't have to pay for 'em. I guarantee pro life feelings will change.

          January 17, 2014 at 8:17 pm |
        • Lars

          Churches have members who vote. That's all I meant.

          A worthy list, but good luck get your wish list legislated. If we could do that, we could ask that these well intentioned folks step up to the plate and adopt the babies of the women they're 'counseling' . What are the chances of that happening? Zero.
          Targeting groups for taxation is UnConsti tutional, and there isn't a politician alive that would try that...and we can't even raise enough taxes to keep the country going now, which is one reason Congress wants to cut all programs that can help people now.

          January 17, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          The book, Freedomnomics, outlines how the hard data proves the legalization of abortion in 73 had a incredibly positive impact on crime rate, starvation, and overall health and nutrition. Levitt is a worthy author who will convince no one already decided on the matter.

          January 17, 2014 at 11:08 pm |
      • Shar

        Care to address Jen's point, irate you going to throw more hyperbole out there?

        January 17, 2014 at 5:13 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @Lie cidas

      "Let the children be slaughtered. While we are at it, let's kill off the really old people. No way to really take care of them."

      First of all it's not children. It's a FETUS. You can't advance the age to fit your argument

      "If the quality of life is a reason to not let kids live...then it's a good reason not to let old people live as well."

      The quality of life should matter. Since your sorry azz don't care about them after they are born. Stop being a phony and acting like you care before they are born.

      January 17, 2014 at 5:11 pm |
      • Arguing your points

        "First of all it's not children. It's a FETUS. You can't advance the age to fit your argument"

        You can't dehumanize just to fit your argument.

        "The quality of life should matter. Since your sorry azz don't care about them after they are born. Stop being a phony and acting like you care before they are born."

        Everybody has a choice if they think their life is quality enough to continue it...well almost everybody. If you take that choice away from them, then they don't.

        January 17, 2014 at 6:30 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          Stop with dehumanizing crap. THEY ARE NOT PEOPLE. YOU DON"T EVEN KNOW THE S3X OF THE FETUS. You don't even know if the fetus will go full term.

          What about the mother's quality of life Mr republican? What if she isn't ready to have a child financially or physically? It's amazing you call a fetus a PERSON with all these rights, yet you have a full grown pregnant woman and you have absolutely zero problem reducing her to just being an incubator telling her she has no say what so ever. I'll say it to you. I don't see you offering any money to help these kids. The reason why you don't offer money? YOU DON"T CARE EITHER.

          January 17, 2014 at 6:42 pm |
        • Arguing your points

          If they are not human, Ken what are they, shrimp?

          January 17, 2014 at 7:08 pm |
        • Shar

          Arguing, Ken is right. They have the potential to become a human, but they are not viable as a separate being for months.

          I ding it funny that you would dehumanize a woman as nothing more than an incubator. I pray for the day fetuses can be implanted into all of the willing men who I am sure would just line up for the priviledge at taking over the gestation of a fetus that you types always want to force women to birth.

          January 17, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
        • Arguing your points

          Also you don't know anything about me, including if I am a Republican or not. Stop assuming. You don't know what I give or do. All your ad hominem aside consider it this way. The woman looses nine months out of her life. The unborn person looses the entire life. The woman experiences pain, the unborn would experience pain and loss of everything he or she ever will have. The choice seems clear to me to vote in favor of the one who has less power.

          January 17, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
        • Arguing your points

          Shar at what point does a person then develop rights, such as the right to exist?

          January 17, 2014 at 7:13 pm |
        • Arguing your points

          ding it funny that you would dehumanize a woman as nothing more than an incubator. I pray for the day fetuses can be implanted into all of the willing men who I am sure would just line up for the priviledge at taking over the gestation of a fetus that you types always want to force women to birth.

          Would developing an extra uterine life sustaining possibility be an answer such as surrogacy? Maybe that's the answer there? Also, the first sentence looks like over dramatization to me.

          January 17, 2014 at 7:16 pm |
        • Ken Margo


          They are a fetus. No more, no less.
          You blog like an republican.
          You argue the unborn loses it's entire life. What is YOUR definition of entire life? The kid could die for any reason, at any time. You're assuming the kid will live a hundred years.

          This isn't about power. This is about rights. A woman SHOULD NOT LOSE POWER OVER HER BODY BECAUSE SHE IS PREGNANT. Sorry to break it to ya, slavery is over. You have control over your body, a woman should have control over hers.

          January 17, 2014 at 7:28 pm |
        • Arguing your points

          And why doesn't the unborn fetus have power over his or her body?

          January 17, 2014 at 7:33 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          @arguing...............Mother has to come first. No mother, no fetus. It's not the other way around.

          January 17, 2014 at 7:50 pm |
        • Cherilyn B

          When you make that call to schedule an abortion, you must wait until after the 8th week of pregnancy. Why? Prior to that, the embryo is so small that it is easy to miss it. An abortion done between 8 and 12 weeks (1st trimester) results in an extraction of a bloody blob of tissue about the size of a walnut that in no way is recognizable as human. I know as I asked to see it after my abortion. No way that blob takes precedence over my life. NO REGRETS. You don't "like" abortion; don't have one but you do not get to dictate my life to me.

          January 17, 2014 at 10:13 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          @Cherilyn..............My mistake. I've been saying fetus. I meant to say embryo. I think the people against abortion truly believe a "baby" is being ripped to shreds. Maybe an normal abortion should be shown to stop the myth.

          January 17, 2014 at 10:22 pm |
        • Shar

          No, I wasn't trying to be dramatic, arguing, but the point remains if fetus transplant existed, especially for men, there would be a lot less animous for abortion and more stepping up to the plate to ensure the potentially aborted fetus gets a chance to exist.

          In other words, put up or shut up.

          January 17, 2014 at 10:46 pm |
        • Shar

          And if you don't know what viable means, arguing, look it the hell up. An 8 week old embryo (thanks, Cherilyn) isn't viable outside of the mother's body, and isn't deserving of the same rights as the mother. Get real.

          January 17, 2014 at 10:52 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          If it is unaware – if there is no self – then it's absurd to believe that it has any rights of any kind. Its protections derive entirely from the rights of the mother.

          January 17, 2014 at 11:00 pm |
        • Cherilyn B

          I will be even more specific: a sperm and egg unite to form a zygote which develops into a blastocyst which grows into an embryo. The embryonic stage lasts til the end of the 10th week and then you can call it a fetus. The fetal stage is from the beginning of the 11th week thru the end of gestation.

          January 17, 2014 at 11:03 pm |
        • Cherilyn B

          I completely agree with Shar re the issue of viability and with Tom's point about rights. For Ken: most abortions are done in the 1st trimester where development transitions from the embryonic to fetal stage so it's okay to use the word fetus as an all-encompassing term. If the point of viability where the fetus can survive outside the uterus has been reached then I would say call it a baby. It is just semantics unless you are a biologist (which I am).

          January 18, 2014 at 3:13 am |
      • Arguing your points

        I think you also believe me to be Republican because you want to demonize them by comparing them to me, as you don't care for my position. I am registered as independent if you are wondering.

        January 17, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          Trust me. Republicans demonize themselves.

          January 17, 2014 at 7:51 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          Another reason I don't care for the anti abortion position. Kids aren't free. CNN/money website reported it cost over $230,000 to raise a child from birth to 18. Guess who pays when the parents can't? You and me. The TAXPAYER. The more money I have to give to take care of others means less for my family.

          January 17, 2014 at 7:56 pm |
      • Rodents for Romney

        A clump of cells with no neural tube is not a person, a baby or a fetus. It's a "zygote" which is a "potential person"
        Grow up Lie-see-das.

        January 18, 2014 at 9:43 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Such pessimism about human potential...

          I can turn the most ordinary man in the world into a star
          I'm a starmaker
          (Gonna make you a star)
          Yes, I'm gonna make you a star
          (Gonna make you a star)
          No matter how dull or simple you are
          Everybody's a star

          The Kinks

          January 18, 2014 at 9:57 pm |
    • The bomb

      If we nuke half the planet it will really cut costs in the long run.

      January 17, 2014 at 6:26 pm |
      • Neutron Bomb

        USE ME! Wipe out the people, leave their stuff intact!

        January 17, 2014 at 8:10 pm |
  11. palintwit

    Sarah Palin supporters are the very definition of low information voters. They watch Fox, a proven source of misinformation. Studies show Fox watchers think they are well informed but are really factually deficient.

    January 17, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
  12. Science Works

    Sunday school in session !


    January 17, 2014 at 6:50 am |
  13. Skippy P. Nutbudder

    Ever seen the whack protesters at a clinic? They are very aggressive and abusive, and block the way. They are as bad as the worst paparazzi. Clinic staff usually have to force open a pathway so the patient can enter. I guess they have all the rights.

    And they sure aren't obeying Jesus either, do unto others and casting the first stone and all that. But hey, nobody ever said Christians practice what they shriek.

    January 16, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
    • I've seen them

      When I've met them they were over ten feet away from the clinic and nobody said a word, they just stood there with information packets. I think giving any voice to defend the defenseless is understandable, though I do agree that religion should be left out of it.

      January 16, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
      • Skippy P. Nutbudder

        They are not like that around here.

        January 16, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        I've seen them

        "When I've met them they were over ten feet away from the clinic and nobody said a word, they just stood there with information packets."

        If they stood there handing out money to help take care of these children they want so badly to be born, their argument would hold more water.

        January 16, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
      • TomJames

        I've seen them
        Death row prisoners are also defenceless.

        January 16, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
        • Happy Atheist

          I beg to differ, they are usually well fenced...

          January 16, 2014 at 7:33 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          That's a good one. :)

          January 16, 2014 at 9:39 pm |
      • Anonymous

        How many of them offered to take the woman home, support and pay the bills for all medical, and adopted the baby after birth? Answer: Zero.

        These people don't give a sh!t about what happens to the kid once its born. Save me the faux outrage. Vote GOP!

        January 16, 2014 at 5:32 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          Vote GOP? Those ARE the people that don't give a sh1t about what happens to the kid once it's born.

          January 16, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
        • Anonymous

          I know. I was being sarcastic.

          January 16, 2014 at 6:59 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          Sorry. The letters GOP makes my sphincter shrink!

          January 16, 2014 at 9:41 pm |
      • Saraswati

        Anyone who thinks these folks are harmless wasn't around in the 1980s. It was a nightmare before the rules with serious in your face harassment. Freedom of speech was never meant to say that people can jump in front of scared teenage girls screaming "murderer!" in their faces so close the spittle is hitting their faces. These guys and their murderous friends shut down clinics across the country and managed to hijack the whole conversation. They can express their opinions on posters and billboards and TV ads and the internet, but allowing people to shout in your face is as dumb as allowing telemarketers to call your house at 2am.

        January 16, 2014 at 10:16 pm |
      • Joey

        The people I see stand out front with signs that say "pray to end Abortion" However, I'm pretty sure that if prayer was going to end abortion it would have by now.

        January 17, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
        • Ken Margo


          January 17, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
    • hearties

      Let the patient live, breathe air, eat, and go to Sunday school.

      January 17, 2014 at 2:23 am |
1 2 3 4
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.