home
RSS
October 15th, 2010
01:03 AM ET

Ohio ruling casts light on abortion as midterm issue

CNN's Dan Gilgoff filed this report:

A Democratic congressman from Ohio got a boost from his state's elections commission on Thursday in his campaign to prevent an anti-abortion group from running billboards attacking him for supporting the healthcare bill.

The decision by a three-member panel of the Ohio Elections Commission allows U.S. Rep. Steve Driehaus to move forward with a complaint alleging that the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group, is deliberately lying about his record when it says he supports government-funded abortion because of his March vote for healthcare reform.

The battle between Driehaus and a group of progressive Catholic supporters on the one hand and religious conservatives on the other is a reminder that abortion has become a key issue in the midterm elections in parts of the country, even as the economy and jobs remain voters' top concern.

Abortion has come to the fore in a handful of states where self-proclaimed "pro-life" Democratic lawmakers are facing allegations from conservative groups that their support for the healthcare bill legislated federally-funded abortion.

The allegations have surfaced in historically "red" House districts that turned "blue" during the Democratic waves of 2006 and 2008, with the election of Democrats who claimed to be moderate to conservative on issues like abortion.

Conservative groups allege that the healthcare bill funds abortion by allowing Americans to buy into government subsidized healthcare exchanges in which abortion is covered.

Progressive groups note that the bill requires abortion funding in such plans to come from private premiums. Conservatives have dismissed such claims of segregated funding as an accounting trick.

On Thursday, the Susan B. Anthony List denounced the ruling by the Ohio Election Committee's panel, which allows Driehaus to collect depositions to support his claim that the Susan B. Anthony List is knowingly distorting his record on abortion.

"In an act of desperation and fear, Rep. Steve Driehaus is attempting to use a criminal statute to silence his critics," said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "It is a fact that Steve Driehaus has voted for a bill that includes taxpayer funding of abortion."

It's an allegation that Dannenfelser's group and allied organizations have raised in roughly a dozen races across the country.

"There are a number of Democratic members of Congress who are calling themselves pro-life, but it's hard to do that after voting for healthcare, which was the largest expansion of abortion we've seen," says Tom Minnery, senior vice president of CitizenLink, a conservative advocacy group connected to Focus on the Family that is also spending money this cycle.

Dannenfelser says her group plans to spend $6 million on political activities before Election Day next month, about a third more than it did in 2008.

Though the group is mostly targeting Democrats in the House whom it says is responsible for the bill's abortion provisions, it is also spending of hundreds of thousands to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

Last week, the group announced it is partnering with other socially conservative outfits to spend $240,000 in TV ads "highlighting pro-abortion health care votes of so-called 'pro-life Democrats.'"

The ads target Democratic Pennsylvania Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper and Indiana Rep. Joe Donnelly.

The conservative campaign against self-described "pro-life" Democratic lawmakers has spurred a handful of relatively new left-leaning faith groups to come to their defense.

In Ohio, a group called Catholics United released a letter this month signed by 36 Cincinnati clergy and lay leaders, including 11 Catholic nuns, denouncing allegations that Driehaus' healthcare vote begat government-funded abortion.

In Virginia, a related group, called the Matthew 25 Network, is launching a radio ad Monday on behalf of Democratic Rep. Tom Perriello - who has also come under attack by religious conservatives - that lauds his Christian faith and his values.

"These were folks who took a courageous stand on healthcare reform, who led the fight to make sure there was no abortion funding in the bill" said Catholics United Executive Director Chris Korzen of the Democratic lawmakers his group is seeking to help.

"We knew that conservative groups like Susan B. Anthony List would be after them," Korzen said, "And we wanted to make sure there was an organized presence to set the record straight."

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Abortion • Politics

soundoff (100 Responses)
  1. Danny E.

    Listen I keep seeing bumper stickers like "you can't be both Catholic and pro-choice" these are not reflective of my faith, theser are slogans made for propaganda, I have 2 beautiful children and I have never been on a position where abortion could even play a part, but it is a legal option to the public at large; this being said even the bible calls for us to be good citizens, and to obey the law, I believe that this is a matter that belongs with the family and not the state; no matter how we criminalize abortion, they will not stop, but people will go under-ground and more fatalities will occur, I rather see the government placing incentives on more conseling for these expectant mothers and more outreach done at church levels, to reduce the debate to a single slogan is dangerous and will not accomplish the ultimately goal of preventing abortions my two humble cents

    October 15, 2010 at 2:39 pm |
  2. Frogist

    What a blantant misrepresentation of the truth! The health care bill specifically and by executive order states that no federal funds can be used to pay for elective abortions. And it was championed by pro-life Democrats! It is not an expansion of abortion at all. It is a confirmation of the restrictions we have on abortion. And as a matter of fact the Stupak changes won't even allow for abortions to be covered by your insurance if you use credits to afford to purchase a health care plan from a private provider. These are tighter restrictions on abortion than before the health care bill.

    October 15, 2010 at 1:51 pm |
    • Frogist

      Also if you are against abortions and against big govt, you have only this option, vote pro-choice and vote to fund s-ex education.

      October 15, 2010 at 2:43 pm |
  3. Capitalist Infidel

    So, another democrat wants to shut down debate? Herr Goebbles would be proud!

    October 15, 2010 at 1:32 pm |
  4. Deborah/KansasCity

    It has been proven that those trying to use abstinence only have the highest rates of unwanted and teenage pregnancy. Of course those who successfully use abstinence suceed in not becoming pregnant, but the vast majority can not remain abstinent. Live in reality and it is easier to find soulutions.

    October 15, 2010 at 12:38 pm |
    • Bill

      Deborah – then abstinance is not being practiced .... is it? The last I heard it takes two to tango!

      October 15, 2010 at 2:06 pm |
    • Selfish Gene

      Briston Palin is a big supporter of abstinence. How's that hokey pokey thing workin out for ya?

      October 15, 2010 at 2:13 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Bill because abstinence-only is not practical or feasible on a national level.

      October 15, 2010 at 2:46 pm |
    • Bill

      Frogist – It was a simple observation on this statement.

      It has been proven that those trying to use abstinence only have the highest rates of unwanted and teenage pregnancy.

      Remember that not all birth control is 100% effective either.

      October 15, 2010 at 2:58 pm |
    • Bill

      I have 2 comments for you Gene ... Yes you are (selfish) .... and what a blatant attempt to try to stir it up!

      October 15, 2010 at 3:01 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Bill: As is my observation. Also your arguments make a case for legal and safe abortion options.

      October 15, 2010 at 4:13 pm |
    • Bill

      As you wish frogist. I am not arguing the point of right or wrong about abortion. I have my belief and you are not subject to that. My point/objection was to the statement about absitnance.... If the pregnancy rates are that high then abstinance is not really in play then... What is so hard to understand about that?

      October 15, 2010 at 4:45 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Bill: I'm just making observations myself. And I observed that your arguments seem to favor legal and safe abortion care. If I am mistaken or I have misunderstood you, I think that is up to you to point out.

      October 15, 2010 at 5:42 pm |
    • Bill

      Frogist – Okay – here it is plain as I can make it. My personal beliefs prohibit abortion. I will not force you to accept my beliefs as your own. Religion has no place in politics, morality does. Morality is a thing that changes and evolves as a society does. Religion is not quie so flexible. There is a reason for this that most people won't understand.

      It is reprehensible to me that any religous person would try to force their own religous beliefs on anyone that does not believe. It matters not what theor faith is...

      This iswhy I offered to converse on my beliefs ... I will not defend them to you or anyone ... they are mine and your attempt to make me defend them is no different than trying to foist my beliefs on you. Won't do it AND won't take it.

      October 15, 2010 at 9:42 pm |
  5. thersa

    I'm waiting to see the Supreme Court throw an emergency stay on this ruling.

    October 15, 2010 at 12:38 pm |
  6. Reality

    What you should hear from our political leaders but never do:

    From the Gutt-macher Insti-tute

    Percentage of women (men) experiencing an unintended pregnancy (a few examples)

    Method Typical

    Pill (combined) 8.7
    Tubal sterilization 0.7
    Male condom 17.4
    Vasectomy 0.2

    Periodic abstinence 25.3
    Calendar 9.0
    Ovulation Method 3.0
    Sympto-thermal 2.0
    Post-ovulation 1.0

    No method 85.0"

    (Abstinence) 0

    (Ma-sturbation) 0

    More facts about c-ontraceptives from

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

    Co-ntraceptive method use among U.S. women who practice co-ntraception, 2002

    Method No. of users (in 000s) % of users
    Pill 11,661 30.6
    Male co-ndom 6,841 18.0 "

    i.e.
    The pill fails to protect women 8.7% during the first year of use (from the same reference previously shown).

    i.e. 0.087 (failure rate)
    x 62 million (# child bearing women)
    x 0.62 ( % of these women using co-ntraception )
    x 0.306 ( % of these using the pill) =

    1,020,000 unplanned pregnancies
    during the first year of pill use.

    For male co-ndoms (failure rate of 17.4 and 18% use level) i.e.

    1,200,000 unplanned pregnancies during the first year of male co-ndom use.

    The Guttmacher Inst-itute (same reference) notes also that the perfect use of the pill should result in a 0.3% failure rate
    (35,000 unplanned pregnancies) and for the male co-ndom, a 2% failure rate (138,000 unplanned pregnancies)

    And what is the abortion rate in the USA? ~1,000,000/yr CDC data.

    Do the math and it is easy to see how the failure rate of the Pill and male condoms relates directly to such a high abortion rate!!!

    Conclusion: Women and men need to change to a safer form of birth control to include abstinence and/or ma-sturbation.

    October 15, 2010 at 12:00 pm |
    • pete

      Reality-
      I think your conclusion is wrong, because both of those choices are not fun. I think what you should be saying is that if we educated our children about the use of contraception instead of the "just don't do it" you would have people making more informed descisions and using the contraception in a more educated manner.

      October 15, 2010 at 12:33 pm |
    • Bill

      Pete – if I agree or disagree with Reality is irrelevant. What the point that is being made is contraception is not a 100% guarentee. So the fallback or plan "b" becomes abortion? Even the doctors and manufactures of contraception tell you it is not 100% effective. Education not withstanding it can still happen.

      October 15, 2010 at 2:04 pm |
    • pete

      Bill-
      The stats that he put up said that if the contraception was used correctly it would be effective in 98-99.7% of the time, greatly reducing unwanted pregnancy. I don't know exactly what i believe about abortion but teen pregnancy rates have increase since abstenice (horrible spelllller) has been touted by conservatives.

      October 15, 2010 at 3:37 pm |
    • Bill

      The numbers are irrelevant to my point. My point is that nothing is 100%. I think that is the point Reality was trying to make, though I did not bother to check the stats since they seemed very high to me.

      October 15, 2010 at 4:43 pm |
  7. katiec

    It is an absolute disgrace that some politicians opening lie about abortions being covered in the health care plan.
    They know this is not true but evidently think they can sway the uninformed voter into believing their unethical lies.
    Watched a debate last night where a republican stated this in front of everyone but, thankfully, was brought down by
    his opponent.
    We have been victims these last 23 months by the propaganda, swiftboating tactics by the republicans, and, to add
    salt to the wounds they now have questionable, outside millions being spent on their campaigns.
    The American people must let the world know we cannot be bought. Vote for those who support us and our
    country rather than Wall St, big business and the wealthy. VOTE!!

    October 15, 2010 at 11:25 am |
  8. kankan

    Bill – I am talking about my taxes being used for issues, including moral issues, over which I have no say, and I would venture that you have the same perspective. You may argue that you are talking about people while I am not, but I have concerns for the people, the women, who will be forced to continue an untenable or forcibly-induced pregnancy if their only source of medical care is via the government; without choices, women are marginalized and powerless. Perhaps you see the foetus/blastocyst as the person to prioritize – that is your choice; I am not black and white on the issue, but I can see you want to choose where your taxes go based on a moral issue. (As a side note, we aren't going to run out of people EVER, and the incidences of failed pregnancies by natural means ensures that not every foetus, every egg, becomes a person – and fewer churches would be okay in my book).
    I have no choice in my taxes being used by a faith-based initiative group to discriminate in hiring and actively convert to their own god and dogma, while I adhere to neither. I am exceedingly frustrated to see vast church properties untaxed and watch the political activism funded by those monies in causes adverse to my moral standings. The common denominator is our tax base, and our positions on how that money is used.

    October 15, 2010 at 11:09 am |
  9. Bryant

    Here's the bottom line: the final decision when it comes to abortion should be left to one person, and one person only: the woman thinking about having one. It's not your decision or mine to make, and it d**m sure isn't the goverment's decision to make. Now, I don't have a problem with people who are opposed to abortion, but let's be real: some of these anti-abortion extremists are a little touched in the head, and this article proves it. It's been proven time and again that the new health care bill does NOT provide federal funding for abortions, but these nutjobs aren't about to let a little thing like facts get in the way of their agenda. Sadly, there are a lot of people who will believe this nonsense instead of doing the research for themselves.

    October 15, 2010 at 10:29 am |
    • Raison

      @Bryant

      That sounds pretty reasonable to me. But I would like to add that many of the reasons an "unwanted" pregnancy happens in the first place is due in large part to the same people who are against anything resembling abortion...like opposing birth control pills, opposing any form of birth control at all for that matter, opposing s-ex education, and so on.
      They want it both ways and that sort of thing don't fly with me.
      If you want to eliminate the possibilty of abortion, stop opposing those methods of birth control, education, etc that make sudden unwanted pregnancies happen in the first place.
      Why is that so hard for these people to grasp, anyway? Is nothing allowed to make sense anymore? Shall we all march down the street calling for an end to marches in the street? How can anyone support contradictions like that???
      Oh, sorry...forgot they were religious about it....(shakes head)

      October 15, 2010 at 11:13 am |
  10. Oy Vey Az

    Ohio ruling casts, light on abortion as midterm issue ?

    Does this sound like the ruling cast has little fly wings they use to land on important issues ?

    October 15, 2010 at 10:24 am |
  11. ServusUS

    The view imposed on the people by our current govt. is one of ignorance and hate protect our rights and our children.

    October 15, 2010 at 10:19 am |
    • Selfish Gene

      says you. the US supreme court has a better grounds for judgment than blog posters.

      October 15, 2010 at 2:15 pm |
  12. bla

    Hey, if your anti-abortion, your automatically qualified for high goverment office???? Thats some darn shallow thinking there, dont ya think!!! I think I,ll look at education, qualification,common sense for the working people type leader myself.

    October 15, 2010 at 10:08 am |
  13. lynn

    Regardless of your moral viewpoing of Abortions, tax payers should not have to pay for abortions. Those who want to fund the option, put it into a private fund for others to access. I will not have my money go to kill a child, born or unborn.

    October 15, 2010 at 9:48 am |
    • thinkingahead

      That's all well and good, and your right to feel that way. But do you put up a fuss when your money is going to fund the wars in the Middle East now? Many innocent children have been killed as a cause of that. If you say that your money will not go to kill a child, born or unborn, you should look at where ALL your tax dollars are being spent. Be consistent with your views.

      October 15, 2010 at 10:41 am |
    • Bill

      Thinkingahead – I would suggest that you are the one that is incosistent. You seem to think that the only people who kill children are Americans. What about the Taliban that kill and maim female children for nothing more than getting an education. Tax dollars have nothing to do with this ... Really we are their to try to stop acts like those by the Taliban among others. More children are killed by war lords in Afghansitan and gangs in Somalia than are filled by US soldiers. Tax dollars are not involved.

      October 15, 2010 at 10:54 am |
    • thinkingahead

      Bill – I did not say that I was against war of any kind (although specific wars are definitely debatable). You make the assumption that I am ok with other countries killing children. I am not. Yes, there are a lot of bad people in the world, not just Americans. However, I feel that the statement "I will not have my money go to kill a child, born or unborn" is uninformed. Your money is already killing children. Whether other countries do it too is irrelevant. I love my country, but can also see its faults, including that money has gone to fund wars and killings all over the world. However, like I said, my views are irrelevant here. I was merely taking issue with the fact that if one makes a blanket statement like that, then they ought to feel the same in every aspect. If you don't want your money killing children, then the funding of abortions isn't the only thing you should be worried about.

      October 15, 2010 at 11:27 am |
    • Bill

      It depends then on your view ... you see what I don't. I prefer to believe that we are there to put and end to acts of violence perpetrated by organizations like the Taliban. I believe that my money is being spent to ultimately protect those children.

      October 15, 2010 at 1:53 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Bill: How ever you feel, that is not the point. The point is you do not get to decide how your tax money is spent. That is the way a democracy such as ours works. We have elected officials who decide how our collectively gathered monies are spent. You have no say. So that makes your argument moot. If you do not like the system, then change the system. Or stop paying taxes...

      October 15, 2010 at 4:10 pm |
    • Bill

      In the first place frogist this is a Republic and not a Democracy which is why you have no choice on how the money is spent. Second I did not say anything about not liking the system. I merely pointed out that the argument made that spending our tax dollars to kill children is not necessarily what is going on. That far worse atrocities happen outside the jurisdiction of the good old USA. AND that I believe that ultimately the money spent will save the lives of children. I am not sure where you came up with your interpretation.

      October 15, 2010 at 4:40 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Bill: I agree that spending our tax dollars to kill children is not what is going on in regards to abortion which people like lynn seem to be saying. And which you seemed to be in support of. In regards the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and countless others, children (ours and theirs) are dying and tax dollars are going towards that. I am certainly not in favor of that, but I too, understand that as part of our system of govt, I have little say in apportioning how my tax dollars are spent. And that is my point, we do not get to decide how our money is spent, and therefore arguments supporting lynn's objection to abortion in terms of tax money is moot.

      October 15, 2010 at 5:35 pm |
    • Bill

      Frogist – I see the problem.... I am really talking to thinkingahead and not lynn. Perhaps this is what has been so confusing. Sorry

      October 15, 2010 at 9:34 pm |
  14. Chris

    Curious that Democrats can be described as progressive, without qualification, while pro-life gets quotation marks and is prefixed by "so-called" or "self-described". Since the terms "progressive" and "pro-life" both cast a judgment on those who do not identify as such ("regressive", "pro-death"), they ought to be cited the same way.
    Peace,
    Chris

    October 15, 2010 at 8:54 am |
    • Selfish Gene

      And yet another didn't even read the article.

      October 15, 2010 at 2:18 pm |
  15. Will

    How ironic that an organization which seeks to curtail women's rights names itself after one of the greatest champions of women's rights. It requires either a deliberate and malicious desire to falsely appropriate the prestige of a famous suffragette, or a depth of ignorance so great that one must wonder how they tie their shoes.

    Likewise, it either requires malicious intent or outright stupidity to claim that the health-care law funds abortions, when it very clearly does not. The mere fact that people are allowed to pay for their OWN abortion coverage, without federal money, is just too much for these people, which leads one to believe that people like the "Susan B. Anthony" List are malicious liars, though a fair amount of idiocy is involved in their thinking no one will call them on their lies.

    October 15, 2010 at 8:45 am |
    • Thomas

      @Will –

      Susan B. Anthony was not only a famous American civil rights leader; she was also adamantly pro-life, as were the majority of the other noted suffragettes.

      SUSAN B. ANTHONY on abortion
      "Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

      "We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil...It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed."
      The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869

      "All the articles on this subject that I have read have been from men. They denounce women as alone guilty, and never include man in any plans for the remedy."
      The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869

      ELIZABETH CADY STANTON
      "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."
      Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library

      "There must be a remedy even for such a crying evil as this. But where shall it be found, at least where begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of women?"
      The Revolution, 1(10):146-7 March 12, 1868

      VICTORIA WOODHILL (1st femal Presidential candidate)
      "The rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain the foetus."
      Woodhull's and Claflin's Weekly 2(6):4 December 24, 1870

      ALICE PAUL
      "Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women."

      There's more...

      Pax,
      Tom

      October 15, 2010 at 9:39 am |
    • Will

      I stand corrected on the Susan B. Anthony part, but they're still liars when it comes this action, and they're still stupid to think no one could take them to court over their lies.

      October 15, 2010 at 10:32 am |
    • Bill

      No Will, you post with your emotions rather than facts. You almost go this one right ... almost...

      October 15, 2010 at 10:49 am |
    • Giancarlo Taliente

      If Obamacare said "We are not going to pay for abortions, if you want insurance to cover it, you have to purchase it outside the exchange". Then it could be said that Obamacare does not cover abortions. But those that pay the extra premium are still paying it to a plan that is subsidized by the federal government using MY tax dollars. In fact the right approach to allow people to pay for this monstrous act is to say if you want to kill a child, then pay for it out of your own pocket. Every time we use insurance it raises the cost for all of us.

      October 15, 2010 at 1:46 pm |
    • Giancarlo Taliente

      So if I want to kill someone, then it should be my decision whether to do it or not. It should not be governments decision as to whether I get to or not. Location and development of the victim is irrelevant. If the government can say that a mother cannot kill her 1 day old child, then it also has the obligation to say she cannot kill that child the day before, or the day before that or the month(s) before that.

      October 15, 2010 at 1:53 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Gaincarlo: Actually that's incorrect. Even if you buy into a premium plan which is offered by very few insurance companies thus far, the bill specifically prohibits any federal funds going towards it. And states that you must use your own money for that premium add-on. So your tax dollars are not going towards any insurance coverage of elective abortion at all. Your tax dollars are going towards basic health care which does not cover abortions.

      October 15, 2010 at 4:34 pm |
  16. thinkpoint

    Why don’t atheists oppose abortion?
    http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/why-dont-atheists-oppose-abortion/

    October 15, 2010 at 8:41 am |
    • kankan

      Have you asked every atheist if he or she are pro-choice? I imagine some are not for various reason – every personal decision is not dictated by a god. When I was Catholic I disagreed with the church's anti-abortion stance; as a nonbeliever I still do. Now, I propose that when churches start paying taxes, we can perhaps look at taxpayer money not going to fund abortion.

      Would someone also tell me how an anti-abortion group can in good faith use Susan B. Anthony's name while they work to restrict women's rights to choose? I am not familiar with this "List."

      October 15, 2010 at 10:20 am |
    • Bill

      So KanKan, what you are saying is that Church is more important than the individual? I am a Christian, I oppose abortion, yet it is okay for my tax dollars to fund it. But if it is a church paying taxes, why then we can take funding abortions into consideration. Think these things all the way through. With out people churches cannot exist.

      October 15, 2010 at 10:47 am |
    • Selfish Gene

      Being an atheist is not a check here for yes on abortion. Go back to your boring blog and spew ignorance.

      October 15, 2010 at 2:21 pm |
    • ScottK

      @thinkpointless – Some do, some dont, thats the beauty of being athiest, you get to make up your own mind instead of having some clergy, priest or pastor telling you what to believe.

      The real debate is not should abortion be allowed, it should only be at what point during pregnancy should we consider the embryo human and thus extending it human rights. And interestingly this has already been debated and decided by law in this country. "Roe v. Wade, viability was defined as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." When the court ruled in 1973, the then-current medical technology suggested that viability could occur as early as 24 weeks."

      Almost every athiest I know is willing to have this debate, some feel it should be earlier (current premature birth record at 21 weeks 6 days) and some later. But none are willing to debate this issue as a "when does the soul enter the body" discussion as most Christians want to phrase it.

      We can debate that when Christians can prove that an everliving spiritual soul exists. And while were on the same subject, do Christians really believe that a miscarriage is going to be a little baby soul that didnt get baptised so will spend eternity in purgatory or hell?

      October 15, 2010 at 3:04 pm |
    • Bill

      Gene this was at least a reasonable discussion untill you got here .... don't go away mad .... just go away.

      October 15, 2010 at 3:06 pm |
    • Bill

      ScottK – the religous believe that what God said he meant. So when it was said that God "knew you even in the womb" that means this is a person. Simple.... at least to the religous. Atheists have a problem with that.... they can't accept it and turn to the laws of man ... and Christ said ... render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's. So the religous will stand for right (in their view) and let man pass all the BS that he wants to... I realize that atheists don't need that kind of support since they are islands unto them selves but at least they could allow the religous their beliefs.

      October 15, 2010 at 3:11 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Bill: So if man can pass all the BS he wants to, I guess that means you're pro-choice. We non-believers can lead our lives according to our BS laws and have abortions when we like, and you religious peeps can lead your lives according to your christian ideals and never have abortions at all. Heck, I support that.

      October 15, 2010 at 3:56 pm |
    • Bill

      Actually Frogist I am pro-choice ... I just think/believe that the choice needs to be made before conception. My opinion... as far as the rest of the world goes .... you can do what you want. I will keep my covenent with my God.

      October 15, 2010 at 4:34 pm |
    • ScottK

      @bill – "I realize that atheists don't need that kind of support since they are islands unto them selves but at least they could allow the religous their beliefs." When has any athiest tried to force you to have an abortion? I'm sorry but your argument holds no water. We do allow for any "belief" as long as that belief does not infringe on another persons rights, in other words, stop trying to police world, or at least other peoples bedrooms or doctors offices and maybe we can all live together peacefully.

      October 15, 2010 at 5:15 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Bill: So you are only pro-choice up to a point. And that's fine when it is in regards to your person and your god. But thankfully, your choice does not extend beyond that. As should mine.

      October 15, 2010 at 5:21 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @bill

      So, you said...."I am pro-choice, I just believe that the *choice* needs to be made *before conception*...?

      Say wut....? No offense to you Bill, but am I missing something, or did your post make absolutely no sense...?

      If I am reading your post right, which please correct me if wrong here, how can you be pro-choice, *before* conception...?

      My take on your post is that you are absolutely 'anti-choice' of whether or not to make a choice that some women make.

      Are you also -anti-choice concerning any and all circ-u-m-stances...?

      Please... as I am very curious to understand your reasoning...

      Thanks...

      October 15, 2010 at 5:31 pm |
    • Frank

      "And while were on the same subject, do Christians really believe that a miscarriage is going to be a little baby soul that didnt get baptised so will spend eternity in purgatory or hell?"

      I don't know of any Christians who believe that. Maybe some radical Traditionalist Catholics but that ideology is marginal at best.

      October 16, 2010 at 1:36 pm |
  17. Kevin Cantu

    For the love of God please get this election cycle come to end so all of these a**h***'s can STFU already!!!!

    October 15, 2010 at 8:14 am |
  18. Peace2All

    Christ..... I am so dam-n sick of this whole a-bortion issue. This is *politics*... you know, how to run our country.... Economics, Foreign Relations, etc..etc....

    When did this start beco-ming about a-bortion for the republican party....? Or more importantly, why is that seemingly *the* single biggest issue...?

    I understand that it is certainly an important area of debate, how is this politics...?

    So, the christian right will get everyone they want into office that is a bible believing person..? Creationism, no- gay rights, no- abortions- apparently by some people that believe that under *no* ci-r-c-u-m-s-t-a-n-c-e-s should they be allowed.

    Maybe someone can explain to me when, and why did this become *the* big issue for the righ-wingers....?

    October 15, 2010 at 4:36 am |
    • Raison

      @Peace2all

      I suspect it became an issue when the Catholic Church decided to make it an issue. And that would be where most of it started in a big way...but I could be wrong on that.
      This is misdirection and deflection in action. The rubber of nonsense hitting the road in order to advance someone's agenda.
      Politics as usual. Religious intrusion into secular affairs of this country has a long and sordid tradition behind it that came from Europe and all of human history.
      As for the internal squabbling of the right-wingers, I can't help you there. I stay away as far as possible from them and their ilk.
      Unless they come here, of course. 😀

      October 15, 2010 at 7:08 am |
    • ktrails

      @raison – I laughed out loud at your phrase in a discussion of abortion and Catholics: "the rubber of nonsense hitting the road in order to advance someone's agenda". Not sure if you intended that, but good one! 🙂

      October 15, 2010 at 9:04 am |
    • ktrails

      @peace2all – shirley you jest? 🙂 A Christian brings a Christian world view to politics:

      God created the world we live in and saw that it was good, and in the case of Man, very good;
      We were created Imago Dei, in the image of God, and still retain some portion of that image even in our fallen state;
      Life is therefore precious, holy, and to be protected;
      The theme of providing a voice for those who have no voice (the poor, the widow, the orphan, etc. )
      recurs throughout scripture.

      There are certainly other Christian perspectives that will shape an individual's views, (e.g., God's sovereignty, Man's free will), but these should be enough for most folks to understand why a 'typical' Christian will be pro-life, anti-abortion, if they bring their world view to politics.

      You may not agree with it, and individual Christians will have variations, but it certainly doesn't seem to me to be a mysterious byproduct of being Christian – seeking to protect the rights of the unborn is about as central to politics as it gets!

      grace and peace

      October 15, 2010 at 9:48 am |
    • Mike

      I understand that it is certainly an important area of debate, how is this politics?
      This became a political issue when the legislative branch was asked to pass bills for and against the issue. Why it is the biggest issue I am not sure except that the country is so divided that it is the issue you can differentiate yourself from your opponent.

      And Raison you are wrong.

      October 15, 2010 at 10:59 am |
    • Peace2All

      @Raison

      More me being frustrated, throwing out 'rhetorical' questions...

      Thanks pal...

      @ktralis

      Yes.. I chuckled too at my Raison's "rubber meeting road-catholics" lol

      And... again, thanks for the answer. I know the 'why'.... I am just frustrated with the canned answers that the anti-abortionisits, who yes, do happen to be a good portion of the christian right, give based off of a book, when there are far more, pressing problems in our society of fully agreed upon 'alive' human beings.

      @Mike

      Thanks for weighing in.

      October 15, 2010 at 12:51 pm |
    • geraldh

      It shouldn't be a political issue. The right to life is a fundamental right. Unfortunately Roe v. Wade said privacy trumps it. So now a woman and doctor in the privacy of a doctor's office can kill. No the Catholic Church did not start this assault on human life. Not in the least. 50 million murders latter....

      October 15, 2010 at 1:11 pm |
    • ScottK

      @geraldh – It becomes a political issue when people of your Ilk attempt to kill or convict women who want to have a right to choose, thats why we were forced to pass a law protecting women. Its because of the invasion of privacy not just into a persons home or into their medical discussion/decisions but into their bodies.

      October 15, 2010 at 2:29 pm |
    • Raison

      @Mike
      So I was right about being wrong? LOL Thanks Mike. That made me laugh. Yeah, I wish I had been able to give a better answer than that, but I am still learning. There's plenty of room in my dusty old head for whatever I can jam in there.
      Now if only my head didn't rattle when I shake my head at you guys....!
      I was going to ask you where I was wrong, exactly, but I find that I am not too worried about it. The origin of some religious rule in some conference somewhere or some other origin of what's going on isn't as important as dealing with what we've got now unless there's something helpful in the unknown information.
      I would guess not, but, hey, I could be wrong about that, too...lol 😛

      October 15, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @Scott K

      Thanks for handling this one. I grow weary of the rationale of people that take this stance as @geraldh does.

      October 15, 2010 at 5:10 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @Raison

      So.... what's happening today, my friend...?

      Or... are you

      Just rattlin' 🙂

      October 15, 2010 at 5:13 pm |
    • Raison

      @Peace2all

      Oh, man, I feel like an empty inner tube floatin' down the CNN river of blog.

      Been up for...well, too long. Am crashin' and burnin' here.
      Nearly stomped on some pilot's dlck who couldn't see past his...well, anyway...

      How are you? I hope you can handle this for a while. I'm at the end.

      Just dyin'

      October 15, 2010 at 10:05 pm |
  19. Frank

    I live in Ohio and I already voted. Oh, well. The Dems and Reps really need to go away but people still don't get it. I will never vote for another Dem or Rep again for President or Governor, since voting for Obama. Should've voted for Cynthia McKinney. *kicks himself*

    October 15, 2010 at 2:01 am |
    • dimc

      Women of Integrity and Principle! Cynthia AND Rosa Clemente...what kept you from voting for them? are you registered in a red state? even though votes were misdirected all over the map with EVS non-paper trail machines, the numbers were so overwhelming Obama was able to overcome the routine election fraud. He won by millions more than was "officially" reported. Notice how since EVS machines came into wide use in early 80's the exit polling has been increasingly incorrect? Ever wonder WHY, sheeple?

      October 15, 2010 at 5:54 pm |
    • Frank

      Don't worry, my friend. I'm never falling for it again. I voted Green for Governor (the only third party candidate for Gov)!

      October 15, 2010 at 10:09 pm |
    • Frank

      Also, I am pro life so I don't agree with the Green Party when it comes to that issue, although I do agree with them on pretty everything else. But I pretty much don't agree with anything the more right wing third parties have to say, except for that issue. It's a difficult decision. I also voted Socialist for State Senator, I think it was.
      This system is so FUBAR.

      October 16, 2010 at 1:41 pm |
    • Frank

      *much

      October 16, 2010 at 1:43 pm |
  20. Raison

    "midterm issue"
    Is that some sort of, ugh, joke? Ugh, I sure hope not.

    Well, here come the Catholics, I'm sure, all wild-eyed and dressed to kill..!

    October 15, 2010 at 1:42 am |
    • ktrails

      @raison – I thought the same thing about "midterm issue" too! 🙂

      October 15, 2010 at 8:56 am |
    • Bill

      So you judge the Catholic religion based on a few that support right to life? I'll bet you are a person that says we can't judge Islam based on the radical fringe of that religion... How twisted is that?

      October 15, 2010 at 10:41 am |
    • Raison

      What...I can't tease Catholics now? When did this happen????????

      October 15, 2010 at 10:57 am |
    • geraldh

      Who are Catholics killing? Evidently your not against misinformation and distortion which is what these actions are claiming to head off. Of course the health care bill will end up funding abortions with federal tax dollars. It's funny that Obama to my knowledge never followed through on his promise for a guarantee that the bill would not fund abortions.

      October 15, 2010 at 1:04 pm |
    • geraldh

      Bill,

      Your not Catholic if you don't support a right to life. Sorry.

      October 15, 2010 at 1:05 pm |
    • Bill

      geraldh – I am Catholic, what ever gave you the opinion that I don't support right to life? The comparison I am making is that people give radical Islam a pass and do not do so for Christianity. If you read my posts later you will see that I state I am Catholic and support right to life.... There are Bishops in the US Catholic church that do not ... but I most certainly do. I will say what I was told by the people that raised me. Worry about your self and your relationship with God. Stop worrying about others and their relationship with God....

      October 15, 2010 at 1:49 pm |
    • ScottK

      @geraldh – the healthcare reform bill DOES specificly restrict any payments for abortions, it just does not restrict money going to a clinic/hospital for other care if that clinic/hospital also performs abortions as the christian right wanted. This is such a non-issue and is just used as a distraction much like the birthers complaint or the twin tower conspiracy theorists. People who believe the rhetoric should go get their heads or their IQ's checked.

      October 15, 2010 at 2:15 pm |
    • Frogist

      @geraldh: Please explain how the bill will end up funding abortions. Also you might like to know that there was an executive order issued by the president prohibiting the use of public funds for elective abortions which was pretty much the impetus that got the health care bill passed.

      October 15, 2010 at 2:50 pm |
1 2
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.