January 21st, 2014
02:24 PM ET

Six surprising changes to the anti-abortion March for Life

By Daniel Burke, Belief Blog Co-editor
[twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN']

(CNN) - For decades, the March for Life has followed a familiar formula: Bus in thousands of abortion opponents. Protest in front of the Supreme Court. Go home.

But this year, in addition to braving snow and bone-chilling wind, the March will move in a different direction, says Jeanne Monahan, president of the anti-abortion group.

Long-winded political speeches? See ya.

An exclusive focus on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that lifted restrictions on abortion? Gone.

A hipster Catholic musician, evangelical leaders and March for Life app? Welcome to the protest.

And those changes just skim the surface.

The March for Life, billed as the world’s largest anti-abortion event, is remaking itself in deeper ways as well, says Monahan.

For its first 40 years, the march was marshaled by Nellie Gray, an occasionally irascible Catholic who had little use for modern technology, political compromise or the mainstream media.

Gray died in her home office in 2012 at age 88. A short time later, Monahan was named her successor at the March for Life.

While abortion opponents praise Gray’s legacy, there’s a popular saying around the March for Life’s Washington headquarters: “We’re a brand-new, 41-year-old organization.”

The goal: to turn their annual, one-day demonstration into a potent political machine.

Abortion rights advocates say they’re skeptical that March for Life leaders can convince more Americans to join their cause. Since 1989, the percentage who want to overturn Roe has barely budged above 30%.

“It’s an impressive show,” Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, says of the March for Life. “But at the end of the day, they have failed dramatically at their goal.”

Still, even O’Brien expressed respect for his foes’ new plans. “It’s pretty clever, actually.”

With that in mind, here are six big ways the March for Life is changing this year:

1) 9 to 5

Since 1974, the March for Life has made a really loud noise every January 22, the anniversary of Roe. V. Wade.

Estimates of the crowd’s size vary, but it seems safe to say tens of thousands have attended the protest each year.

Organizers estimate that at least 50% of the marchers are under 18, as busloads of Catholic school kids descend on the capital from across the country.

But some abortion opponents complain the March for Life had morphed in recent years from a political demonstration to a photo op.

Ryan Bomberger, an anti-abortion activist who is speaking at march events, says the protest needs to find ways to harness its youthful energy throughout the year.

“You’ve got all these young people with energy and passion and the desire to do something about the injustice of abortion. But what do they do when they leave the march and go home?”

March for Life leaders want to turn its young protesters into citizen lobbyists, much like Tea Party partisans and the Obama campaign did with their troops.

The key to that, says March for Life's Chairman of the Board Patrick Kelly, is to keep them engaged throughout the year, including through social media. (More on that later.)

In addition to Monahan, an experienced Washington politico, the March for Life has beefed up its Washington office by hiring a full-time lobbyist and social media manager who will also lead outreach to evangelicals, a big and politically active constituency.

The focus this year will be combating the Obama administration’s contraception mandate, which requires most companies to provide free contraceptive coverage to employees. Abortion opponents say that some covered services are tantamount to abortion.

2) If You’ve Got the Money, We've Got the Time

For decades, the March for Life subsisted on a meager budget: Just $150,000 a year, according to tax filings from 2009-2011.

But new Washington offices, lobbyists and social media managers don’t come cheap. Fortunately for the March for Life, a donor who was a friend of Gray’s bequeathed $550,000 to the organization last year.

That, along with a more robust fund-raising campaign, has allowed the March to increase its budget from $252,000 when Monahan took over in 2012,  to $780,000 this year.

“We are professionalizing the March for Life,” said Kelly.

3) With Arms Wide Open 

Though various religious groups oppose abortion (many support abortion rights as well) the March for Life has come to be considered mainly a Catholic event.

Catholic clergy offer prayers, Catholic politicians make speeches and Catholic school kids fill out the rank-and-file.

Monahan says this year will different.

The March for Life has hired a full-time staffer devoted to bringing more Protestant evangelicals to the protest, and they hope to see that effort bear fruit this Wednesday.

They’ve tapped James Dobson, founder of the evangelical powerhouse ministry Focus on the Family, as a keynote speaker. Dobson and his adopted son, Ryan, will talk about adoption, an issue close to the heart of many evangelicals.

4) The Hardest Part

For the first time in its 41 years, the March for Life will focus on an issue besides abortion on Wednesday.

Through Dobson and other speakers, the march is also promoting the idea of “noble adoption” as an alternative to abortion.

“Adoption is a heroic decision for pregnant mothers who find themselves in a difficult situation,” says Monahan. “We want to eliminate the stigma of adoption and encourage women to pursue this noble option.”

The spotlight on adoption dovetails with new focus within the anti-abortion movement on crisis pregnancy centers, which urge women to carry their pregnancy to term.

Critics charge that the centers divulge false medical information about abortion and deceive unwitting patients into thinking they provide abortions, only to advise them otherwise. Supporters say they help women through financial assistance, counseling and adoption referrals.

5) Wish You Were Here

Despite the youth of many March for Life participants, the group’s website had been decidedly Web 1.0.

Under Monahan, that has changed dramatically.

The group posts Instagram pics of chilly protesters trudging through snow at past marches on Throwback Thursdays. They upload posts about prenatal development to Pinterest and tweet throughout the year, including this one about the difficult choices pregnant women sometimes face.

For the more technically advanced, the March has developed an app that connects to a 360-degree camera so folks can follow the protest from home. The app also has anti-abortion information, links to articles about adoption and tips for lobbying Congress.

“We have to find a way to take those boots on the ground and talk to them throughout the year,” says Kelly. “And with Facebook and Twitter and other social media we have the tools to do so.”

The March is also hoping for a high-profile social media endorsement on Wednesday: Monahan says she’s asked the Vatican to send a tweet from the Pope in support of the March for Life.

UPDATE: On Wednesday morning, Monahan got her papal tweet.

6) Yakety Yak

Imagine listening to politicians drone on for hours about their voting records in the chilly January air.

Fun, right?

Monahan didn’t think so either, so she’s trying to accomplish a minor miracle: limiting the speaking time of politicians at the pre-march rally.

Only a handful of politicians, including House Majority Leader Eric Canton, R-Virginia, and Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Illinois, have been invited to speak. They’ve all been asked to keep their speeches to a just a few minutes.

“In past years our rally has gone on for two or three hours and people lost interest,” Monahan says.

So, instead of boring speeches, the rally this year will feature a live concert by Matt Maher, a Catholic singer-songwriter with a huge following among young Christians.

So, will all this make any difference?

Clearly, changes are afoot this year at the March for Life. But what effect, if any, will they have on the larger anti-abortion movement?

Not much, says Ziad Munson, a sociologist at Lehigh University and author of the book “The Making of Pro-life Activists.”

The March for Life hasn’t really been politically influential since the early 1990s, says Munson. Meanwhile, other abortion opponents, like Catholic bishops and National Right to Life Committee, have led the charge.

“In effect, what we’re seeing is a new organization within a movement, not a new approach,” he says. “I don’t think the March for Life is likely to make inroads that haven’t already been made.”

Monahan is more optimistic.

If the March can recruit even a slice of its youthful protesters into citizen activists, she says, it might be enough to tip the balance in a country deeply divided on the morality of abortion.

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Abortion • Bioethics • Catholic Church • Christianity • Church and state • Culture wars • Ethics • evangelicals • Politics • Women

soundoff (1,983 Responses)
  1. A tomb inside a cold womb

    A tomb inside a cold womb

    I was carefully and wonderfully made
    Or so they say,
    I had no name,
    Inside the cold womb I lay.
    I was happy for the life I had
    until the day they decided
    that I had no purpose
    for anyone in this world,
    But how would they know that
    without giving me a chance to survive?
    I could have been an Einstein, Bach
    Or the next Vincent van Gogh
    In a swift second my life was gone.
    From that cold womb,
    I was quickly flushed away.
    But, now I am so glad
    To be safe in the arms of Jesus.

    January 23, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      You posted this garbage before and I replied with two questions your phony A** never answered.

      If life is so precious, why would a womb be cold?
      Why complain about abortions if the fetus end up with jesus?

      The fetus could end up being Bin Laden, John Wayne Gacy or George W. Bush so it works both ways!

      January 23, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
      • Mary

        Oh so murdering a good person is ok because they'll end up with Jesus? No faults in that logic...

        January 23, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
        • Observer


          Apparently abortion is a short-cut to heaven, which is the dream and objective of EVERY Christian.

          January 23, 2014 at 6:14 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          @mary.....How do you know they will be a "good" person? If the baby was going to be gay, would you go out of your way to protect it's rights to marry?

          January 23, 2014 at 6:30 pm |
        • Saraswati

          Exactly, observer. In the Christian world view having an abortion is the kindest thing you can do for a child.

          January 24, 2014 at 11:57 pm |
    • Mmmmmmm

      A cold womb would tend to indicate the person it belongs to is deceased; making the contents of said womb also deceased.

      Also, you could have been the next Hitler, Manson, Gein, Gacy, Dahmer, Pol Pot, Stalin, Ghengis Khan, Vlad the Impaler, etc. etc. ad nauseum, as Ken Margo indicated.

      January 23, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
    • Cherilyn B

      Hey, Mr. Poet - You need to rewrite this opus to make it more realistic. First of all, a tomb is a place of burial similar to a grave. No living organ (womb) makes an appropriate final resting place. Also, no living woman's womb is cold. The human body's temperature is 98.6 approximately. And to claim an embryo/fetus experiences emotions is wishful thinking. Most abortions take place in the 1st trimester. At 12 weeks a fetus weighs about one-half ounze, is about 2.5 " long and lacks the central nervous system needed to form, process and interpret emotions. Additionally, you put an abortion at only taking a second. The procedure actually takes up most of an afternoon depending upon travel time. Lastly, the fetus is not flushed. By law it is disposed of as bio-medical waste. The only times I have heard of a fetus being flushed down the toilet was after a miscarriage at home by a friend. I hope this info helps you with your rewrite. Poems can be far-fetched if you like but abortion deals pragmatically with the facts of life. Call me the voice of experience.

      January 23, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        @Cher........Have you noticed how the pro lifers in an over zealous effort to make their point, say some of the dumbest things like comparing a womb to a tomb?

        January 23, 2014 at 10:52 pm |
      • Cherilyn B

        Correct typo: that should be "ounce".

        Hi, Ken - How are you tonight? Bitter cold here. That probably applies to most of the US right now except the west coast.

        I really do not understand abortion foes. I suppose that is why I am here. I think they are comparing today to some utopia they think would exist if abortion was illegal. I wish we could all agree to work toward a better tomorrow where abortion is not ever needed because every child is sterilized prior to puberty. Then when they grow up and want to have offspring, they would need to apply for a license and prove financial responsibility, parenting ability and emotional stability as well as having exceptional genes. I am not kidding. Think about the possibilities.

        January 24, 2014 at 3:13 am |
        • Cherilyn B

          I should point out to those who do not know: Sterilization procedures, both tubal ligation and vasectomy, can be reversed. Sterilization = no pregnancy hence no abortion. Then apply for procreation license per previously stated. Have sterilization reversed (or use in vitro) and resultant child(ren) would be born into optimal conditions. Can you even imagine how many societal ills this could solve? Eugenics coupled with ideal parental units is the next brave new world!

          January 24, 2014 at 3:40 am |
        • Ken Margo

          How are you doing? Since we circu.mcise babies at birth why not take it a step further? It's easier to do boys instead of girls. That won't happen because it's GUYS.

          January 24, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
    • Mr. Rogers

      Can you say hyperbole? I thought you could.

      January 24, 2014 at 12:05 am |
  2. One of the Sheep

    I traveled from Sacramento, CA to Washington D.C. in 2001 for the March for Life. It had a powerful impact upon me. One only has to look at the very limited if nonexistent coverage of the March by the major media to realize the censorship of the anti-life forces in this country. Fortunately, we now have EWTN providing world wide coverage by television, radio, satellite, and internet. No longer can this huge display of respect for human life be ignored in our country or around the world. Like the Berlin Wall that fell almost without effort, the wall of bloodshed we call "reproductive health" will collapse under the weight of the abortion clinic closings, physical and psychological damage of the women receiving abortions, broken families, greediness of the abortion providers, and the rising up of our youth armed with the truth about abortion and its painful effects upon society. We are not anti-abortion. You are anti-life. We are the future and abortion advocates are the past.

    January 23, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
    • Observer

      One of the Sheep,

      "You are anti-life"

      WAKE UP!! EVERYONE is PRO-LIFE. It just depends if you are CARE MORE about the MOTHER or the embryo.

      The "sides" are pro-choice or anti-choice and you apparently are ANTI-CHOICE.

      January 23, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
    • Mmmmmmm

      You had me until your gratuitous slam at women's choices.
      You are absolutely anti-abortion and pro death for the living. You care nothing except achieving your own suppression of woman's rights.

      You will not succeed at your blatant attempt to foist your hypocritical ideals on the US. March away.

      January 23, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      Yes you are one of the sheep. Take a number and get in line. If you love these "babies" so much:
      Are you willing to guarantee they will eat?
      What about food and shelter?
      What about doctor visits, heathcare?
      Make sure they'll get a good education?
      Protect them from gun violence?

      Didn't read that in your post. Why? Because you really don't care.

      January 23, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
      • Mary

        Let me tell you a little story. There was a couple with 11 children, but the father died. Several of the children weren't old enough to go to school and they needed their mommy at home. So, their church stepped in. My family provided them with a home, others donated furniture, plumbers and electricians donated time, the church had a school that gave scholarships to older children. The older children helped at the church, and did yarn work for families who helped them. Everyone in the parish is pro life. So yes, we can take care of children who are born to single moms or to poor families.

        January 23, 2014 at 6:26 pm |
        • Observer


          EVERYONE is PRO-LIFE. It just depends if that life is the MOTHER or the embryo.

          January 23, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          @Mary..........Let me tell you a little reality. There isn't enough churches, mosques, temples or any other place of worship you can name that can take care of all the poor in this country. More people eat at pantries now than ever and even those that once supported the pantries are now customers themselves. Homelessness is at an all time high in NYC where I'm at now. You have republicans against HEALTHCARE REFORM, SNAP, GUN CONTROL, PELL GRANTS and other programs that help the poor. School budgets are being cut (Pre K, after school programs).

          You want to prevent abortions? Offer pregnant women hope. NOT PRAYER. Hope. Be honest, when you look at how the deck is stacked AGAINST the mother, how can you honestly give her hope to have the child when she sees so many children/adults suffering and Republicans cutting programs so they can suffer more?

          January 23, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
        • doobzz

          "So yes, we can take care of children who are born to single moms or to poor families."

          Let me ask you a question. If your church was made aware of an atheistic family in the same situation, would they have flooded them with the Christian love, acceptance and financial support that you describe? Would you have welcomed them into your home? Hypothetically speaking, of course.

          January 25, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Get over yourself. You are not pro life. You are pro fetus. The situation that makes a woman decide to have an abortion does not go away if you take that option away from her. The poverty, the poor health, the drug addictions, the lack of family support, the thousand other reasons still remain, but now a child is added to the mix. Now the situation is worse, and now a baby gets to suffer, too. People like you don't care about children. Once that fetus is delivered, your work is done right?

      Every time I read about a child abused or murdered by a parent, I think of people like you. Almost anyone can produce a child, but not everyone is cut out to be a parent.

      January 24, 2014 at 10:06 am |
    • doobzz

      Oh, can it, you pompous, arrogant coccydynia. Everyone is pro life. You are anti choice.

      January 25, 2014 at 11:59 am |
  3. The point of dead humans and loudmouth artificial bodies is WHAT?

    ++++++ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 🙂 🙂 🙂 ...... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ++++++

    January 23, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
    • doobzz

      I suppose it's so you can make up dozens of screen names and post gibberish.

      January 25, 2014 at 11:55 am |
      • doobzz, your boobzzies keep changing. Wretched stretched?

        🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 ############ BUY MY ANTIstretch compound. 29 cents/day

        January 27, 2014 at 10:24 am |
        • doobzz

          Like I said....

          January 27, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
  4. Name*austin

    To bring up God or negative things about prolife people are logical fallacies and chance the subject from the point: unborn humans are living beings with different DNA than their Moms.

    Now we have 3D pictures and they look just like babies. There is a demographic winter coming, no over pop problem. Instead of killing the unborn because they might have a hard life or be a criminal, we can reteach ethics.

    Even if you are not sure if the unborn are persons, wouldn't you swerve around a blanket in the street if it looked as if a human was under the blanket? When in doubt, protect life, like we do the baby eagles and seals.

    January 23, 2014 at 10:02 am |
    • tallulah13

      I support the protection of the life and rights of a woman over the life of a collection of cells that could potentially become a human.

      January 23, 2014 at 10:11 am |
      • Reality # 2

        "Potentially become a human"? Hmmm? Or are said growing cells already infused with their own unique, replicating human DNA easily tested from conception to death of said human?

        January 23, 2014 at 11:42 am |
        • Mmmmmmm

          Is a week old embryo able to survive outside the body? Hmmmm? You were on here yesterday whining about Obama meeting the Pope. Are you one of those that would cut funding for social programs that would care for our poor? Bet you are.

          January 23, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
        • Reality # 2

          And just how many meals for the poor could be purchased if BO cancelled his visit with Francis?

          With respect to supporting programs for the poor, a ready source of revenue for such programs:

          Eliminate the cost of controlling and/or supporting religion by exposing religion for the con that it is by redirecting our funds and saving a lot of "souls" in the process.

          Saving 1.5 billion lost Muslims:

          There never were and never will be any angels i.e. no Gabriel, no Islam and therefore no more koranic-driven acts of horror and terror LIKE 9/11.

          – One trillion dollars over the next several years as the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will end.

          – Eighteen billion dollars/yr. to Pakistan will stop.

          – Four billion dollars/yr. to Egypt will end.

          Saving 2 billion lost Christians including the Mormons:

          There were never any bodily resurrections and there will never be any bodily resurrections i.e. No Easter, no Christianity!!!

          – The Mormon ti-the empire will now become taxable as will all Christian "religions" and evangelical non-profits since there is no longer any claim to being a tax-exempt religion.

          – the faith-based federal projects supported by both Bush and Obama will be eliminated saving $385 million/yr. and another $2 billion/yr in grants.

          Giving to religious groups mostly Christian in 2010, totaled $95.8 billion,

          – Saving 15.5 million Orthodox followers of Judaism:

          Abraham and Moses never existed.

          – Four billion dollars/yr. to Israel saved.

          – All Jewish sects and non-profits will no longer be tax exempt.

          Now all we need to do is convince these 3.5+ billion global and local citizens that they have been conned all these centuries Time for a YouTube,Twitter and FaceBook campaign and a good bully pulpit disclosure by BO declaring all religion to be null and void !!!!

          January 24, 2014 at 12:27 am |
        • Ken Margo

          @reality.................Please leave the president out of it. We've been giving money to foreign countries for decades. In addition, the money we give is a fraction of what we spend.

          January 24, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • Reality # 2

          Obviously, some missed the trillions we are spending to control Islam. The easily solution. Declare said religion to be the terror organization that it is and deport all who refuse to give up belonging to said organization.

          Regarding religious "non-profits", getting rid of their tax exempt status would put added billions in our tax coffers maybe enough to pay for the ACA.

          January 28, 2014 at 12:33 am |
        • Dandintac


          I must disagree. I'm not fan of Islam, far from it, but characterizing an entire religion as a terrorist organization would never work. It's patently unconsti-tutional for one thing. It would never get off the ground legally. It would also be a huge favor to Christianity, which is not much better. Also, taxing church will never get off the ground either. Again, it's a violation of the separation of church and state principle. Also–do we really want this? Making churches a taxpayer gives them "skin in the game". I'm confident that it would just lead to a further entanglement of church and state.

          No–it's better to improve our education, build up the wall of separation, and vigorously speak out against religion as we do in this forum. The number of unbelievers–whether they label themselves "atheist" or not–is definitely increasing. We just need to puncture the taboo of "respecting" religion and faith. This is what has protected them from being exposed–this notion that whether one believes or not–one must still "respect" religion.


          January 28, 2014 at 10:39 pm |
    • Deep thoughts

      "wouldn't you swerve around a blanket in the street if it looked as if a human was under the blanket?"

      It depends. What if the only choices are to run over the blanket or jump the curb and plow into a crowd sitting at a cafe?

      January 23, 2014 at 10:30 am |
    • igaftr

      it also depends on something else...If I swerve and do not hit the person under the blanket, will I then be responsible for the person for the rest of my life?

      January 23, 2014 at 10:41 am |
    • Cady

      Good Lord, your arguments get more absurd every day, Austin.

      January 23, 2014 at 11:16 am |
    • Ken Margo

      Man you need to leave the drugs alone!

      January 23, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
  5. Dyslexic doG

    is your god an all powerful god or is he just a spectator?

    If he is all powerful god then he causes or by inaction allows billions of miscarriages.

    your god is an abortionist too, so why are you christians against your god?

    January 23, 2014 at 9:26 am |
  6. Here is a question

    Which is a worse trait in a society superst*tion or violence, or are they both equally bad qualities?

    January 23, 2014 at 9:00 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      The problem is when violence becomes rationalized with supersti/tion.
      Then you get holy wars, witch hunts and inquisitions.

      January 23, 2014 at 9:07 am |
    • igaftr

      Do you walk to work, or carry your lunch?
      What is the difference between an apple?
      Do you like comparing apples to howitzers?

      January 23, 2014 at 9:08 am |
    • Cherilyn B

      Supersti tion or violence? Might as well compare apples to oranges; they are both fruits. Both supersti tion and violence are the offspring of ignorance (defined as lack of knowledge). Early civilizations sought to explain the sun in the sky and decided it must be a god. For the Egyptians, the sun was the god Ra traveling across the sky in a boat whereas the Greeks thought it was Apollo in a chariot. Today, astronomers can tell you all about the sun. Violence is more complex; it spirals out from the schoolyard bully to global wars. All violence shares the root of ignorance of nuanced conflict resolution skills. Modern society has a long way to go to escape both. I would love to see humans colonize another planet with the best minds. Could you imagine the possibilities?

      January 24, 2014 at 2:36 am |
  7. Doc Vestibule

    Abortion is as old as medicine itself.
    Hippocrates himself was an abortion providor. Plato lets it be known that he was pro-choice in "Theaetetus".
    Ancient Chinese doctors prescribed mercury. Ancient Egyptians used various herbs to make "bitter water" as mentioned in the Bible.
    Pennyroyal tea, worm fern, sage, salvia, savory, cypress, hyssop, dittany, opium, madder in beer, watercress seeds... the list of historical abortifacients from every civilization in history is long (though many are ineffective and/or dangerous).

    Prohibiting pervasive behaviours and procedures like abortion, prosti/tution, alcohol consumption etc. is never effective. Criminalizing such practives serves only to drive them underground, to the greater detriment of society at large.

    It is time to stop the sisyphian struggle against that which cannot be eradicated. Educate our young women about all of their options, from abstinence to all manner of contraception, so that the number of girls seeking abortions is reduced.
    We need to quit arguing about the semantic evils of abortion and concentrate on making it unnecessary becuase any quest to eradicate it through legislation is doomed to failure.

    January 23, 2014 at 8:23 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      The Church calls it holocide, a crime to top any other. It's a long road to acceptance.

      January 23, 2014 at 8:29 am |
    • The pill

      Making abortion unnecessary is a great idea.

      January 23, 2014 at 8:45 am |
    • Cherilyn B

      Thanks, Doc for pointing out that abortion has always been with us down thru the ages. To go further, whenever the chosen method failed then the next step was to resort to infanticide. This was a very common practice throughout the world. Try googling this topic and what you learn will make anyone realize how civilized we have become to draw the line at an early age of fetal viability. I remember reading that the first "foundling" home in England was opened in the 18th century by a sea captain who was distressed to see the rotting corpses of infants in the gutters and on dung heaps where they had been left to die of exposure AFTER a full-term birth. What is the old saying? "I cried because I had no shoes until I met the man with no feet." Abortion pales in comparison to infanticide

      January 24, 2014 at 5:59 am |
      • Cain became possessed, too. So?

        $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 🙂 🙂 🙂 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

        January 25, 2014 at 1:15 am |
  8. WASP

    hey christians! how about adopting a few children in the system before demanding a female add to that number you aren't willing to lower through adoption.

    "Each year more than 20,000 children age out of the foster care without being adopted. Today there are 104,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted ranging in age from less than a year old to 21.

    The race and ethnicity of children waiting to be adopted vary from State to State and City to City. However, the most recent adoption and foster care statistics from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Adoption and Foster Care Ana-lysis Reporting System shows the majority of children waiting to be adopted are Caucasian (40 percent) or African American (28 percent). Children of Hispanic origin account for 22 percent of those waiting to be adopted.

    LINK: http://www.adoptuskids.org/meet-the-children

    go save these children first, then worry about a fetus.

    January 23, 2014 at 7:21 am |
    • Studies show


      They are apparently as pro choice as you are

      January 23, 2014 at 7:42 am |
    • Reality # 2

      In the meantime, stop the carnage by practicing safe-se-x.

      January 23, 2014 at 7:50 am |
    • devin

      My wife and I adopted a little boy from an orphanage whose mother gave him up at birth because he was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis. If you are at all interested in factual information, you will find the preponderance of those adopting children in need are christians.


      January 23, 2014 at 10:49 am |
      • WASP

        @dev: well i guess that makes you the exception, hardly the rule. i do applaud you and your wife's effort at accepting a child with such an affliction, however i would point out the ironic point of your god made that child that way.
        once genetic testing for illness has been perfected, children like that won't have to be born. those illness' can be fixed...................and if not the fetus terminated.

        i would say go to these people in these anti-abortion groups and show them how to save children, not force a woman to carry a fetus she doesn't want.

        mind you i still think you are just blowing smoke; however if you are lying, your god will deal with you............i guess.

        January 23, 2014 at 11:39 am |
        • Reality # 2

          In support of Devin's comments: My bother and sister-in-law, both good Christians, adopted four special needs children. All of these children are now adults and are good, hard-working citizens. Ditto for many of my Christian friends.

          My data set is however very skewed since most of friends are Christians. It is very possible that members of other religions or those having no religion are also adopting children.

          January 23, 2014 at 11:53 am |
      • devin

        " Well I guess that makes you the exception" No, it makes me the rule. While there are many others who adopt, Christians are a significant portion. This is simply factual. If you choose to argue facts, that is your prerogative.

        " your God made the child that way" Actually, we finally have a point of agreement. Even much more to your chagrin, you are in agreement with God. He asked Moses this question, " Who has made man's mouth? Or who has made the mute or the blind? Is it not I, the Lord? " If I were God, I would have not made my son this way, but I am not. I can tell you this, this child has been a blessing to my wife and I and our biological children in ways you will never understand.

        As for this "blowing smoke" and "lying" comment, if it was questioning the truthfulness of my having this son, I won't even dignify that with an answer.

        January 23, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
  9. Next agenda

    cannibalism, the pros and cons.

    January 23, 2014 at 6:37 am |
  10. rambo

    Opposing View, russ, chad, sharon, meredith s., jeremy, austin, topher, L of A, Robbie Brown, Jesus Beloved, tell the pharisees y u love the lord jesus christ. come on. don't b shy

    January 23, 2014 at 6:31 am |
  11. Jen

    Both legal and illegal abortion are bad for women! Abortion hurts women and barbarically kills a child when most vulnerable. We as women will never gain our independence by the blood of our own children! You dont hurt another to get ahead and we are never the same once we try. An abortion changes a woman's life for a lifetime! Never the same...and the decision is final...no amount of tears, or alcohol, nor drugs consumed will ever bring a child back!

    January 23, 2014 at 5:18 am |
    • sam stone

      It is legal and will (and should) stay that way

      January 23, 2014 at 6:23 am |
    • Next agenda

      Lots of bad things have been legal at one point.

      January 23, 2014 at 6:39 am |
      • sam stone

        good things, too

        January 24, 2014 at 9:23 am |
  12. W.G.

    Exactly what we need a new Tea Party .

    January 23, 2014 at 1:30 am |
  13. Dandintac

    Don't believe in abortion? Then don't have one. It's as simple as that.

    No one is forcing you to have an abortion against your will.

    Folks–nothing has really changed here. Unfortunately, religion and it's adherents are obsessed with your se-x life and reproductive choices. This is still about se-x and control, but now they are dressing it up with some hip music and smiley faces.

    I'll sit up and take notice when a strong, well-funded pro-life organization is formed that does not focus on changing laws and telling people when they can have se-x and babies, but rather when they have long lines of pro-life women lining up to volunteer to have unwanted embryos transplanted into themselves, and the organization is willing to pay for it. The technology exists now. Embryos can also be frozen.

    Pro-life people should be willing to do it. If you truly believe that a zygote is the full moral equivalent of an extant human baby, it should be a moral imperative. Stand up and volunteer now to have those embryos implanted in yourself, and/or contribute money toward an organization that does this. Then I'll buy that you really are "pro-life".

    But I'll be surprised to see this happen. It won't solve the REAL problem–will it? "SE-X WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES!" they shriek. And how will churches try to control our se-x lives if this were to become a reality?

    January 22, 2014 at 10:36 pm |
    • Cherilyn B

      Thank you, Dan!!! What a novel idea..... I am sure they will be lining up to "adopt" the fetus of the alcoholic that lives on coffee & cigs and doesn't know what prenatal care is; let alone have the IQ to spell it. Let's SAVE THOSE BABIES!

      January 23, 2014 at 12:47 am |
      • Jen

        Yes Cherilyn, they would gladly adopt that baby... Along with all the drug addicted, downs syndrome, disabled, multiracial children adopted by prolife people who see the value in EVERY human person whether society does or not.

        January 23, 2014 at 5:58 am |
        • Next agenda

          The best thing anybody can do within a society is give people an escape from that society.

          January 23, 2014 at 6:40 am |
        • WASP

          @jen: so how many exactly are going to adopt these children?

          "The Number of Waiting Children:
          Each year more than 20,000 children age out of the foster care without being adopted. Today there are 104,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted ranging in age from less than a year old to 21.

          The race and ethnicity of children waiting to be adopted vary from State to State and City to City. However, the most recent adoption and foster care statistics from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Adoption and Foster Care Ana-lysis Reporting System shows the majority of children waiting to be adopted are Caucasian (40 percent) or African American (28 percent). Children of Hispanic origin account for 22 percent of those waiting to be adopted.

          start by adopting these 104,000 children then worry about whether or not a female wants to contribute to this number of parentless children. you christian bigots make me sick.


          January 23, 2014 at 7:18 am |
        • Cherilyn B

          Nevermind "they". How many of those unwanted babies has your family adopted?

          January 24, 2014 at 6:11 am |
      • Next agenda

        It is never appropriate to blame the victim.

        January 23, 2014 at 6:42 am |
  14. JoshtheApologist

    I am very hopeful for the pro-life generation, they can surely put an end to abortion within this generation. One in three abortion clinics in Texas closed in just one year, nothing compared to what's to come. Abortion is destructive, wicked, and intrinsically detrimental to humanity, no wonder why it is popular among liberals.

    January 22, 2014 at 9:57 pm |
    • Observer


      "put an end to abortion"

      IMPOSSIBLE. Outlawing abortion would just bring back the horrible days of do-it-yourself abortions with coat-hangers.

      Besides, you show NO SYMPATHY for victims of r@pe or those needing abortions to save the mother's life.

      January 22, 2014 at 10:06 pm |
      • SO AGREED

        u have no sympathy for the life u r destroying
        ain't 60 million ra pes
        make penalties 4 ra pe much more severe
        forbid men from making profits off of p o r n
        emphasize modest dressing among women

        January 22, 2014 at 10:37 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          Let me guess. Are you from the Taliban?

          January 22, 2014 at 10:45 pm |
        • v

          i am from a long line of atheists

          January 22, 2014 at 10:54 pm |
        • WASP

          nope, i have no sympathy because it isn't my choice whether or not these women decide to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

          they aren't detroying a life, because the fetus can't live on it's own.

          however i would provide a counter point to yours; you don't care about the life you are destroying.
          how do you think that child will be treated?
          how well educated can a child that is mistreated and misunderstood going to be?
          do you care if the child is beaten to death in a fit of rage by an uncaring parent?
          how will you ensure that child isn't starved to death because the parent doesn't want it?

          there are 104,000 children in the american adoption system at this very moment, guess where they came from?
          dangerous and unloving homes.
          because the parents didn't want them, they couldn't provide for them or they were forced to have them and then give them up.
          nothing, you will sit right in your nice little cubicle or home sipping on your wamr beverage while these children are spit out and forced into the adoption system.

          NO, i would say it is you and your ilk that DON'T CARE ABOUT LIFE.

          January 23, 2014 at 7:38 am |
        • truthprevails1

          "emphasize modest dressing among women"

          Right, so blame the woman! That's not at all logical or reasonable! Women should not fear being harmed by a man due to how she dresses and no-one has the right to make her feel like she should be ashamed. Lets lay the blame where it truly lies and ensure these pigs are removed from society at every turn.
          This isn't going to prevent abortions or unwanted pregnancies. Education is a wonderful thing. We need to empower the next generation instead of making them ashamed.

          January 23, 2014 at 8:03 am |
      • SO AGREED

        u have no sympathy for the life u r destroying
        ain't 60 million r a p es
        make penalties 4 r a p e much more severe
        forbid men from making profits off of p o r ernnn
        emphasize modest dressing among women

        January 22, 2014 at 10:38 pm |
        • Dandintac

          So your solution is to control se=xuality? Women have to change the way they dress? Really? And you think this is what causes ra-pe?

          I have a better idea. Let people be free to dress the way they do now. It's none of your business how they dress. Let se-x be free between consenting adults–it's none of our business. This is a free country.

          Instead, if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. It's so simple.

          Pro-life people should be lining up to have these unwanted embryos transplanted into themselves, or pay to have them removed and frozen. If you really believe it's a baby, then you should be willing to do this, and pay for it. If not, then I doubt your real convictions–and most likely you are just worried about se-x.

          January 22, 2014 at 10:44 pm |
        • v

          of course not
          women should wear a string and 2 bottle caps. that will cut down on r

          January 22, 2014 at 10:50 pm |
        • v

          most guys r only fat, old, smelly hags, so dress how u like

          January 22, 2014 at 11:34 pm |
      • SO AGREED

        u have no sympathy for the life u r destroying

        January 22, 2014 at 10:39 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          Sadly neither do you. Like the other phony pro lifers you offer nothing as far as support for the kids.
          Why? Because you don't care and never will. The reason you want women to give birth is for them to feel the pain in birthing and to punish them for having s3x in a way that you don't believe in. You feel abortion is an easy way out from the pain. You're really sadistic and sick. By limiting abortion services, all you are doing is making abortion a for profit business that the rich will take advantage of leaving the poor with children they can't afford. Keeping that circle of poverty going strong.

          January 22, 2014 at 10:53 pm |
        • v


          January 22, 2014 at 10:56 pm |
        • Studies show

          Ken Margo

          Expand your mind, rethink economics


          January 23, 2014 at 7:48 am |
        • Ken Margo

          @Studied.....................Maybe an individual can live without money. When you have a child you need to support, that's no time to experiment! To get milk, healthcare, shelter, food etc. etc. to get those things you need MONEY. I'm sorry but that's reality.

          January 23, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
      • SO AGREED

        u have no sympathy for the life u r d est ro ying

        January 22, 2014 at 10:39 pm |
        • igaftr

          You have no sympathy for the language you are destroying.

          January 23, 2014 at 9:26 am |
      • SO AGREED

        u have no sym pathy

        for the l if e u r d est ro yi ng

        January 22, 2014 at 10:40 pm |
      • SO AGREED

        u have no sym pat hy

        for th e l if e u r d es t ro yi ng

        January 22, 2014 at 10:40 pm |
    • Liz the First

      It wouldn't be because of the ridiculous restrictions made that targeted those clinics that were not applicable to any other firms of outpatient surgery , would it? The ones that are being challenged now as UnConstitutional? And quashing the rights of the people already born?

      Secede already.

      January 22, 2014 at 10:09 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      @Jack azz the apologist..................Abortion isn't popular with liberals. We are PRO CHOICE not pro abortion. Obviously a man, which is the reason you feel the way you do. I bet if men got pregnant and had to give birth through your penis, abortion would be as common crooked politicians.

      January 22, 2014 at 10:14 pm |
      • Liz the First

        Lol. I once told my husband that I would lightly knock him in the nuts at shorter and shorter intervals and maybe he'd get the idea how painful labor is. He declined.
        That's the worst pain I could imagine for a man...and labor sure is the worst pain I've ever endured.

        January 22, 2014 at 10:42 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      Watch out for wendy davis!

      January 22, 2014 at 10:16 pm |
    • sam stone

      Josh: The right to an abortion is not going away. If you don't like it, cowboy, too damn bad

      January 23, 2014 at 5:08 am |
  15. David

    Why did you use a year old Gallup poll? The most recent on Abortion pro-life vs. pro-choice indicates an increase in the number of pro-lifers – 48% pro-life to 45% pro-choice. In addition, why do you use the term "anti-abortion" as a designation for the "pro-life" group? It is not the term they use to identify themselves. In addition, it is not the term that Gallup uses in their surveys. Seems a hidden agenda there. It was not the "March for Anti-Abortion" after all.

    January 22, 2014 at 9:08 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      They are called anti-abortion because it is the impression of most people that they are anti-abortion. Everyone sane is pro-life in some sense: enjoy life, bunnies, new flowers popping up etc.

      January 22, 2014 at 9:14 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      I'm not sure where you got your numbers. In the last election, Mississippi a southern christian state voted to defeat the personhood amendment that would have considered conception the beginning of life and would have ended abortions in the state. Trust me, the numbers are at 70 – 30 for pro choice.

      Stop with the double talk, pro life means anti abortion period.

      January 22, 2014 at 9:18 pm |
      • SuperDarkMan12 j

        Woah their. It seems your forgetting about the new laws in Texas.

        January 22, 2014 at 9:23 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          The wonders of gerrymandered districts!

          January 22, 2014 at 9:48 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          The laws in texas that were pushed by rick "oops" perry. We'll see how things turn out with wendy davis running on the democratic ticket. Texas women are still upset by that law.Former Gov. Bob "indicted" Mcdonell of Virginia pushed similar laws. The men he endorsed to replace him lost.

          January 22, 2014 at 9:50 pm |
    • Liz the First

      From a different article;
      "Gallup found last year that 26 percent thought abortion should be legal in any circ.umstance, 20 percent said it should be illegal in all cases, and 52 percent thought it should be legal in certain circu.mstances. In 1975, those numbers were 21, 22 and 54, respectively."

      Shades of gray.

      January 22, 2014 at 9:20 pm |
    • v

      sadly, slavery was popular

      don't matter if only 1 of us hates destroying life

      January 22, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
      • Liz the First

        You boasted of having 100 abortions. Figured you'd be all for skavery, too.

        January 22, 2014 at 11:11 pm |
  16. SuperDarkMan12 j

    The amount of bias in this article is disturbing. Why couldn't the writer of this have a more balanced article like the Washington Post had made. You can obviously see that the man/woman is pro choice.

    January 22, 2014 at 7:56 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
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.