Truthful and Good News, for a Change:
Verizon calls NARAL "unsavory" and "controversial"

| 23 Comments

Yet NARAL amazingly thinks Verizon is censoring our free speech!

NARAL ought to consider that Verizon just might be listening to the predominance of its client base.

Here's the email they sent:

Last week Verizon Wireless deemed NARAL Pro-Choice America too "controversial" and "unsavory" to approve a short code for our text-messaging program.

Not familiar with the term "short code"? The bottom line is that Verizon won't let its customers access our text-messaging program.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this claim is histrionic B.S. People can still access NARAL's program but NARAL just doesn't get their own special shorthand for accessing it.

My heart bleeds for them.

Verizon's decision sends chills down my spine. What kind of company would deny its customers who signed up to receive information the ability to use their cell phones to participate in our democracy? That's just wrong.
"Chills down my spine"? "Participate in our democracy??" Masters of grandiose melodrama, aren't they?
I've sent a letter to Verizon president and CEO Lowell McAdam asking him to end his company's policy. But Verizon hasn't contacted me with an official response - so now I'm asking for your help. Please send your own message to Verizon opposing their decision today!

The principle at stake here is simple. Verizon Wireless' customers have every right to decide what actions to take with their phones, regardless of their political views.

And if Verizon Wireless customers have the right to "short code" the North-American Man-Boy Love Association, the Ku Klux Klan or the Neonazis, NARAL should support that too, I suppose. After all, they'd want to reach their members quicker and have one-button donating capabilities too, wouldn't they?
If you think that Verizon, which controls 25 percent of the cell-phone market, has no business deciding what information their customers can and can't receive, I hope you take action today.
Umm...Verizon isn't deciding that you can't access NARAL by texting at all..

So much for the "No one rules our bodies" crowd. They want to rule everything big business does, to suit them.

I'm writing to Verizon to say thank you and well done. "Please send your own message to Verizon supporting their decision today!" The e m a i l a d d r e s s appears to be his first name, then a dot, then his last name, then "at" verizon "dot" com (replacing the "at" and the "dot", getting rid of the spaces, you know the drill). I just wrote him and there's been no "message failure" return bounceback.

Lowell C. McAdam
CEO and President
Verizon Wireless

23 Comments

Although it appears they've already backpeddled,
they spoke truth, albeit in a most understated way.

I think more would be willing to write the CEO
if the e-mail address was made readily available.

The email address for the CEO is right at the bottom, last sentence. How much more readily available does it need to be? I wrote it that way to avoid the email spider programs on the web.

How did they "speak truth?" Are you saying people are actually banned from texting to NARAL the regular way? That's not my understanding.

I personally found Verisons initial decision to so blatantly discriminate against NARAL to be horrifying. I am very thankful they came to there senses earlier today and overturned their decision. Now they need to publicly apologize, and rethink their policies as to not discriminate against their customers in the future. If I had an account with Verizon I would absolutely have canceled my account had they not changed their minds.

Whether or not you are anti-choice, you should logically be able to see this as discrimination, and a denial of freedom of speech. However, I know that anti-choice protesters often do not care about the rights of people with different beliefs than their own, and scarcely allow logic to interfere with their though processes.

No I was surprised that they were admitting abortion
is unsavory.

I thought the description of the e-mail address
was confusing.

Sorry. I'm not aware of the spider programs.

Your haste to rejoice in a restriction of free speech reveals an ignorance of the right. Yesterday Verizon may have been constrained your political opponent's speech. Tomorrow they could constrain yours. Be careful what you wish for. Be grateful for living in a country where this kind of thing rarely endures in the light of day

Amber and Keanus:

You are (embarrassingly) revealing your ignorance of the First Amendment. Only the government can violate the First Amendment. Read:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances."

(which also applies to the States via the 14th Amendment)

Verizon, as a private entity, is free to "discriminate" against your speech all it wants, or against mine, for that matter.

Excuse me, I shouldn't have been so rude in critiquing your comments. Nonetheless, under the First Amendment, private entities are free to discriminate or censor your speech as they wish.

That said, I don't believe this is a case of infringing anybody's speech. Verizon is simply choosing not to provide a technological shortcut on behalf of a particular controversial organization. No speech is being abridged, nor is any message.

Nor is Verizon "discriminating" against its customers, as it would be if it were, say, offering service to white people, but not black people. Verizon is rather choosing not to extend a benefit to an organization because a substantial amount of its customers oppose that organization and (it is to be assumed) would demonstrate their opposition by choosing not to purchase Verizon's goods and services.

There is nothing wrong with this. A segment of the population is demonstrating its opposition to abortion by means of an implicitly threatened boycott, similar to how businesses that refused to serve minorities (actual discrimination) in the 60s were coerced into abandoning their racist practices. In fact, if the government tried to prevent people from doing this, it would be unlawfully infringing the boycotters' speech, in violation of the First Amendment. So, what we actually see here is core political speech, as a segment of society is publicly protesting abortion.

Ford has it right. The average American hasn't the slightest clue what the First Amendment is all about.

Ford, you are the one who's ignorant. Verizon is a special kind of private company--one functioning as a public utility. Utilities may not deny serivice to a prospective customer because they don't like them. The First Amendment prohibits them from restricting the content their customers put on their system. They cannot discriminate on the basis of content, only on whether their bills are paid.

And any group is free to boycott Verizon. So be my guest. I doubt that Verizon, as a holder of 25% of the US cell market and with the consistently best rated service, would even notice. Certainly no more than the hundreds of other major corporations that support Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and related non-profit groups with similar missions.

Keanus:

Let me start with where you're correct. Utilities may not discriminate as to whom they'll service. However, that has nothing to do with whether they are regulated. Under state and federal civil rights acts, no business can discriminate in certain ways.

What do I mean by "certain ways"? Businesses (again any business, not just heavily regulated businesses) are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of only those criteria enumerated in the statute. These are commonly race, religion, creed, national origin, and sex. To my knowledge, ideology has never been a listed criteria.

Hence, if I ran a catering business, I would be perfectly within my rights to service all businesses except abortion clinics, just as you would be free to refuse service to crisis pregnancy centers.

So, there are several reasons why Verizon is not "discriminating" in an illegal fashion. First, it is not refusing a service that it otherwise provides equally to all organizations and persons. It is a privilege it extends to some and not others. Second, it is not discriminating against any person. Third, it is not discriminating on the basis of a proscribed category under law.

You are also correct that utilities are under a different standard than other businesses. Utilities such as water, gas, and electric companies are granted government-sanctioned local monopolies under the law. As a result, the state has more of a hand in their actions, which may trigger the 14th Amendment. I say "may," because I don't believe that Verizon is granted a similar type of monopoly. Unlike your single local utility, you can choose among AT&T, Sprint, Nextel, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc. because none is granted such a monopoly. Hence, I don't believe there is sufficient state action to trigger any First Amendment protection.

But even if I am not fully correct on that last point, the First Amendment is still not violated. Verizon is not censoring content, it is simply declining to grant one particular organization a special technological tool that it similarly denies to countless other organizations. By analogy, even if I were required to allow you equal access to an open forum in my house, I am not required to hand you a megaphone.

Finally, if this really were a violation of discrimination laws or the First Amendment, do you really think Verizon would have done it? Verizon isn't exactly a mom and pop shop on the corner. It has sophisticated in-house and outside legal counsel that would identify such "violations" before they were ever implemented.

Keanus:

You got me thinking about the heavily regulated utility, so I decided to check back on few cases.

In Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis (1972), the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff could not sue a private club under the 14th Amendment for discriminating against him on the basis of his race, even though the club was regulated in the form of holding a state liquor license. Unless, the state participated in the particular act of discrimination, the regulation alone did not convert all actions of the lodge into state action.

In Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison (1974), the Court extended Moose Lodge to a heavily regulated public utility company, and thus did not allow a suit under the 14th Amendment.

And, because a state or state actor can violate the First Amendment only through the 14th Amendment, if the 14th Amendment doesn't apply, neither does the First.

Ford:
I don't have time to indulge your stupidity, but I would like to point out that discrimination exists in forms other than the color of someone's skin. Reality check. If they had tried to do this to an anti-choice organization you would have a completely different take.

Ford:
I don't have time to indulge your stupidity,

Fair enough. Just let me know when you find the time. My stupid summary of the law will simply remain on this blog until you have time to address it.

but I would like to point out that discrimination exists in forms other than the color of someone's skin.

You are indeed correct that discrimination exists in all types of forms. For instance, just this afternoon I decided that a nice game of racquetball was more to my liking than sitting at a desk. But, more seriously, the issue is not whether "discrimination" has taken place (as every choice is by definition an an act of discrimination), but whether illegal discrimination has taken place. And that, of course, does turn on a limited set of forbidden criteria, such as race, religion, creed, etc.

Reality check. If they had tried to do this to an anti-choice organization you would have a completely different take.

If they tried to do this with an "anti-choice" (read: "anti-abortion"), my reaction would indeed be different: I would be upset. But my take would remain the same: Verizon would be within their rights to do so.

"I don't have time to indulge your stupidity."

Should read: "I don't have time to give you a logical and reasonable response, because I have none."

Or: "I don't have time to indulge your stupidity, because I am much too busy indulging my own."

Admit it, Keanus. You haven't a clue as to what Ford's point is, because you have very little knowledge regarding the law. You're just coming across as a common ignoramous. Ford is speaking intelligently while you are speaking as a run-of-the-mill hot head.

redgirl:

It's actually Amber who doesn't have time to indulge my stupidity. Keanus has already responded to several of my points, and thus apparently does have time to indulge my stupidity.

Now that the insults have ceased perhaps a little sanity and common sense might prevail. Phone companies, as common carriers, are legally required to carry any kind of private communications without making any distinctions. Verizon in its mode as a cell phone provider has no right to censor or limit what its customers choose to transmit in private conversations. The government does have a right, but only after obtaining a search warrant. And, if you doubt that, consider how you'd respond if Verizon chose to limit the content of your conversations or text messages. No I didn't think you'd like it. Nor would I. Whatever you might have to transmit--even if I thought it was evil--I would defend your right to do so, precisely because in defending you, I'm defending my right to send my thoughts.

Keanus:

I keep begging the same question. Perhaps I'm not asking it squarely enough. How is Verizon censoring private communications? I think I've explained several times that Verizon is not censoring anybody. It is simply declining to provide a technological shortcut (i.e., a communicative advantage) that it provides only to a select few as it is.

Also, I think you have your Amendments confused. The warrant requirement is part of the Fourth Amendment, and has nothing to do with censorship. Even if the Fourth Amendment were at issue (which it isn't, because the government isn't involved), the Supreme Court has not yet held that one has a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in one's cell phone conversations (although the Sixth Circuit has). Someone please correct me if SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue.

Alas, I fear this conversation is going nowhere, so I'm signing off. Keanus, I appreciate your commitment to the First Amendment. Let me say that I would defend your right to speak your pro-abortion views if you were unconstitutionally censored. I only hope that you are sincere in saying that you would do the same. The pro-abortion lobby has, very sadly, done just the opposite, trying vigorously to eliminate the anti-abortion lobby's ability to speak and publicly protest. See the recent Supreme Court cases of Scheidler v. NOW and Operation Rescue v. NOW for recent examples. The ACLU, once the great defender of the First Amendment, is now it's greatest enemy, at least when it comes to abortion.

Signing off (at least on this post),

Ford

Thanks, Ford and redgirl. Well said. Ford makes all good points, and the most important one here, Keanus and Amber, for the how-many-th time, is this:

"Verizon in its mode as a cell phone provider IS NOT CENSORING OR LIMITING what its customers choose to transmit in private conversations."

It is only not allowing NARAL patronizers such as yourselves the means of shortening the time to access NARAL's program. It is fully in its right to do that.

If you still can't see the very real distinction, then you just are missing the facts.

Or as I said in the post:

"People can still access NARAL's program but NARAL just doesn't get their own special shorthand for accessing it."

Ford said "...Verizon is not censoring anybody." Not so. Until it rescinded its position, Verizon was restricting its services to one customer based on the content created by that customer. (If you think that's okay, consider how you'd react if the shoe were on the other foot and Verizon had attempted to restrict the use of cell phones by the current "40 Days for Life" campaign. You'd scream bloody murder and rightfully so.) Whatever you choose to call it, such behavior is a violation of US law. Clearer heads at Verizon recognized that and wisely reversed course.

You are quite correct that the expectation of privacy on cell phones has yet to be clearly established in the courts, but a couple of years ago (the case name and the persons' names involved escape me) a party in Florida intercepted a cell phone call of a congressman and tried to use the content in some nefarious way. The congressman, if I recall, sued for redress and won establishing legal recognition of an expectation of privacy on cell phones. That said, I think anyone who expects total privacy on a network that operates in the way cell service does, is a fool. It's too easy to intercept a cell phone transmission with a little technical know-how.

As for my citing warrants, I perfectly well know they fall under the Fourth Amendment. That was simply to relate that only the government can listen in to conversations provided it has a court warrant. The phone company cannot.

In your last paragraph "Let me say that I would defend your right to speak your pro-abortion views......at least when it comes to abortion..." you reveal your ignorance of me, my politics, and the ACLU, making sweeping claims without the slightest evidence to support them.

You have no idea what my stance on abortion is. And it's not relevant to the topic of Annie's post: A common carrier attempt to restrict service based on the content of its customer's messages.

The "pro-abortion lobby" which exists in your imagination but not in reality, restricts no one's right to free speech nor has it sought to do so, ever. The suits you cite were over attempts to interfer in the legal operation of health clinics, an effort that continues in different ways today.

The ACLU has lost a bit of its way recently under Anthony Romero, but not in the way you represent. It still stands ready to defend anyone who's rights under the Constitution are infringed, especially by the government. If any body tried to restrict your rights, the ACLU would be the first to defend you. (It would have defended NARAL if Verizon has not backed down and Verizon's lawyers knew it.) I've supported the ACLU for more than half a century including their defense of communists, neo-Nazis, odd religious sects, Christians of all stripes, and atheists. And I know a few ACLU attorneys and they'll be the first to represent you in court, if your rights are violated.

But among the rights the ACLU is willing to defend, since it has been so defined by the courts, is the right of a woman to health care, including all forms of family planning and, yes, abortion within limits. I'm very much on the fence about abortions--the issue is not black and white as painted by those at the polar extremes--but the intransigence and self-righteousness of the self-described "pro-life" movement and its proclivity for insults, ex-cathedra judgments about others, and implied threats of (and history of) violence is so offensive to most Americans, that I cannot support your agenda. The ACLU sees it much the same way.

Keanus, Verizon wasn't "censoring anybody." It was not restricting content or access to that content. Look up the actual definition of the word "censor": "to suppress or delete as objectionable." It hadn't suppressed it, it hadn't deleted it, it hadn't prevented anyone from getting it.

The shoe wouldn't be on the other foot as the 40 Days for Life activities aren't "unsavory."

You, NARAL and the ACLU types need to relook at the definitions of the word censor, instead of getting histrionic on all of us that this is something it wasn't.

That kind of hysterical, trumped-up-charge email is what gets all of you in such a lather, with no valid foundation! It's amazing how they work people's minds!

This isn't the first time that NARAL has wordsmithed and changed the meaning of actual facts. In May of this year, their email trumpeted that "the Federal Abortion Ban" was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Funny, there is no such thing as the Federal Abortion Ban.

What they were referring to was the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003." But of course, their histrionics and rewording of the name of the law makes the less-aware among the populace THINK that it's an entire ban on all abortion at the federal level. OH MY! GADZOOKS!

They do this ALL the time. Whip you up into a frenzy over something that isn't true. Yet people open their gullets and swallow it whole.

http://abortionpundit.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-to-excel-at-histrionics-and.html


Also, one last thing: this one statement tells us all we need to know about how your bias leans, Keanus:

"The "pro-abortion lobby" which exists in your imagination but not in reality"

Come on. You don't do your own research on this apparently, but buy whatever the abortion crowd has told you.

1) If this lobby didn't exist, then PP, NARAL and NOW, et.al. would NOT have attempted to discredit all the scientists whose research has found that abortion does have harmful effect on us women and would NOT actually have filed lawsuits to block comprehensive research that would reveal how widespread the suffering is? Yet they have done just that. They made sure Surgeon General Koop's recommendations for such massive research were NEVER sought by Congress.

2) The American Civil Liberties Union represented the National Abortion Federation in the New York trial in U.S. District Court which challenged the national ban on partial-birth abortion, and they lost that challenge.

3) NARAL got its smackdown when it ran the heavily-pro-abortion and completely false ad libeling Supreme Court nominee Roberts. Even pro-choicers and liberals were aghast when they ran the ad. Do you recall that one? Scott Leigh in The Boston Globe wrote: "But it is fundamentally wrong to portray Roberts as man who has excused violence against other Americans or who somehow offered legal support in a clinic bombing case. And that's the impression this ad obviously tries to create." http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/12/smearing_john_roberts/
Here's what the Washington Post had to say about it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/11/AR2005081101603.html
"The ad released this week by NARAL Pro-Choice America is a distressing exception. Seizing on his role in a 1993 Supreme Court decision as a lawyer for the government, it graphically -- and wholly unfairly -- seeks to tar Judge Roberts with being an apologist for abortion clinic bombings."

4) Donna Joy Watts was ejected from her testimony in front of the Senate by pro-abortion Barbara Boxer because she represented one main reason why partial birth abortion should have been outlawed:
http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=3751878 " and Boxer didn't give a damn about her being one year less than was technically allowed on the Senate floor. If she'd been there to prove support for PBA she would have rolled out the red carpet for the girl.
Said her mother, "When I was pregnant with my daughter, doctors said that she had a fatal brain disorder and was completely incompatible with life," Vance said. "Every doctor I went to told me that I had to have a late-term abortion, and when they described it, it's obviously what's known as partial birth abortion. I refused it, and I had her, and when she turned 5 she became the oldest survivor that we knew of at the time of her group of brain disorders. Now she's about to turn sweet 16. She has friends. She sings in the church choir. She took the blue ribbon in the Special Olympics for bowling. That's quite a feat considering she does have cerebral palsy and peripheral blindness. She's beautiful, and she's a little bit of a ham."

Read the congressional archives about her appearance and her story here, http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=683794 Read how even after Donna was born, the hospital staff tried to get away with not caring for her or feeding her. THAT is what Boxer supports.

5) The pro-abortion lobby went to court in Kansas to prevent requiring abortion clinics from reporting when statutory rape had occcurred to potential "clients" coming in for services or abortions. Read the court case for yourself and see how many proabortion lobbyists signed on to fight against this:
http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/100603KSPIMemo.PDF

That website belongs to the Center for Reproductive Rights, a leading pro-abortion lobbyist/law firm. They get involved legally and politically to fight any restriction on any kind of abortion. They used to call themselves "Center for Reproductive Law and Policy". It's fascinating that they changed their name to sound more like a civil rights group than a lobbyist. Don't believe me? Google the phrase in quotes, Center for Reproductive Law and Policy. See what comes up as the first hit.

Sure, they argue that "Abortion is ONE critical aspect of reproductive rights" but the fact is they will do anything to prevent anyone from limiting abortion in any way. That's as pro-abortion as they come.

http://www.reproductiverights.org/pr_03_0110aktrial.html

Even the AMA is against requiring doctors to report statutory rape when they see it in all cases: http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2005/03/hlaw1-0503.html. Don't tell me you think they're objective. They go to the National Abortion Federation (NAF) for much of their data!

6) When I went with about 100 other post-abortive women and men to silently protest the Women's March for Choice in 2004 in D.C., we learned that the march's organizers had gone to court to deny our First Amendment rights to free speech. Who were that march's organizers? NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood and the Feminist Majority (which is misnamed, as they are neither true feminists nor a majority) had gone to court the week before to have Judge Gladys Kessler, district judge for the District of Columbia, uphold the denial of our permit application. (We only had asked to stand directly across the street from the Rally on the National Mall.) We issued a press release on it: Silent No More Awareness Campaign co-founder Janet Morana said, "Isn't this hypocritical, marching for total access to abortion for all women while denying some women access to speak on public sidewalks?" BTW, we were there anyway, but at different locations along the march route.

7) "Planned Parenthood Sues Over Mo. Law" from the Saint Louis Missouri News and Las Cruces Sun-News, a MediaNews Group Newspaper http://www.lcsun-news.com/apcontent/ci_6670806 and
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:QumfmCT0AlcJ:stlouismo.com/blogs/saint-louis-missouri-news/archive/2007/08/21/planned-parenthood-challenges-new-missouri-abortion-law.aspx+%22parts+of+the+state+by+subjecting+clinics+to+stringent+state+oversight%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

What exactly are they objecting to? "The new law pulls more clinics under the state's umbrella by requiring any facility that performs more than five first-trimester abortions a month, or any second- or third-trimester abortions, to meet the licensure requirements for an 'ambulatory surgical center.' Among the new requirements noted in the lawsuit: outpatient surgery centers must have halls at least 6 feet wide and doors at least 44 inches wide; there must be separate male and female changing rooms for personnel; and a recovery room with space for at least four beds with 3 feet of clearance around each."

Like we've said for years, abortion clinics are less monitored or regulated for safety than veterinary clinics. They don't want to spend a dime to make sure that women who go in there are safe. It doesn't infringe on women's ability to get abortions, it infringes on the $600,000 that would otherwise go in the pockets of PP since they wouldn't be forced by law to bring the medical facility up to safety code.

8) The ACLU stuck its nose into a parental notification consent law and legally pressured a Florida judge to reverse his ruling in this case, http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2005/05/aclu-appeal-claimed-dcf-and-circuit.html . In an earlier Florida case (Terri Schiavo), the ACLU argued that the state court COULD in fact make "its own evaluation" of what was in her "best interest," but in the case of this 13 year old girl, ACLU turned around and said that the state court COULD NOT make "its own evaluation of her best interest"! Funny how the ACLU's double standard helps them out whenever there's a life to end.

I could spend weeks providing you with proof of the pro-abortion lobby. You'd still deny it, just like your abortion industry schoolmasters.

Anne, in attempting to paint others with whom you disagree with a broad brush of insults, you paint a very clear picture of yourself. You should look in the mirror sometime and see how you come across. No rational person would be swayed by your information and appeals to emotion. Your behavior helps no one and is a serious impediment to dialogue. Until you and those who marck in lock step with you come to understand how we work in a democracy, seeking common ground, you will be forever frustrated. You need to do some serious self examination.

Umm, where exactly did I write anything that could be remotely considered "a broad brush of insults"? Really. What names did I call you here? What insults?

I provided numerous factual examples of the pro-abortion lobby, from C-Span, Washington Post, Boston Globe, other objective secular newspapers and sources and you call them "my examples" and "appeals to emotion"? I mean, really!

"You, NARAL and the ACLU types need to relook at the definitions of the word censor, instead of getting histrionic on all of us that this is something it wasn't."

Histrionic? Is that the insult? If the shoe fits, wear it, Keanus. It does, and your last comment proves you do.

The great majority of our readers know it, and they don't waste their breath on those who "come across" like you do.

Your head is in the sand. So be it. But coming here to just behave like a gadfly is not the purpose of these comboxes or this blog.




button02b.gif

Categories

Archives

Pro-Life Articles

add your site
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 25, 2017, 12:21 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 25, 2017, 12:40 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 25, 2017, 6:21 am
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 25, 2017, 2:21 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 25, 2017, 9:56 am
Catholic Church Conservation Sep 25, 2017, 11:15 am
FREEDOM EDEN Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
Opinion Times Sep 25, 2017, 9:06 am
Catholic Fire Sep 25, 2017, 4:11 am
Opinion Times Sep 25, 2017, 2:46 am
LTI Blog Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
HumanLifeMatters Sep 25, 2017, 3:20 am
Opinion Times Sep 25, 2017, 12:30 am
Opinion Times Sep 25, 2017, 2:16 am
cultureshift Sep 25, 2017, 12:24 am
Quo Vadis Sep 24, 2017, 10:41 pm
PM Notes Sep 24, 2017, 10:01 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 10:42 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 10:52 pm
Spero News Dec 31, 1969, 11:00 pm
A Lifestyle of Peace Sep 24, 2017, 11:31 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 8:41 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 8:41 pm
Deacon's Blog Sep 24, 2017, 8:42 pm
cultureshift Sep 24, 2017, 6:16 pm
A Catholic Life Sep 24, 2017, 8:00 pm
SUNLIT UPLANDS Sep 24, 2017, 8:35 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 24, 2017, 6:52 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 6:21 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 5:39 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 24, 2017, 5:32 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 24, 2017, 5:30 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 24, 2017, 6:00 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 4:39 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 5:00 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 4:37 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 4:15 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 3:37 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 3:27 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 3:31 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 3:55 pm
A Catholic Life Sep 24, 2017, 3:09 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 24, 2017, 1:54 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 24, 2017, 1:24 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 24, 2017, 1:14 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 24, 2017, 12:38 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 24, 2017, 12:28 pm
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 12:29 pm
Pro-Life Unity Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 1:45 am
Opinion Times Sep 24, 2017, 12:50 am
The Ohio Anglican.blog Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
The Ohio Anglican.blog Sep 24, 2017, 4:35 am
A Follower of Francis Sep 24, 2017, 1:08 am
The Ohio Anglican.blog Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
The Ohio Anglican.blog Sep 24, 2017, 1:35 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 24, 2017, 12:47 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 10:16 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:42 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 7:54 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 23, 2017, 11:16 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 23, 2017, 8:00 pm
SUNLIT UPLANDS Sep 23, 2017, 9:35 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:22 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:23 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:23 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:23 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:23 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 7:52 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 7:52 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 7:52 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 4:54 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 6:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 6:22 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 6:12 pm
Happy Catholic Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:26 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:24 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:31 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:38 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:35 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:13 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:07 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:15 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:11 pm
cultureshift Sep 23, 2017, 3:43 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 3:21 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 3:21 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 3:21 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 3:21 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 3:21 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 3:21 pm
Catholic Church Conservation Sep 23, 2017, 3:15 pm
Reclaiming Our Children Jan 1, 1970, 7:00 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 2:13 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:39 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:39 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 1:09 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 2:13 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:39 pm
Christian Musician...Pro Life! Sep 18, 2017, 12:02 pm
A Catholic Life Sep 23, 2017, 11:44 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 7:02 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 4:29 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 2:55 am
Greater Fitchburg For Life Sep 23, 2017, 4:20 am
Greater Fitchburg For Life Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
DEACON FOR LIFE Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
DEACON FOR LIFE Sep 23, 2017, 3:15 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:13 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:13 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:13 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:13 am
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:13 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 9:11 pm
Spero News Dec 31, 1969, 11:00 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 22, 2017, 10:39 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 22, 2017, 10:27 pm
Pro-Life Unity Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 9:27 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 10:03 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 9:50 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 22, 2017, 9:22 pm
Rebelution Sep 22, 2017, 8:49 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 9:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 9:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 9:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 9:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 9:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 9:17 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 4:41 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 8:31 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 4:29 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 8:51 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 8:32 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 7:35 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 22, 2017, 10:39 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 22, 2017, 10:38 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 7:56 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 7:45 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 7:33 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 22, 2017, 6:00 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 22, 2017, 6:05 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 7:14 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 6:32 pm
NoisyRoom.net Sep 22, 2017, 7:13 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 7:15 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 5:32 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 6:56 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 5:57 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 6:54 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 6:06 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 6:21 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 6:43 pm
Happy Catholic Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 6:00 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 4:22 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 20, 2017, 3:01 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 20, 2017, 2:00 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 20, 2017, 9:00 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 20, 2017, 9:15 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 20, 2017, 3:00 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 20, 2017, 11:00 am
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 19, 2017, 11:00 am
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 19, 2017, 5:59 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 19, 2017, 6:24 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 19, 2017, 4:33 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 21, 2017, 3:01 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 21, 2017, 3:00 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 21, 2017, 5:10 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 22, 2017, 4:10 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 22, 2017, 5:49 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 21, 2017, 8:01 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 21, 2017, 7:51 pm
Students for Life of Illinois Sep 18, 2017, 4:00 pm
Reclaiming Our Children Jan 1, 1970, 7:00 am
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 3:12 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 4:29 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 4:41 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 4:50 pm
Leaven for the Loaf Sep 22, 2017, 4:54 pm
March For Life Sep 22, 2017, 3:51 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 3:31 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 3:34 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 22, 2017, 5:49 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 2:38 pm