PPFA's Dubious Explanation of Abortion

| 15 Comments

One would think that having a miscarriage and choosing an abortion were slightly different forms of the same experience, based on PPFA's online explanation of abortion.

Here's what Planned Parenthood has to say on its website:

Abortion ends a pregnancy before birth. It occurs naturally in 15-40 percent of all established pregnancies -- when an embryo or fetus stops developing and the body expels it. This is called spontaneous abortion, miscarriage, or early pregnancy loss. Women choose abortion in less than 25 percent of the 6,000,000 pregnancies that are diagnosed in the U.S. every year -- 50 percent of which are unintended. This is called induced abortion.

Whom do PPFAers think they are kidding? One is not the other.

This veteran of a miscarriage at four months lost a baby, not an "it" during my spontaneous abortion.

According to PPFA, women who "choose abortion in less than 25 percent of the 6,000,000 pregnancies that are diagnosed in the U.S. every year" don't appear to lose anyone or anything in those 1.3 to 1.4 million induced abortions.

Not surprisingly, post-abortion grief -- the very thing that some women in both groups, those who miscarry and those who abort pregnancies, have in common is missing from this PPFA sales pitch.

(c) 2007 Marybeth T. Hagan
Crossposting with http://www.mothermayibeborn.com

15 Comments

Agreed. There are women who attend the Rachel's Vineyard healing retreats who have "only" miscarried, and their grief is real and deep.

Note how clinical and unfeeling their words for miscarriage are. They'll do anything to deny that there's someone to care for there and now that someone is gone.

>Not surprisingly, post-abortion grief -- the very thing that some women in both groups, those who miscarry and those who abort pregnancies, have in common is missing from this PPFA sales pitch.

Actually, just one click away from your link, a page titled Risks & Side Effects discusses Feelings After an Abortion and Emotional Problems After Abortion in a straightforward manner. Did you ignore this, or just not bother to read it before writing your pronouncement?

It sounds like an accurate description to me:

- Abotion is the termination of pregnency.
- It can happen naturally.
- Or it can be induced deliberatly.

Thats all it says. Are any of those three statements false? Its truthful, accurate, and objective. It allows for the consideration of facts, without being mislead by subjective emotion.

The only part I find at all suspicious is a number - 15-40%. Thats a very wide margin! I expect its due to the difficulty of determining how many pregnencies end in spontainous abortion when many of those dont even last long enough for the woman to realise she is pregnent.

You're both back? Ray, I thought you said "I don't really see the point of "debate."
http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2007/09/the_forgotten_c.php

yet you're back?

Suricou Raven, and Ray, you have both been shown in multiple recent posts to blindly support abortion and PP no matter how many times you are shown to be shooting blanks and no matter how many times your "claims" have been rebutted as false. You've ignored my many other responses to your incorrect facts.

To PLB's regular readers, it would be my humble opinion and advice that in these two's cases: "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS." They are diehard Planned Parenthood supporters (and Suricou is the porn-preferrer, http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2007/09/armani_exchange.php ) who'll go to their graves rather than admit where thev'e been proven to be misled and who instead choose to support a racist eugenicist organization and industry.

I won't waste my time on their trolling anymore. They're not here to learn the truth. They're here to agitate and give themselves a little jolly thrill in the process.

To SR and RK, let's see you get back to me on those many other posts' comments first. Your credibility is basically, well, discredited, until then.

It is fascinating, though, that RK links to the very page of PP's lies that we shredded with published science about 3 years ago!

http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2004/11/shredding-myths-about-abortions_02.html

Spend some time, Ray, reading through #1 through 9, and find out how many lies they STILL print on that website page you so desperately cling to.

#1: Does getting an abortion hurt?
PP lies and tells you it's all mild and temporary. Not always true.

#2: How will I feel after an abortion?
PP lies and tells you you may only feel bad "for a little while."

#3: Any emotional problems after abortion?
PP lies and tells you it's the same as if you had the baby. They lie and tell you that if you do have them, it's because "a woman is depressed or has other emotional problems that predate her pregnancy." Meaning you were unstable to begin with. Another lie, as proven by the scientific studies I link to in that above URL.

I won't go on. Ray, your head is in the sand. So be it. God help the women in your life.

Here are the other questions PP lies about and you buy, hook line and sinker. But you won't go read the studies. YOU don't want to know:

#4: Does abortion cause breast cancer?

#5: Does an early abortion make ectopic, or tubal, pregnancy more likely in the future?

#6: What about future pregnancies? Will an early abortion affect my ability to have a child in the future?

#7: Does an early abortion cause premature birth or low infant birth weight in future pregnancies? Does an early abortion make miscarriage more likely in the future? Does having several abortions affect future pregnancies?

#8: Does an early abortion cause birth defects in future pregnancies?

#9: Does an early abortion increase the chance of infant death in the future?

Ray Koltys, did you ignore all this, or "just not bother to read" your own citation "before writing your pronouncement" that it's discussed "in a straightforward manner"?

More like straight-faced lies.

You have incredible gumption to keep coming here, belittling us and snidely, smugly tossing stuff in our faces that you think proves your point, only to have it dashed to bits as complete trash.

Really, I don't like being in the position of making anyone's behavior look so foolish, but you leave me little choice if any.

Annie, I stand by my statement: "Actually, just one click away from your link, a page titled Risks & Side Effects discusses Feelings After an Abortion and Emotional Problems After Abortion in a straightforward manner."

I read the page in question. I find its content to be factually accurate and its tone appropriate, unlike your histrionics. Breast cancer? Please!

Now listen to me, Annie. I know someone who had an abortion at a time in her life when she wasn't ready for a child. She was in an abusive relationship, and the outcome would have been very bad. She went through some normal emotions about it, but in the end was relieved and glad she did it. She is not a monster...she is a normal woman.

As it happens, I also know a woman who got pregnant pre-Roe. She was a good, young Catholic girl who was completely naive (this is what happens without sex ed), and didn't even know she was pregnant when she started being sick in the morning. She was unceremoniously dumped in a home for unwed mothers by her mother and told to call when it was over. The nuns browbeat her for months into giving her baby up for adoption, and when she did, the judge admonished her that she must never, ever seek the child out. The experience was so traumatic that it put her into a depression that lasted for FIVE YEARS. She was so crushed by it that she never had children again.

Tell me, Annie, which of these two women was more harmed by what she went through...the woman who had an abortion, or the one who was forced to carry to term.

Everyone has their own circumstances, Annie. If you don't like abortion, then don't have one. But stop trying to impose your morality on everyone else, and please give the health myths a rest.

Ray, what you stand by is a page full of long-disproven myths, not "factually accurate" information. Their answers are myths, whether you choose to believe this or not! It isn't coming from my lips or pen. You've been given all the links to all the published studies, yet you refuse to even consult them. You pretend they aren't even there! You pretend that I just made up all those NIH government webpages and fabricated all the studies! This attitude of yours would be amusing if it weren't so unbelievable.

You have no idea how many people have seen it for themselves and know that you're just barking up the wrong tree. You have no idea how ridiculous your obstinate denial appears. Well, if that's the way you want to be known on this blog, I guess that's the way you'll be known. Be my guest!

You can call my words "histrionics" and "frantic" all you want but it is your pretending this evidence doesn't exist is what's bizarre.

You have denied all those many scientific studies (and even American Cancer Society people and brochures) that have discussed the scientific findings of an abortion/breast cancer link, and all the other proofs that PPFA is lying to all people on that. page. in. particular.

It's mind-boggling that you keep coming back defending something already proven by numerous scientists to be laced with crap.

What I've been trying to get you to take off your blinders to see--isn't about morality, mine or yours. It's about women's health and how it's being put at risk by the abortions we have.

It also floors me that you just lump me in with your perception of hysterical prolife women.

I don't call women who have had abortions "monsters"! I don't even THINK that! Where did you ever find that word or sentiment from me? You didn't, yet you continue to attack me as though I feel that way. You are presumptuous, intolerant and rude to have jumped to the utmost in wrong conclusions about me without even spending so much as 5 minutes looking at who I am (found easily on my blog) or at the hard, cold evidence given to you.

Or is it because you really don't give a damn about me or who I am? So much for being "pro-woman."

I am "someone who had an abortion at a time in her life when she wasn't ready for a child." I have been there and done that. I got pregnant post-Roe, even with sex-ed, so your one-woman story about sex-ed being the panacea is just that: one woman's story.

I ache for women like the second one you describe. I have heard from women like this personally. It is a crime that some were browbeaten and treated like that, by anyone. I know that it happened. That it happened does. not. justify. abortion. of. a. human. life. Two wrongs don't make a right.

And for the record, I am probably one of those Catholic babies like that woman was forced to give up for adoption. I thank God every day that my natural mom let me live instead of aborting me (and she surely could have, even though it was illegal then, I know more than a few grandmothers who've cried on my shoulder about their secret abortions back then). My birth mom gave me the best she could ever give me. Life. I pray for her, esp. if she went through that kind of living hell, I pray that she knows that I'm ok, I'm "doing her proud." That she did the right thing, regardless of how it hurt her, and that I believe she will be rewarded for her sacrifice.

And I know too many women who had been through what you described the first woman went through--the abusive situation, the "no-way-out," and still today wish to all the world they'd not aborted. I know a couple others who still feel it was their best decision. I don't condemn those women or anyone. You have unmitigated gall to accuse me of doing so.

"which of these two women was more harmed by what she went through...the woman who had an abortion, or the one who was forced to carry to term"

Both of them were harmed. Both of them gave up something meaningful, both of them suffered.

The saddest part of that question is this: because of your "anti-abortion condemning" myopia, you are the last person on earth that the first woman who had the abortion could EVER feel safe admitting to that she might actually still regret her abortion. Because of people who think like you, she--if she does suffer silently--would have to continue doing so, feeling completely alone.

How much of a hero are you then?

I was "normal" and looked just fine to everyone on the outside, for over 20 years. When the pain and grief finally broke through my denial, instead of an understanding, supportive world, I got people like you in my face who say that I condemn postabortive women as "monsters." I got spat upon and screamed at and threatened.

So much for a "pro-woman" world.

That first woman could never admit to you if she's secretly feeling awful about the abortion. You'd just treat her like you've treated me, with condescension and obstinate incorrect accusations. Yet all this time, she has looked--to you--just like I looked for over 20 years: "normal."

And you will never know. For all you know she feels this way now. For all you know, she's lurking on this combox, feeling even more left out by you. Who knows? It could happen.

Finally your blithe "If you don't like abortion, then don't have one" cliche is the same crap I heard a thousand times. I am so sick and tired of hearing this. You just don't get it, this is such an ignorant statement: If I really didn't WANT an abortion back then, if I was so 1000% against it back then, if I had been strong enough back then, I wouldn't have gotten one! This is the most inane thing for anyone to say to someone. It's only later, that I came to truly admit to myself what I'd done, that it was wrong, and that if I'd really looked around back then, I would have found people willing and able to help me avoid abortion.

I don't usually get so disgusted by anyone on any combox discussion, Ray, but your attitudes are really just that--disgusting.

To see that their abortion regret can and does surface for women many decades later:

Go listen to Ellen Burstyn admit her abortion regret over 5 decades after having one illegally at the age of 18. She admitted it for the first time during an interview on CFRB radio, at the age of 74:
http://www.cfrb.com/media/collection/585734

Pt.2 is here (with the abortion discussion transcript below):
http://www.cfrb.com/player/ondemand/files/srimedia/ellen%202.mp3
"[T]he interviewer asked Burstyn 'what was the lowest moment' of her life.

"Burstyn: You know, I guess, I hate to talk about this on the air, but having an abortion. You know that was really an extremely painful experience.
Interviewer: Did you feel you didn't have a choice?

"Burstyn: At the time I was just young and dumb, I didn't really want to have a baby then. It was the wrong thing to do and I didn't really understand that till later. That was very very painful, that was probably the worst....These experiences are--we make a choice, and they have ramifications for the rest of our life...It's one of the dark threads [in our life's tapestry]. I try not to allow regret to settle over me like a shroud, because I think its an unhealthy way to live."


http://www.amazon.com/Lessons-Becoming-Myself-Ellen-Burstyn/dp/1594489297 is where I obtained the fact that she had the abortion illegally at age 18.

"You have denied all those many scientific studies (and even American Cancer Society people and brochures) that have discussed the scientific findings of an abortion/breast cancer link, and all the other proofs that PPFA is lying to all people on that. page. in. particular."

A correction: In the post I made yesterday (Which has yet to appear here, still stuck in moderation), I linked to an ACS statement of their position on the link. Their own material states that, after considering all the studies both ways, they have concluded that there is no causal link between abortion and breast cancer.

So you can strike that one off the list of organisations that support your claim.

When the post gets through, you will probably find a few others to strike off too - I linked to some quite prominant medical organisations that have concluded there is no link. The ACS, WHO, RCOG. Even the Breakthrough charity, if you want someone with moral high-ground.

Look over this page if you look at nothing else: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/ABC_Research/graphs

Look at the studies that show there is an A/BC link and those that don't. (If you want to read all the studies published by title, those are all listed here, http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/abc.html

The ACS and even the NCI struck themselves off that list when they put their heads in the sand on the epidemiological findings of the A/BC link. The ACS did so by ignoring their own literature (yanking it out of publication) and by silencing their own people that had testified under oath in a court of law as acknowledging that there was in fact a link.

I never said they still acknowledged the link does exist. It doesn't make you wonder why they're ignoring these studies? Why not?

There are numerous other scientists who have done about-faces while ignoring the studies that do find a link:

Phyllis Wingo was a CDC researcher prior to working for American Cancer Society (and then changing her mind suddenly on this issue). While at the CDC, she had a letter published in the British medical journal The Lancet (2/22/86, p.436) in which she and 3 other epidemiologists including Bruce Stadel of the National Institutes of Health criticized another cancer group's idea that increasing rates of BC was caused by birth control use. This is what they wrote: "This reasoning overlooks the more likely role of other factors, especially induced abortion. Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer."

Read this next one for yourself at the Wisconsin Law Review website, here, http://www.johnkindley.com/wisconsinlawreview.htm

Hopefully a secular, state law review site is objective and "high moral ground" enough for you.

I'll paraphrase for you: Dr. Clark Heath was an American Cancer Society VP at the time he gave testimony (in 1998) that if the normal development of breast cells is "interrupted at a stage early on, perhaps that will lead to an increased risk of cancer, of carcinogenesis, which is more frequent when cells are rapidly dividing and are young." [This testimony was given in the legal case of Christ's Bride Ministries, Inc. v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth., 937 F. Supp 425 (E.D. Pa. 1996), case # 148 F. 3d 242 (3d Cir. 1998) (No. 96-3631)]

Dr. Janet Daling is a pro-choice cancer specialist and she wrote in a 1994 NCI Journal: "If politics gets involved in science, it will really hold back the progress we make. I have three sisters with breast cancer, and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It's not a matter of believing. It's a matter of what is."

Daling has since been blacklisted from the NCI and refused entrance to their national conference. No surprise there.

Most of the ACS and others' defense that there is no link rests on the Melbye study, which has been debunked soundly by researchers in published letters to the New England Journal of Medicine. The Melbye study misclassified 60,000 women who'd had abortions as not having had abortions, and they began counting BC cases in a 5-year period BEFORE they started counting abortions! Totally incorrect data and procedures.

SR writes: "Their own material states that, after considering all the studies both ways, they have concluded that there is no causal link between abortion and breast cancer."

Of course, that's what they conclude. Too many of them don't want to give up their allegiance to abortion as a way of unfettered, irresponsible life.

There are many international medical associations and research organizations that do acknowledge the A/BC link or at least support disclosure of this research

1. Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (http://www.aapsonline.org ) is one.

2. 350,000 MDs in the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life http://www.euthanasia.com/belgium.html

3. National Physicians Center for Family Resources
4. Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
5. MaterCare International
6. The Polycarp Research Institute
7. American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, www.aaplog.org
8. Philippine Foundation for Breast Care, Inc. (PFBCI), http://www.pfbci.com/ (this country has "the highest prevalence of breast cancer in Asia")

SR, don't you see what's happening here in these comboxes? there is virtually nothing about abortion or contraception that you can try to defend as "good for women" that will survive under the scrutiny of real scientific research from around the world.

You've been sold a bill of goods, by the ACS, by the NCI, by RCOG, by Susan Komen and all cancer "societies" except for St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital.

You and millions of others are only paying attention to a scant portion of the research, and putting your heads in the sand about the majority of the valid, well-constructed research.

And women die more and more from breast cancer because of our world's willful ignorance.

What happened to my similar list of studies and authorities? The blog must have it still pending moderation.

We arn't going to achieve anything except wasteing time by exchanging links. You are just as blind as you accuse me of being.

Even when a respectable expert organisation concludes there is no link, you make up some rediculous conspiricy theory. "Of course, that's what they conclude. Too many of them don't want to give up their allegiance to abortion as a way of unfettered, irresponsible life." Why would the American Cancer Society care about abortion at all?

I carefully screen all my material for pro-choice bias, while you actually cited the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists to back up your claim! They are a political pressure group, not a medical group. Just look at the name.

"You and millions of others are only paying attention to a scant portion of the research, and putting your heads in the sand about the majority of the valid, well-constructed research."

The ACS went into some detail about this research. They identified poor analytical techniques, and noted that larger and better conducted studies showed that abortion did not increase the chance of breast cancer.

Though interestingly, pregnency to term did decrease it slightly. A fact which could, if not considered, easily lead to reaching the false conclusion that abortion caused cancer. A mistake that can be avoided by comparing three groups - post-abortion women, never-pregnent women and pregnency-to-term women. If the never-pregneny are eliminated, then it would give the appearance of a causal link between abortion and breast cancer, when its actually showing a negative correlation between pregnency and breast cancer. A problem that was pointed out in some of the studies claiming to show a link.

What happened to my similar list of studies and authorities? The blog must have it still pending moderation.

I don't know what happened to it. We are many cobloggers here and I'm not the main one or moderator.

"We arn't going to achieve anything except wasteing time by exchanging links. You are just as blind as you accuse me of being."

I acknowledged the studies that found no links between abortion and breast cancer. I even gave you a website that lists all of them! Yet you insist that I am blind!

No, Raven, I am not blind. I acknowledge that there are studies that show no A/BC link, just as there are more that show one. YOU deny that there are studies that DO show such a link.

And umm, you didn't provide any links; I did. You, like Ray, refuse to even look at the hard, cold evidence provided! That's why this is a waste of time: a waste of MY time!

You're right, we aren't going to achieve anything here, because YOU refuse to look at ALL the facts.

I always find it ironic: when we don't give prochoicers and pro-abortion advocates objective, scientific proof of what we're trying to inform them about, they jump down our throats. When we DO give them objective scientific proof, they still jump down our throats while they refuse to acknowledge or even look at it!

It doesn't go away just because you refuse to accept it's there and it's valid.

"Even when a respectable expert organisation concludes there is no link, you make up some rediculous conspiricy theory."

Now you've got me laughing! This is just too funny!

"Why would the American Cancer Society care about abortion at all?" Because of all the massive numbers of pro-abortion and pro-choice media and donors who would yank their funding and belittle them as "conspiricy theorists" just as you have done to me!

Think of how many millions of dollars they get from donors and how that money would all dry up if they said or did anything to "harm" the sanctity of abortion! Open your eyes, Raven! You'd be dismissing them just as you're dismissing me and all those medical groups I listed.

"I carefully screen all my material for pro-choice bias, while you actually cited the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists to back up your claim! They are a political pressure group, not a medical group. Just look at the name."

You screen your material? You don't even GIVE your sources or links! How suspect is that? Until you provide your proofs, your "omitted information", we have nothing objective or unbiased from YOU, while you have reams of data and findings provided via us. "They say" doesn't cut it.

You obviously don't look at evidence when it's presented if it's at all "against abortion." You didn't look to see that it is nothing but medical doctors in that group. You can't say you're so "careful" to screen all your material because when it comes to anything "anti-abortion" you just put your fingers in your ears and start humming like a little child so you won't hear it.

"The ACS went into some detail about this research. They identified poor analytical techniques, and noted that larger and better conducted studies showed that abortion did not increase the chance of breast cancer."

Give us YOUR proofs of that. What exactly ARE your unbiased sources for that claim? No sources? Then no credibility, Raven. Why should we just take YOUR word for it? You hate all prolifers, after all. You think we're all just bombers, I guess.

You're wrong there, too.

http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2007/09/hannitys_americ.php
In that one thread alone we disproved all your bogus claims from your so-called "carefully screened" objective non-prochoice "materials", to name just three:

1) "Thats because [abstinence] groups dont work! PP gets results: Its education programs reduce unwanted pregnency rates. The abstinance approach doesn't, I have plenty of statistics to show this."

2) "(Pregnency is more likely to kill her than abortion!)"

3) "I *HATE* the pro life movement ...I hate it not because of any disagreement over the ethics of abortion, but because time after time I see them lie, ommit information, distort facts, make up claims, repeat myth as fact, subvert democracy, publich clear propaganda and use absolutly any underhanded and manipulative means at their disposal..."

"Some of HLIs claimed crimes are just made up."

We then showed you in that and other threads the "information" you claimed we "omitted", undistorted facts, nonmadeup claims and stats from objective, nonprolife sources which disproved your claims in all the above. You STILL dismiss all. those. scientists and researchers!

What "carefully screened materials" exactly did you get your misinformation from, Raven? You never, ever did say, exactly, what were your stats and sources. Who's keeping things secret now?

You can keep up this farce if you want, Raven. You will never admit you've been misled. You will never look at ALL the evidence. You are protecting yourself, perhaps, from the pain of admitting that you've not been told the whole truth. I know that pain. I don't sleep well knowing I brought these health risks upon myself by my "choice." We find that MANY people just refuse to accept these truths, as you and Ray are refusing, because it's too painful to come to grips with it.

So be it, for you.

But don't expect to be taken seriously here or to "preach" to us about how wrong we are about the wonderful glories of abortion and contraception here. We've already opened up our eyes about all that and yeah, it hurt like a bitch when we did, many of us. We won't stand for your sniping and attacking us for that, either.

If you want respect here, better damn well GIVE IT first.

For those of you reading with glee Ellen Burstyn's regrets - I have had an abortion at the age of 21 (nearly 30 years age). I felt a huge sense of relief then and had never regretted it for a second. I have had two healthy children since who are nearly grown up now and emotionally close to me. I am physically healthy, emotionally well balanced and financially secure - I am grateful that abortion on request was available to me when I needed it.

Kat

Kat, I certainly wasn't "reading with glee" about Ellen Burstyn, and I can only speak for myself and the regular readers on the After Abortion blog.

This is unfortunate that you would assume that about any of us. I admit that some prolifers may sound "gleeful" but I surely am not one of those. It was mentioned as a followon to my reply to the commenter having brought up that he assumes if a woman has had an abortion and tells him that she's normal (his words, not mine) and she is fine about it years later. I only pointed out one example of where looks can be deceiving. The example was not one of gloating or glee.

I myself am postabortive, as is my coblogger Emily and yet while we regret it, we do not deny that many women are in fact fine and happy with their abortion decisions. If you read the Who we are on our blog, you'd see that that's been our attitude and behavior for many years now. That information is here, http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2004/05/who-we-are-and-some-guidelines-to.html

The pertinent part is in our commenting guidelines, where we say, "By the same token, please don't imply that men or women who say that their abortion experience was positive are in denial."

I didn't mean to imply that the commenter's woman friend was in denial. I am sorry if that is how it came across. I only meant that it's possible and should be something for prochoice folks to consider, given the great numbers of us who had abortions and had been in denial (in my case for decades) and then later, painfully, ended that denial, with much help.

Kat, maybe you could think about, when you read a prolifer's words, that it would be better for us all to not assume the worst of us, in the future. That would be all I ask.




button02b.gif

Categories

Archives

Pro-Life Articles

add your site
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, 9:42 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 10:16 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, 9:23 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:23 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:23 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 9:22 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, 6:12 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 6:22 pm
Happy Catholic Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:35 pm
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, 4:07 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:13 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:11 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 23, 2017, 4:15 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, 12:39 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 12:39 pm
Opinion Times Sep 23, 2017, 2:13 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 Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
Greater Fitchburg For Life Sep 23, 2017, 4:20 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, 9:50 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 10:03 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, 8:51 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 8:31 pm
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 4:29 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, 5:57 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 6:56 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
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 6:54 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, 3:00 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, 3:01 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 20, 2017, 9:15 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 21, 2017, 7:51 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 22, 2017, 5:49 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 21, 2017, 8:01 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
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 3:01 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 2:19 pm
The Ohio Anglican.blog Sep 22, 2017, 2:35 pm
The Ohio Anglican.blog Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 1:07 pm
open book Jan 1, 1970, 4:00 am
Live Action Blog Sep 22, 2017, 2:07 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 2:07 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 22, 2017, 1:00 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 22, 2017, 1:20 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 22, 2017, 12:57 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 22, 2017, 12:44 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 22, 2017, 1:13 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 22, 2017, 1:05 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 22, 2017, 1:08 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 22, 2017, 1:04 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Sep 22, 2017, 1:12 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 12:57 pm
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 1:26 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Sep 22, 2017, 4:10 pm
The Common Room Sep 22, 2017, 12:34 pm
LifeNews Sep 22, 2017, 12:59 pm
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 11:34 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 10:19 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 11:43 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 11:20 am
BIG C CATHOLICS Sep 22, 2017, 11:45 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 9:47 am
Les Femmes - The Truth Sep 22, 2017, 10:00 am
Greater Fitchburg For Life Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
Greater Fitchburg For Life Sep 22, 2017, 10:20 am
Greater Fitchburg For Life Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
Greater Fitchburg For Life Jan 1, 1970, 12:00 am
Fundamentally Reformed Sep 22, 2017, 2:35 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 8:43 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 8:18 am
Catholic Church Conservation Sep 22, 2017, 9:15 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 4:41 am
Catholic Fire Sep 22, 2017, 5:26 am
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 2:47 am
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 2:16 am
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 1:52 am
Opinion Times Sep 22, 2017, 2:14 am
CNSNews.com Headlines Sep 22, 2017, 3:18 am
Reclaiming Our Children Jan 1, 1970, 7:00 am
Opinion Times Sep 21, 2017, 11:51 pm