Life at Conception Act Re-introduced


WASHINGTON, D.C. - In an attempt to protect the unborn by resolving the question of when life begins, U.S. Sens. Jim Inhofe, (R-Okla.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), John Thune (R-S.D.), David Vitter (R-La.), and George Voinovich (R-Ohio), have re-introduced the Life at Conception Act, legislation that declares that life begins at conception and the unborn to be "persons" under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Sen. Jim Inhofe said, "Our government has both a moral and constitutional obligation to protect the sanctity of human life. With Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress and a new Democratic President, we must fight twice as hard for the sanctity of life and promote our Life at Conception Act."

Sen. Roger Wicker, said: "In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court refused to define when life begins, thus delegating this determination to the legislative branch. This legislation clearly defines that life begins at the moment of conception, a belief that is commonly held by most Americans and is something science has long proven."

Sen. Jim DeMint said, "We must defend innocent, unborn children and extend to them the same rights of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' enjoyed by every American, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and protected by our Constitution."

Sen. Mel Martinez said, "This effort is about fostering a culture of life, where every life is considered sacred, every child is celebrated, and life at all stages is given the dignity that it deserves."

Sen. John Thune said, "Unborn children, as distinct, unique human beings, are fully deserving of our society's attention, provision, and care. I believe this amendment would take a strong step toward achieving this goal."

Sen. David Vitter said, "As science continues to advance, the evidence that life begin at conception is becoming more and more irrefutable. This bill is critical to the fight to protect the culture of life, especially as we face an administration and new Congress that seems determined to advance the agenda of a practice that a great number of Americans find abhorrent."

In its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the court acknowledged that "if this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [i.e., "Roe"], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."


Because I am Pro-Life, I think it is sad the abortion debate never talks about the third option people have for unwanted pregnancy. People only talk about aborting a pregnancy or raising an unwanted child. What about adoption? These women who do not want their children can give them to a deserving family who very much “wants” them.

If this act is enacted, how will it be enforced? will it be retroactive ? Is the fact that only republicans appear to be sponsors how will they get it enacted under Obama?

In my country many beleive that life begins at birth or thats the argument, something about sustainable life,so sad.

We can only pray that one day someone will see sence and pass this bill as then it will stand as an example to others including my own countrymen.

What counrty are you from? Will the bill pass in the USA help your country?Will this bill be something that can't be enforced? Would it be better that the UN be the one to pass such a thing under human rights requirements. Will this remove the right to choice that a woman also has by the US Constitution. I think that the bill will start another debate on human rights.Will that also discriminate against women?

The personhood of a preborn life in utero has been clearly established by the sciences and by common sense; but too many Americans stand by cowardly silent to the truth, or have been whipped into submission by deceit and intimidation. The pro-abortion mantra, that the tiniest form of a person growing in the womb—the zygote—is a minute shapeless lump of human tissue. Science and reason prove that this human single-cell zygote in the womb is formed by two gametes—a female ovum fertilized by a male sperm, each having 23 chromosomes—that, at the moment of fertilization, becomes a new, individuated (DNA) living human person! Every person who has ever lived was once a so-called blob; even the Supreme Court judges, who have escaped the womb; they had the effrontery to submit to the pressures of hard-hat pro-abortion feminists by the judicial activism of their 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions. Those decrees sentenced millions of our preborn American citizens to an abortion death, and it continues at the rate of about 3800 each day; this barbarism has us killing off about 30% of our American citizens growing in the womb. Preborn life was once respected and accepted as equal to all life. A pregnancy was usually a time of joyous expectations; even one that was an undesired surprise would be welcomed, revered, and protected. We continue to avoid the common sense questions. How does a woman have the right to choose death for a person, other than herself? Does the choice to destroy life contradict the nature of the reproductive process and the social suicide of our citizenry? Is it common sense to permit a death means of a choice? How does a pregnant woman suddenly gain the supreme power, and moral right to decide if a child will live, or a fetus will die? And if her choice is abortion, but during the abortion process the a baby survives, as some have, then by what power does the essence of this preborn life, with no rights, shift to the essence of a baby person, with all rights? And finally, how can we sentence an innocent person to a capital punishment, as though he or she had been proved guilty of a capital crime, beyond the shadow of doubt, in a court of law? These relevant common sense questions go unanswered by the pro-choice elitists, who ignore objective truth when it appears to be contrary to their agenda to continue the culture of death in our country. Historically, the growing preborn fetus, in his, or her, earliest stage of life, has always been accepted as an equal member of the human family; nothing has changed. We have betrayed our Forefathers and the Declaration of Independence by the barbarism of aborting our citizenry.
Writers for Life

Good comments Charles..It is evident by your rhetoric that you must be a super saleperson. It is evident that you must be a good republican being from Orange county.It's unfortunate that you prolife equate "choice " to abortion. Can't a person have a choice to select on thing over another? When a pregnant woman has a choice to do what she wants with her body does she automatically select abortion because she has a mind to make a choice. he choice is hers. her choice might be to do nothing and deliver the baby. If she selects abortion she is a murderer if the unborn is viable. You have made choices in your life i assume. Were your choices all good moral ones ?How will the country enforce antiabortion laws if Rv W is repealed? Will the person seeking abortion be left on her own to suffer the dangers sometimes incurred with un-healthty procedures.People are ready to condemm abortion but i haven't yet seen any sound methods to end abortion.Even contraceptives are forbidden. as a method to stop pregmancies. Sex education is also not permitted in some schools. I doubt if our forefathers had any idea that zygote existed since life of the unborn was only noticed at the quickening in those days..even the catholic church believed science has change all that...but many agree thatthe unborn is not life unless viable.
Our friends to the north have legal abortion. Will the US restrict women to go to canada? Like prohibition. making abortion ilegal won't work..unless you castrate all male US and foreign males.

Please quote for us the part of the US Constitution that contains the right to an abortion.

Lucy maybe you'll understand if I put it in a simpler way. A U.S. Senator told a TV audience that pro-life extremists want to tell a woman what she can do with their own bodies. This ridiculous statement is absurd, evasive, untrue and begs the question (does a woman’s body have four ears?). The only way we can hope to get some abortion supporters to really understand the pro-life concept is to draw a picture. For example, a woman, Mrs. RO, knows that she can choose to have her unborn baby legally killed by an abortionist. The court somehow conjured that right from the dark shadows of our Constitution. She also knows that all women have that right. But Mrs. RO chooses to go next door to her neighbor’s house where, Mrs. DO has just brought home her newborn baby girl. Mrs. RO decides to exercise her right to “choose” on her neighbor's new baby, and demands the right to pay someone to kill the neighbor’s baby! This is a hypothetical story of course, but it exposes what abortion is really about-—one individual person choosing to have another separate individual person killed! The women who has an abortion is not necessarily the guilty party; our society has deceived women for decades. Nevertheless, it's called murder.

lj read charles marelli latest posting.

Charles..anybody doesn't have any right on another person doings..your parable is a good one but as you say it is hypothetical. the thing you forget is that the unborn in the first trimester would unlikely be able to sustain itself outside the mother. it is a part of the mother if the mother dies the unborn dies.. when does the soul enter the unborn?
In my previous reply to you i ask you some questions.Please give me some answers as to how will abortion be controlled if RvW is repealed..and how you will stop abortions.

What do you think was happening before Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton? There is not sense in taking this discussion any further; you obviously have not read or understood my very first post let alone the second. The answers are all around anyone who is searching diligently for the truth. When a new individual is brought into existence by the behavior of others, his or her life must be inviolable until natural death.

You never answered my questions . Just saying that abortion is murder doesn't stop abortion. What are the solutions?

lucy, YOU never read the answer given to your exact same question in the other post, which I just gave you, here.

Read it and then you'll have the answer.

Of course, you won't buy it or accept it but that doesn't make it any less the right answer.

Oh Annie..I wanted Charles' answer..I read your answer. the question is what if a woman can't physically or mentally be capable of bearing a baby? will she be forced to give birth to the baby when she discovers she pregnant? Is adoption the only solution? Adoptable childrens are available in many foreign countries...why can't the millions of americans adopting these? I'm also prolife and my solution would be to have safe sex and get sex education early in life. Reversing RvW will not solve it.

lucy, you certainly don't sound prolife to anyone here.

When you refer to prolifers in the third person especially. "I don't think that prolifers have a good solution."

And when you write things like these:

"I was told that conservatives are greedy and only want handouts from the government."

"Are you one of those reborn christians who have been saved but quite can't figure what it means? It appears that you were reborn with a misguided mind about abortion."

"why report the stuff..only republicans do that to gain the sympathy of the religious right nuts."

"your other comments make you look like a moron....get it!!"

"Your added statements are only your fabrications. Conservatives are more greedy as you know so perhaps they can afford to give more. It's your comments which are moronic and silly."

Saying adoption doesn't stop conception is an inane thing to say, really. NO one ever said it did, least of all me.

It proves you really didn't read my answer.

And to say "I only wanted Charles' answer" is disingenuous at best and immature at worst.

If a woman can't physically bear the baby, even the Catholic church doesn't argue that the mother must die in order to bear the baby!

The question about "mental stability" is the huge loophole that Doe v. Bolton allowed you.

Doe v. Bolton extended Roe v. Wade to allow any woman to claim, and to even get a doctor to say that she would become mentally unhinged or go insane if she had another baby. The excuses include "too many kids" etc. That is not a good enough excuse to kill a child. Period.

ESPECIALLY when there are more than enough couples willing to adopt and groups giving the financial and physical support to help that woman bear that child.

No one is forcing anyone to have a baby. They knew full well what they were risking by having sex. NO ONE can claim they didn't know this could be the result.

This "forced to have a baby" crap is being reinforced by our very own pro-abortion President.

Please don't try to spew that garbage anymore, least of all here.

You are no prolifer, lucy, you are a troll.

You ask the question, Is adoption the only solution?

I ask you, WHY is death the only solution you see?

As for your "Safe sex" blind faith, allow me to point you toward the rebuttal to THAT, here and in the comment that follows that one.

Let's see you spend more than a few seconds on those chunks of scientific fact.

You are so unaware of the truths of so many things lucy.

Oh, dear readers isn't it interesting that when I finally had the time to do a cross-check, it appears that the troll who used the name TOM in December and also tried to post as JIM and then several times as LUCY and was banned in December, has been posting most recently at the very same IP address as LUCY, and isn't a prolifer at all...

S/he has been trying to be a troll on this blog for about 2 months now, at least. In about a dozen different blog posts.

Goodbye, Tom/Jim/Lucy. You've really got way too much time on your hands. Grow up, get a life.

The Zygote, in utero, is the gateway into the human family. Once new life begins, a woman’s obligation is to behave morally and responsibly to the procreative power of motherhood, i.e., to protect and nurture the person growing in her womb. There is no doubt that a woman’s right to choose is an intrinsic right; she is the sole judge of when and if she wants to have a baby. However, in a civil society all rights and freedoms have limitations that demand responsible behavior. The right to choose must be exercised before conception; this is clearly the historical meaning of reproductive rights. Once a zygote has been conceived, by the “choice” of human behavior that produces life; the right to choose has already been exercised! Thereafter, choosing to abort a zygote/embryo/fetus/baby in the womb-phase of life is to exercise a second choice, that second choice deprives an innocent preborn of his or her right to life, and is an act of one person choosing to have another person killed. Under the conditions of full knowledge and reflection, this choice can be defined as an immoral act of willful murder. We are human beings, not animals. We have an intellect and a will; as members of the human race we have no alternative but to act responsibly for the common good of society. Writers for Life

I don't quite see how this works, legally. It's a very effective statement of princibles, and a good publicity stunt, but can a mere law dictate how the constition is to be interpreted? I think in legal terms, this might actually achieve nothing at all, not in the slightest. Now, if it were a constitutional ammendment, *then* it would work.

Besides, a constitutional ammendment is the 'correct' way to reverse a supreme court decision - those who wrote the constitution and founded the US system of government set it up this way, to make sure the constitution as interpreted by the supreme court couldn't be ignored with a simple majority of legislators. The ideal way to overturn rowe is by passing an ammendment - not by legal trickery and manipulation.

Death Roe is an opinion about what the constitution says, which is not the same thing as the constitution saying it.

If someone says that the constitution says everyone in America must own a gun, it's wrong, but it's closer to being right than Death Roe is. At least the constitution talks about guns. It doesn't talk about abortion.

Actually the ideal way to overturn Roe v. Wade and Doe. V. Bolton would not be by amendment, although it could work that way.

Sorry, this is a long explanation, but it addresses exactly what you just wrote. Bear with me:

1. The way racial discrimination was overturned, specifically the Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson, was by passing law after law after law over a period of decades that chipped away at racial segregration and discrimination, finally resulting in the Supreme Court negating P v. F in their Brown v. Board of Education ruling.

The fact is that any state that wants to can pass a law to ban abortion (all or some of it). The pro-choice site wrote in 2003 that there are 30 states that indicated that if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, they would pass laws to ban abortion: "21 states are at high risk of banning abortion, with nine other states at middle risk...18 states still have laws completely or partially banning abortion." South Dakota already came within one vote of passing such a law.

What would happen, most likely, is that the lower courts would strike the law down (some already have), then the states would appeal up through the court channels all the way to the Supreme Court, thus reintroducing the arguments that we put forth which were not considered by the high court.

This has already been done successfully elsewhere:

The NAACP, led by Thurgood Marshall and Charles Houston, peppered the nine Supreme Court justices from 1935 through 1954, almost 20 years, with case after case after case to overturn the racial segregation “right” that was created by the high court’s Plessy v. Ferguson case. They just kept filing more and more cases, until the critical mass of change had been reached incrementally and Brown v. Board of Education came along and finally achieved justice.

From the website of The Just Beginning Foundation (about the contribution of African Americans to the federal judiciary):

"The N.A.A.C.P.'s strategy for reaching its goals in education began by trying to undo the 1896 decision of Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 (163 U.S. 537), in which the Supreme Court said that segregation was valid if it was 'separate but equal.' The N.A.A.C.P.'s. legal committee decided that the only way to accomplish meaningful change was to attack Plessy. Initially the goal was to demonstrate that the state which created separate school systems never, in fact, created "equal" systems. Eventually, this changed to a frontal assault on Plessy: separate was inherently unequal.

"In 1935, Charles Houston suggested that the N.A.A.C.P. adopt a strategy of litigating planned test cases to secure favorable legal precedents, thereby laying the foundation for later, fuller attacks on racial discrimination and segregation. The cases were to have a "sharply defined legal issue" that could be "supported by demonstrable evidence." Imagine those 30 states, at some point at, before or after Doe v. Bolton reaches the Supreme Court, passing abortion bans that get struck down and then peppering the Supreme Court ultimately over the next 20 years. Imagine a critical mass being reached where the justices finally acknowledge the facts of which Judge Edith Jones spoke when she wrote the decision to pass Roe v. Wade on up to the Supreme Court.

This Life at Conception bill is just one piece of the puzzle, really.

Some background on about Brown v. Board of Ed and the Supreme Court overrulling its own precedents:

On several occasions, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned its own precedents using Rule 60(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such as in the 1997 decision of Agostini v. Felton, which overturned a 12-year decision. In that case, the party in McCorvey’s position lost in all of the lower courts before winning at the Supreme Court.

Some courts have reversed themselves after as much as 41 years in some Rule 60 cases.

And Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned a 58-year-old high court precedent, and was considered "The landmark 1954 Supreme Court decision overruling the constitutionality of the 'separate but equal' doctrine that had been the legal basis for racial segregation of the nation's public schools."

"Since the turn of the 20th century, the southern states had had a legal justification for requiring black students to attend segregated schools. The Supreme Court's 1896 ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson upheld segregated railroad car seating in Louisiana on the grounds that 'equal but separate' seating did not violate the black passengers' rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. For half a century, this near-unanimous decision (only one justice dissented) served as the legal grounds for racial segregation in virtually all areas of southern life, including education."

(continued in Part 2 of comment)

Part 2 and 3:

2. The fact also is that the unanswered question in Roe, "When does human life begin?" was treated by the Supreme Court as a philosophical question back then. They refused to answer it (although they did refer to the woman wanting an abortion as "the mother", which of course says that there is a child involved).

Since then, an explosion of scientific evidence (and testimonies of 8 world-renowned scientists) on human life conclusively answers the question that life begins at conception.

We have listed the many scientific sources proving this fact, numerous times, here being just one of them.

Just because Norma McCorvey is pretty much done pursuing what she pursued, described here, does not mean it cannot be overturned at all. In fact, a Supreme Court decision is more often than not overturned from pressure brought by the states or groups like the NAACP, not by the original plaintiff.

The more challenges there are by the states (and by individuals in the form of personal letters) over the next few decades, now that the facts have been amassed, the more hope we have of correcting the injustices done to us women and to our children.

3. Also don't forget, overturning Roe and/or Doe only reverts the decision back to the states:

When he testified at his confirmation hearing,
"Judge Roberts described Brown v. Board of Education as a 'restrained' decision. In ruling that segregated public schools were unconstitutional, Brown effectively overruled the nearly six-decades-old error of Plessy v. Ferguson, and its removal of government-sponsored segregation from the political processes predictably resulted in tremendous disruption of established practices. Overturning Roe would lead to far less disruption, as it would return the issue of abortion policy to the people to determine through their elected representatives." That's a quote from a very good article on this topic.

(Last part comes next)

4. LASTLY, I find it fascinating that those objecting the most to the power given to the Federal Government under such things as The Patriot Act, are actually unaware of the vast "benefits" they enjoy as a result of the rampant expansion of federal power that occurred much prior to Roe v. Wade but was exemplified by that decision:

"The Supreme Court gained dominance through its misuse of the Fourteenth Amendment...It was the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, which, as construed by the Supreme Court, so radically changed the division of powers [among the three branches of U.S. government], that it is fairly described as the 'second Constitution.'...[And t]he Supreme Court could not have achieved dominance if Congress had not acquiesced...'Only in this century did it begin to be commonplace to regard the justices of the Supreme Court as the 'guardians' of the Constitution, as though only they...had this charge...The Framers [of the Constitution] knew better."

Want proof of this?

"Congress has authority, under Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution, to remove a class of cases, such as those dealing with abortion or school prayer, from the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and from the trial and appellate jurisdiction of the lower federal courts. If Congress did so, for example, that would not overrule Roe v. Wade. But state courts would be free to decide the issue themselves without fear of review by the Supreme Court."

So, Congress has had the power all along to remove the cases on abortion from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. They still have the power. They refuse to exercise it.

(Those 2 quotes directly above are from a 40-year Constitutional lawyer and law professor from University of Notre Dame, Charles Rice.

It took this country almost 6 decades to come to its senses about the civil rights of black citizens.

Maybe it will take this country 6 decades to do the same about the right to life of all supposedly "created equal" Americans.

That would mean we have about another 2.5 decades to go.

I once said I would see this happen in my lifetime. God willing, I will be very old then, but still alive to see it. It's a tragedy though that millions more women will be maimed or emotionally, mentally harmed by abortion, and their children destroyed, till then.

Now, with all that in mind, here's a long quote from 5th Circuit Appellate Judge Edith Jones about the motion to overturn Roe v. Wade, when it was before that court: "Essentially, the [lower] district court concluded that a 30-year delay, regardless of the circumstances, is too long as a matter of law. We disagree. ... Accordingly, the district court erred in initially determining that the 30-year delay was 'unreasonable' without examining the facts and circumstances of this particular case.

"If courts were to delve into the facts underlying Roe's balancing scheme with present-day knowledge, they might conclude that the woman's 'choice' is far more risky and less beneficial, and the child's sentience far more advanced, than the Roe court knew...

"One may fervently hope that the Court will someday acknowledge such developments and re-evaluate Roe…accordingly. That the court’s constitutional decisionmaking leaves our nation in a position of willful blindness to evolving knowledge should trouble any dispassionate observer not only about the abortion decisions, but about a number of other areas in which the Court unhesitatingly steps into the realm of social policy under the guise of constitutional adjudication."

The "present-day knowledge" referred to by the Fifth Circuit Appellate Court includes the over 5,000 pages of evidence (that webpage posts a tiny fraction of the contents of our legal affidavits).

Mine included.

Imagine any court determining that overturning racial segregation Supreme Court decisions after a 30-year delay was "unreasonable."

You ask about how abortions will be stopped. I think the most important thing here, is that passing the life at conception act, would present a value or standard for our country. People are always going to do things that are illegal....they do still have the agency to do illegal activities. The point is, that we will be making a statement that it is not acceptable to us as a nation and that we do not condone it. People can be sentenced for two murders when they kill a pregnant woman...yet the pregnant woman herself can kill her own child. It is not acceptable.




Pro-Life Articles

add your site
Deacon's Blog Feb 25, 2017, 4:15 pm
Catholic in Brooklyn Feb 25, 2017, 2:59 pm
Pro-Life Unity Dec 31, 1969, 6:00 pm
Happy Catholic Dec 31, 1969, 6:00 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Feb 25, 2017, 11:33 am
Actualidad y Análisis Feb 25, 2017, 11:35 am
A Follower of Francis Feb 25, 2017, 10:24 am
Les Femmes - The Truth Feb 25, 2017, 9:22 am
Dakota Voice (Blog) Feb 25, 2017, 8:49 am
cultureshift Feb 25, 2017, 9:08 am
A Voice For Moms© Feb 25, 2017, 7:47 am
Papa Mike's Blog Feb 25, 2017, 7:00 am
EmpowerShop Prolife Feb 25, 2017, 6:12 am
Rebelution Feb 25, 2017, 3:00 am
Papa Mike's Blog Feb 25, 2017, 1:43 am
Greater Fitchburg For Life Dec 31, 1969, 6:00 pm
Greater Fitchburg For Life Dec 31, 1969, 6:00 pm
Greater Fitchburg For Life Dec 31, 1969, 6:00 pm
Greater Fitchburg For Life Feb 25, 2017, 12:20 am
The Ohio Feb 24, 2017, 11:35 pm
The Aquila Report Feb 24, 2017, 11:01 pm
The Aquila Report Feb 24, 2017, 11:01 pm
The Aquila Report Feb 24, 2017, 11:01 pm
The Aquila Report Feb 24, 2017, 11:01 pm
The Aquila Report Feb 24, 2017, 11:01 pm
The Aquila Report Feb 24, 2017, 11:01 pm
The Aquila Report Feb 24, 2017, 11:02 pm
The Aquila Report Feb 24, 2017, 11:08 pm
Greater Fitchburg For Life Feb 24, 2017, 11:20 pm Headlines Feb 24, 2017, 9:22 pm Headlines Feb 24, 2017, 9:22 pm
Christian Coalition Blog Dec 22, 2016, 9:06 am
DEACON FOR LIFE Feb 24, 2017, 8:15 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Feb 24, 2017, 6:20 pm
LifeNews Feb 24, 2017, 5:15 pm
LifeNews Feb 24, 2017, 5:26 pm
LifeNews Feb 24, 2017, 4:42 pm
LifeNews Feb 24, 2017, 4:51 pm
LifeNews Feb 24, 2017, 4:59 pm
LifeNews Feb 24, 2017, 5:07 pm Headlines Feb 24, 2017, 4:17 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Feb 24, 2017, 4:13 pm
March For Life Feb 24, 2017, 4:12 pm
LifeNews Feb 24, 2017, 3:32 pm
LifeNews Feb 24, 2017, 4:00 pm
Americans United for Life Blog Feb 24, 2017, 3:55 pm
LifeNews Feb 24, 2017, 2:24 pm
LifeNews Feb 24, 2017, 2:47 pm Headlines Feb 24, 2017, 2:15 pm Headlines Feb 24, 2017, 2:15 pm Headlines Feb 24, 2017, 2:15 pm Headlines Feb 24, 2017, 2:18 pm
Rose and Her Lily Feb 24, 2017, 12:44 pm
LifeNews Feb 24, 2017, 12:39 pm
LifeNews Feb 24, 2017, 12:57 pm Headlines Feb 24, 2017, 12:14 pm Headlines Feb 24, 2017, 12:14 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Feb 24, 2017, 12:23 pm Feb 24, 2017, 12:24 pm
LifeNews Feb 24, 2017, 11:17 am
Happy Catholic Dec 31, 1969, 6:00 pm
Happy Catholic Dec 31, 1969, 6:00 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Feb 24, 2017, 12:08 pm
Rose and Her Lily Feb 24, 2017, 11:17 am
LifeNews Feb 24, 2017, 10:28 am
LifeNews Feb 24, 2017, 10:56 am Headlines Feb 24, 2017, 11:13 am Headlines Feb 24, 2017, 11:15 am
Operation Rescue Feb 24, 2017, 10:17 am Headlines Feb 24, 2017, 9:12 am Headlines Feb 24, 2017, 9:12 am
Christian Newswire: All Releases Feb 24, 2017, 11:36 am
Christian Newswire: All Releases Feb 24, 2017, 11:59 am
Spero News Dec 31, 1969, 5:00 pm
Spero News Dec 31, 1969, 5:00 pm
March For Life Feb 24, 2017, 9:18 am
LifeNews Feb 24, 2017, 8:26 am
LifeNews Feb 24, 2017, 8:52 am
EmpowerShop Prolife Feb 24, 2017, 8:55 am
EmpowerShop Prolife Feb 24, 2017, 8:54 am
EmpowerShop Prolife Feb 24, 2017, 8:51 am
EmpowerShop Prolife Feb 24, 2017, 8:57 am
EmpowerShop Prolife Feb 24, 2017, 9:04 am
EmpowerShop Prolife Feb 24, 2017, 8:48 am
EmpowerShop Prolife Feb 24, 2017, 8:46 am
EmpowerShop Prolife Feb 24, 2017, 9:02 am
EmpowerShop Prolife Feb 24, 2017, 8:43 am
EmpowerShop Prolife Feb 24, 2017, 9:07 am
Christian Newswire: All Releases Feb 24, 2017, 11:09 am
A Follower of Francis Feb 24, 2017, 7:43 am
Reclaiming Our Children Jan 1, 1970, 2:00 am
Les Femmes - The Truth Feb 24, 2017, 7:02 am
Rebelution Feb 24, 2017, 5:00 am
Papa Mike's Blog Feb 24, 2017, 4:13 am Headlines Feb 24, 2017, 3:06 am Headlines Feb 24, 2017, 3:06 am
Aardvark Alley Dec 31, 1969, 6:00 pm
The Ohio Feb 23, 2017, 11:35 pm
The Aquila Report Feb 23, 2017, 11:01 pm
The Aquila Report Feb 23, 2017, 11:01 pm
The Aquila Report Feb 23, 2017, 11:01 pm
The Aquila Report Feb 23, 2017, 11:01 pm
The Aquila Report Feb 23, 2017, 11:01 pm
The Aquila Report Feb 23, 2017, 11:01 pm
The Aquila Report Feb 23, 2017, 11:01 pm
The Aquila Report Feb 23, 2017, 11:08 pm
A Catholic Life Feb 23, 2017, 9:25 pm
DEACON FOR LIFE Feb 23, 2017, 9:15 pm
cultureshift Feb 23, 2017, 8:04 pm
LifeNews Feb 23, 2017, 6:23 pm
LifeNews Feb 23, 2017, 6:44 pm
cultureshift Feb 23, 2017, 6:42 pm
cultureshift Feb 23, 2017, 6:58 pm Headlines Feb 23, 2017, 6:55 pm
SUNLIT UPLANDS Feb 23, 2017, 6:35 pm
LifeNews Feb 23, 2017, 5:14 pm
LifeNews Feb 23, 2017, 5:20 pm
Fletcher's Blog Feb 23, 2017, 5:30 pm Headlines Feb 23, 2017, 5:54 pm
LifeNews Feb 23, 2017, 4:30 pm
LifeNews Feb 23, 2017, 5:00 pm
LifeNews Feb 23, 2017, 4:50 pm
March For Life Feb 23, 2017, 4:02 pm
LifeNews Feb 23, 2017, 3:23 pm
LifeNews Feb 23, 2017, 3:43 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Feb 23, 2017, 5:27 pm
Abort73 Blog Dec 31, 1969, 6:00 pm || Director's Blog Dec 31, 1969, 6:00 pm
Rose and Her Lily Feb 23, 2017, 3:22 pm
EmpowerShop Prolife Feb 23, 2017, 3:17 pm Headlines Feb 23, 2017, 2:33 pm Headlines Feb 23, 2017, 1:50 pm Headlines Feb 23, 2017, 1:50 pm
Alex Schadenberg Feb 23, 2017, 2:47 pm
Rose and Her Lily Feb 23, 2017, 10:47 am
Rose and Her Lily Feb 23, 2017, 1:44 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Feb 23, 2017, 3:07 pm
Rose and Her Lily Feb 23, 2017, 1:30 pm
LifeNews Feb 23, 2017, 12:02 pm Headlines Feb 23, 2017, 12:49 pm Headlines Feb 23, 2017, 12:49 pm
BIG C CATHOLICS Feb 23, 2017, 12:40 pm
Aardvark Alley Dec 31, 1969, 6:00 pm
Spero News Dec 31, 1969, 5:00 pm
LifeNews Feb 23, 2017, 11:35 am
LifeNews Feb 23, 2017, 11:55 am Headlines Feb 23, 2017, 12:10 pm Headlines Feb 23, 2017, 11:48 am
Alex Schadenberg Feb 23, 2017, 11:40 am
RealChoice Dec 31, 1969, 6:00 pm
Conservative Political Cartoons Feb 23, 2017, 11:15 am
Christian Newswire: All Releases Feb 23, 2017, 12:00 pm
Christian Newswire: All Releases Feb 23, 2017, 12:42 pm
Alex Schadenberg Feb 23, 2017, 10:16 am Feb 23, 2017, 9:29 am
Christian Newswire: All Releases Feb 23, 2017, 11:07 am Feb 23, 2017, 8:34 am
Christian Newswire: All Releases Feb 23, 2017, 10:00 am
Christian Newswire: All Releases Feb 23, 2017, 9:00 am
Bound4LIFE Feb 23, 2017, 8:30 am
Pro-Life Unity Dec 31, 1969, 6:00 pm
My Domestic Church Feb 23, 2017, 8:25 am
Reclaiming Our Children Jan 1, 1970, 2:00 am Feb 23, 2017, 6:23 am
Leaven for the Loaf Feb 23, 2017, 6:00 am
FREEDOM EDEN Dec 31, 1969, 6:00 pm Headlines Feb 23, 2017, 3:40 am Headlines Feb 23, 2017, 3:40 am Headlines Feb 23, 2017, 3:40 am
The Ohio Feb 22, 2017, 11:35 pm
The Aquila Report Feb 22, 2017, 11:01 pm