NARAL Wrongly Claims Pro-Abortion Pressure Caused Verizon to Change Policy 
Email this article
Printer friendly page
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
September 28, 2007
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — A leading pro-abortion group is claiming that grassroots activism from its membership resulted in getting a top wireless company to change its policy on allowing its mass text messages to its supporters. However, Verizon Wireless already had the change of policy in the works before NARAL urged its members to contact it.
The two had been feuding over the ability of the organization to use its system to send out text messages to its membership with alerts and updates.
Verizon initially refused to allow NARAL to use its network but higher officials reversed the decision.
That reversal came just two hours after NARAL president Nancy Keenan sent a message to her group’s members asking them to call and email Verizon to complain about the policy.
On Friday, Keenan emailed her members again, with the headline "Victory! Verizon caves to your pressure!" She claims that their actions caused the wireless company to change its stance.
"This was a massive victory. Our members, activists, bloggers, Capitol Hill, and other concerned citizens all joined in pressuring Verizon to reverse this decision," she said in an email LifeNews.com obtained. "I knew that with your help we’d prevail."
"In just two hours you sent more than 20,000 messages to Verizon officials! This was a tremendous testament to our combined strength. Thank you," she added.
"We didn’t let Verizon get away with its outrageous policy," she concludes. "Thank you again for your support — we couldn’t have won without you."
However, the change was in the works before NARAL contacted its membership.
A regional unit of Verizon initially denied NARAL’s request to send out text messages to its membership. But higher-ups at Verizon reversed the decision on Thursday morning.
Spokesman Jeffrey Nelson said, "Upon learning about this situation, senior Verizon Wireless executives immediately reviewed the decision and determined it was an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy."
