Verizon accepts NARAL's text messages after all

So Verizon has rescinded its refusal to give NARAL one of those short-form text message numbers for broadcasts. This case didn't strike me as a cause for indignation so much as a cause for total bewilderment. What on earth was Verizon thinking? How could this possibly offend their pro-life subscribers, who can not receive NARAL's text messages by the simple expedient of not signing up for them? Do even those pro-life subscribers want a cell phone service that deigns to decide to whose text messages they may or may not subscribe?

Given that the other big networks had already signed up NARAL, this sort of thing seems very likely to drive away any subscribers who want the service, while gleaning absolutely no support from pro-life subscribers who presumably will never try to subscribe to NARAL's text messages, and thus will never learn to their immense satisfaction that their cell-phone provider does not permit such smut to be transmitted over its networks.

Personally, I don't particularly care for NARAL, and I'm certainly not planning to waste my text messages on them. But when my Verizon contract is up, I'll be looking for a provider that doesn't think it can make those sorts of decisions for me. And I'm pretty sure that my mother, who has never gotten a text message in her life, but who focuses her charity on Planned Parenthood, will be even more avid to make the switch.

Comments

Good job! That will show them for changing their minds to your way of thinking! Stick it to them for doing what you wanted them to do!

Punish them for their viewpoints! Teach them a lesson they'll never forget! Way to go, that'll show 'em!

Posted by rik | September 27, 2007 4:59 PM

Do even those pro-life subscribers want a cell phone service that deigns to decide to whose text messages they may or may not subscribe?

Oh, what a sweet, fat, hanging softball that one is. Right down Broadway.

Um, yes. That's the whole point.

Posted by liberalrob | September 27, 2007 5:25 PM

I've grown wary of "Planned Parenthood" as a force for good. The failure rates for some of their free condoms are suspiciously high.

Posted by Ryan W. | September 27, 2007 6:12 PM

KLo at the Corner earlier today said she "loves Verizon" for this decision. I don't know if she now hates them.

Posted by tgb1000 | September 27, 2007 6:23 PM

It's good that Verizon made this decision. K-Lo's mouth couldn't possibly accomodate Verizon and Mitt Romney simultaneously.

Posted by Immoralist | September 27, 2007 6:38 PM

Ryan W,

Do you think that they, PP Props, even know who Magaret Sanger was?

Also, wouldn't those faulty condoms lead to more Revenue for PP?

What's really classic is that many that support PP are also supporters of the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

Posted by Mark E Hoffer | September 27, 2007 7:14 PM

Why is it 'classic' that Planned Parenthood supports Komen and vice versa?

I'll probably regret asking that of a guy who, apparently in all seriousness, typed "Also, wouldn't those faulty condoms lead to more Revenue for PP?" Which, obviously, is sick and moronic. But still.

Posted by Woody Bombay | September 27, 2007 9:49 PM

Woody,

I was alluding to Ryan's observation: "The failure rates for some of their free condoms are suspiciously high." One would think, given the stated goals of PP, their prophylactics would be second to none. It was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek attempt to ask: "Qui Bono?"

This: "Why is it 'classic' that Planned Parenthood supports Komen and vice versa?"

It's about their supporters(that support both), not the org.s.

see this: Malec's article, "The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics
Trumped Science and Informed Consent," in the Journal of American Physicians
and Surgeons: www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf

and: Induced Abortion as an Individual Risk Factor
for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent
Studies Based on Prospective Data
Joel Brind, Ph.D.
from: ht tp://ww w.jpands.org/jpands1004.htm

What's 'sick and moronic', to me, is this: ht tp://ww w.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/sanger.html

compared to the fuller reality that was M. Sanger.

(If you take the spaces out of the web addresses, they should would work)

Posted by Mark E Hoffer | September 27, 2007 10:42 PM

Don't "Common Carrier" regulations prohibit telecoms from regulating the content of their services?

Posted by Matt B | September 28, 2007 9:19 AM

Personally, I don't particularly care for NARAL...

Well, if you are referring to their weak lobbying efforts, I agree with you. They completely failed to attack Joe Lieberman for his refusal to support universal stocking of Plan B in all CT hospitals. The state of Connecticut has just passed a law requiring all hospitals to do so.

I don't think that Verizon initially blocked the NARAL messages because it might offend the anti-abortion crowd. They just didn't want text messages about a 'taboo' subject (Women's health) to be distributed over their network. SO it was completly laughable when they explained that their initial action was the interpreation of a "dusty" anti-smut policy. That gets the big W for Whatever.

They were caught trying to undermine NARAL, plain and simple.

Planned Parenthood has a similar text messaging subscription service, which alerts supports about legislative and court actions.

And to the pro-abortion folks like myself, if you are fed-up with NRARAL, please consider supporting the only hard-core pro-aboition rights group out there: NAF. The National Abortion Federation. They offer security advice for doctors. They do lobbying that gets to the point. And they don't apologize for a legitimate medical proceedure.

http://prochoice.org

Posted by Dhalgren | September 28, 2007 10:49 AM

Personally, I don't particularly care for NARAL...

Well, if you are referring to their weak lobbying efforts, I agree with you. They completely failed to attack Joe Lieberman for his refusal to support universal stocking of Plan B in all CT hospitals. The state of Connecticut has just passed a law requiring all hospitals to do so.

I don't think that Verizon initially blocked the NARAL messages because it might offend the anti-abortion crowd. They just didn't want text messages about a 'taboo' subject (Women's health) to be distributed over their network. SO it was completely laughable when they explained that their initial action was the interpretation of a "dusty" anti-smut policy. That gets the big W for Whatever.

They were caught trying to undermine NARAL, plain and simple.

Planned Parenthood has a similar text messaging subscription service, which alerts supports about legislative and court actions.

And to the pro-abortion folks like myself, if you are fed-up with NARAL, please consider supporting the only hard-core pro-abortion rights group out there: NAF. The National Abortion Federation. They offer security advice for doctors. They do lobbying that gets to the point. And they don't apologize for a legitimate medical procedure.

http://prochoice.org

Posted by Dhalgren | September 28, 2007 10:50 AM

Don't "Common Carrier" regulations prohibit telecoms from regulating the content of their services?

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding

Correct

But if Net Neutrality is somehow abolished, then they woul dbe free to do such a thing. Even to your personal messages. Or your blog.

Posted by Dhalgren | September 28, 2007 10:56 AM

So Verizon has rescinded its refusal to give NARAL one of those short-form text message numbers for broadcasts. This case didn't strike me as a cause for indignation so much as a cause for total bewilderment. What on earth was Verizon thinking? How could this possibly offend their pro-life subscribers, who can not receive NARAL's text messages by the simple expedient of not signing up for them? Do even those pro-life subscribers want a cell phone service that deigns to decide to whose text messages they may or may not subscribe?

Well according to the article you linked to, the person from Verizon who initially denied the request did so because there was a policy in place limiting who could receive a five-digit “short code.” They apparently had a policy developed before the advent of spam-filters that they wouldn’t give one to any “issue-oriented” groups* and when NARAL asked for it was it was still in place. When NARAL objected to the denial, they reexamined the policy, decided it no longer made sense and changed it with NARAL being the first beneficiary of the new policy.

I don’t really see this as much of an issue nor any reason to think that this was somehow a policy by Verizon to discriminate against pro-abortion groups like NARAL. Just a case of a policy that was put in place with probably good intentions and when technology changed, the policy didn’t make as much sense any longer. At which point when someone pointed that out, they changed the policy. I don’t see why anyone who isn’t predisposed to overact at every imagined slight would change their cellular plan over this.

* They apparently made an exception for political candidates but there isn’t any evidence that applied the policy in a manner that discriminated on the basis of viewpoints which is what you seem to be suggesting.

Posted by Thorley Winston | September 28, 2007 3:28 PM

"But when my Verizon contract is up, I'll be looking for a provider that doesn't think it can make those sorts of decisions for me."-Megan

"Good job! That will show them for changing their minds to your way of thinking! Stick it to them for doing what you wanted them to do!"-rik

Rik,
I think it is implied that if Verizon maintains the alterred policy, that it would be considered a palatable option. However, even having had the old policy in the first place is a black mark against it.

Posted by Njorl | September 28, 2007 5:06 PM

buy cheap uk viagra

Posted by buy cod viagra | November 12, 2007 9:12 PM

buy online purchase viagra http://magic-pills-swicki.eurekster.com/Buy+Viagra+Online buy viagra online buy in online uk viagra

Posted by buy internet medbucks viagra | November 15, 2007 2:07 AM