Where Does NARAL Pro-Choice America Stand on the Tebow Commercial?

I'm a big football fan, and I'm really looking forward to the Super Bowl. Spending time with family and friends, eating good food, maybe having a beer - you really can't beat it.

But this Super Bowl is going to be different.

Unfortunately, it looks like CBS is going ahead with Focus on the Family's ad.

The ad likely will focus on the story of Pam Tebow, the mother of University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow.

We've heard from a lot of supporters - asking where we stand on all of this - so we put together this short clip about our support for a woman's ability to make the choice that's right for her and her family:

Anti-choice politics have no place in the Super Bowl, so when the ad runs, focus on something else - anything else - besides Focus on the Family.

Go to www.ProChoiceAmerica.org/SuperBowl to find out how to use Facebook, MySpace or Twitter to tell the truth about Focus on the Family's agenda, and what you plan to focus on instead when the ad runs.

Me? I'm going to focus on... our great pro-choice activists!

As a proud progressive, I know I don't have to convince you that Focus on the Family wants to take choices away from women, including the choice to use birth control or access abortion if necessary.

So I wanted to leave you with a few facts about Focus on the Family ad in case your friends ask:

• Its web site urges women facing unintended pregnancy to seek "wise advice" because "the hormones and extreme emotions of pregnancy make reasonable decisions more difficult."


• In 2008, Focus on the Family endorsed a divisive anti-choice "personhood" ballot measure in Colorado that would have banned abortion and threatened birth control. Fortunately, pro-choice Coloradans, led by NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, resoundingly rejected this measure.


• Focus on the Family spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to support California's discriminatory Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state. The organization's founder, James Dobson claimed that gay marriage will "destroy the Earth."

It's important that, as pro-choice Americans, we support every woman's ability to make the decisions that are best for her and her family - but Focus on the Family wants to take options away from women.

So please go to www.ProChoiceAmerica.org/SuperBowl and find out how you and your friends can tell the world that you disagree with Focus on the Family's agenda, and plan to focus on... something else when the ad airs.

 

Follow Nancy Keenan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NARAL

Comments

[Mark Harker]

12:25 PM on 02/09/2010

The liberals comments on here are simply astounding! Liberals will make an issue out of anything- absolutely anything that will give them an excuse to abuse those who disagree with their views. This ad was so benign that if not for the controversy most wouldn't even know what the ad was talking about. Everywhere but the huffington post agrees that the ad was pretty benign.

Now the NOW wackos are actually being made fun of (Righfully so) because of their ridiculous assertion the the ads support violence against women.

[eRtwngr]

11:02 AM on 02/09/2010

Abortion has many known complications. Among them an increased risk of breast cancer and infertility. Other complications include internal bleeding, subsequent premature births or miscarriages, and depression. There is devastation for the male involved as well. With hopes of a family dashed, reckless behavior can result. Alcoholism and its ravages thwart a career and destroy health.

Read "Choose Life - Your Own Depends on it. A Sad True Story" http://bit.ly/9fxuqa

[Dr knowitall]

11:01 AM on 02/08/2010

This is what pro-choice groups threw a freaking hissy fit over? blahaha

[theguyfromchesapeake]

11:41 AM on 02/07/2010

How does this ad represent "anti-choice"? Is not the decision to carry on with a pregnancy, and NOT have an abortion, a CHOICE? It's because of reactions like this that reasonable people paint the so-called, alleged "Pro-choice camp" as a bunch of zealots! These people appear to be for abortions only (and of course the money such procedures generate for their pet political causes, like their party of (ahem) choice. If a woman DARES not follow thru on an abortion, she is somehow a 'traitor' to all other women. That is soooo worng, but it is soooo true!

[sisyphus93]

05:31 PM on 02/07/2010

Leftists insist on being euphemistically called "pro-choice," not "pro-abortion," but clearly any articulation of the *other* choice--having the baby--is antipathy to them. I remember in the early 90s a story in Time magazine that addressed the declining abortion rates. A feminist whose name I cannot remember bemoaned the decline. At least she was honest....

[Erzsebet Gilbert]

09:06 AM on 02/07/2010

"Focus on the Family spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to support California's discriminatory Proposition 8"...

Wait, so they'd like to treat an unconscious fetus as a full-fledged person taking priority over a woman's right to control her body and her life, but meanwhile treat any homosexual citizens as sub-people? If they keep up with this sort of logic, they're going to end up with a populace of American citizens composed entirely of embryos and straight affluent Christians.

[BookQueen]

04:54 PM on 02/06/2010

I think this is exactly the wrong approach to take. It just makes NARAL look like censorship. It makes discussion impossible.

I'm with these authors who advise the pro-choice movement to learn some better strategies:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012902505.html

[Roseberry]

01:45 PM on 02/06/2010

Okay, let's do a what-if scenario. Very unlikely, but, what if a woman who sees it actually mimics it and dies because she wants to be a big heroine like Ms. Tebow?
It appears that, to the "family" people, Mommy is not nearly as important as Baby. Pray, tell me when did God ever make such a distinction?

[wrdalton]

03:55 PM on 02/06/2010

In God's eyes, Mommy and baby are of equal importance. A mother who risks, and even loses, her own life to save her child's is to be celebrated. So is a son or daughter who loses his or her life to save a mother's. That, too, is an example to celebrate and invite emulation. But, obviously, between an expectant mother and her unborn child, only the woman has a choice to exercise.
Yes, some who make heroic choices die as a result. If there were no such risk, they would hardly be "heroes". Christian literature is brimming with examples of those who choose to lose their lives in order to save others. That is in marked contrast to our current culture, which celebrates men with guns, both police and soldiers, who are trained to shoot first and ask questions later, particularly if there is a possibility their own lives are in danger, and calls them "heroes". Not to my mind.
And self-described "Christians" don't help by impressing Bible citations on their armaments.
I, for one, think we could use a large dose of the "old time religion"!

[wrdalton]

12:36 PM on 02/06/2010

NARAL wants to create a controversy over the Tim Tebow ad, although its real fight seems to be with the ad's sponsor, Focus on the Family, and its broader social agenda. Published reports don't relate anything controversial about the ad's content. It is not "anti-choice". It relates a circumstance when a choice to abort may be viewed as morally permissible, even by religous conservatives. The mother's life was in jeopardy. There is no attack on abortions. Instead, the point is to celebrate self-sacrificing heroism. NARAL asks why the ad can't be balanced by one "celebrating" a woman choosing an abortion. But even for a woman in Pam Tebow's circumstance, choosing an abortion would be nothing to celebrate. It would simply be taking the safe and prudent course. Instead, Pam Tebow chose to do something heroic. She chose to risk her own life in order to give life to her son. Her heroism was rewarded when her son grew to be a celebrated athlete, a "hero" to many. Not all such choices end so serendipitously. But this true story encourages young people to make "heroic" choices, not just when faced with a problem pregnancy, but whenever the needs of others present us with opportunities and challenges involving risk to our own well-being, even our own lives.
If NARAL wants to challenge Focus on the Family for its public issue advocacy, they have chosen this battle unwisely. Opposing this ad only makes them seem petty and small minded.

[boycottrightwingthings]

01:29 AM on 02/06/2010

I and so many of my friends will be boycotting the superbowl if they don't pull this ad. We have also gotten together and have been donating to Planned Parenthood and NARAL in Pam and Tim Tebows name, as Pammy had a choice that she wants to deny other women.

[rightwing927]

05:31 PM on 02/05/2010

What a crock...like anybody is going to go to prochoicamerica...blahblahblah.org/superbowl and engage in "activities" during the freakin' superbowl. I especially love the comment made earlier that you shouldn't be "forced" to change the channel if you don't like the commercial. Nobody is forcing you to watch the superbowl at all. Just shut the hell up about this commercial.

[caj run]

03:18 PM on 02/05/2010

CBS is not absurd. They need the money! Free Enterprise requires thoughtful reinvestment of revenue. If you can't earn the revenue, then you must get it from SugarDaddy's.

CBS obviously wants to earn the money. They are not asking for handouts. They are allowing the marketplace to bid on SuperBowl space. If you want to air your own commercial, then do so. Don't try and tell someone else how to run their business. CBS has stockholders that they are responsible to. They don't make the numbers, they are out. Nothing political about that.

I think that is why we like sports so much. It cuts through all the bull. You can say anything you want, but when its time to pay to play, you are either in or you are out. You sound like a bunch of babies, crying about what you think is unfair. It's a grown up game.

Winner's never quit, and quiters never win!

[Bornin1984]

03:14 PM on 02/05/2010

No one will care if you don't watch the ad or not. For all the belly aching from "women's rights" groups, they've just ensured that more people will watch the ad than would have otherwise.

[Eykis]

01:46 PM on 02/06/2010

Someone born in 1984 HAS NO CLUE what it was like BEFORE January 22, 1973.

EDUCATE YOURSELF.

[Erzsebet Gilbert]

09:01 AM on 02/07/2010

Hey, I was born in 1984! And while I might not have experienced what it was like before, I research and have been continually grateful to those women and men who understood the importance of actually giving women the right to control their own bodies and course of life.

[sisyphus93]

05:35 PM on 02/07/2010

The same old story from a leftist: anyone who opposes you just doesn't have the facts. You all have cornered the market on reason.

[fortmarc]

12:49 PM on 02/05/2010

One could argue that Superbowl viewers should not be forced to change the channel at all. The expectation for the event is pure entertainment, not to sit and thoughtfully debate polarizing social issues.
Regardless of the content, the criticism from both sides stems from the choice of venue. Period. This has
spurred a number of parody commercials, so in the spirit of "entertainment", I submit my favorite as a response to this absurd decision that CBS has made.

http://www.tauntr.com/content/tim-tebows-super-bowl-commercial

[LOU29]

11:49 AM on 02/05/2010

Why are pro-choice people so threatened by the Tebow ad? If I don't like something on TV, I change the channel.......Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

[brooklyn mark]

12:33 PM on 02/05/2010

indeed, what happened to free speech? Why won't CBS allow an opposing commercial to appear? Or a commercial for a gay men's dating site (mancrunch.com) which was recently rejected as too controversial? love the reagan photo, BTW.

[Eykis]

01:47 PM on 02/06/2010

Lous,

Typically clueless. SCROTUS gave away Freedom of Speech to the corporations.

[Mark Harker]

12:33 PM on 02/09/2010

However CBS has complete control over what and what not to accept as advertising.
Even if the selection process was biased (I dont think it was) it's a nonissue- they can be as biased as they want in their selection process.
Of course Liberals want to force more government control on to people. Liberals would Love to bring all advertising and free press under government control- they probably already would have tried to except for that pesky thing called the constitution and the bill of rights.