The power of women and life

posted at 4:52 pm on January 29, 2010 by Doctor Zero

The National Organization for Women has protested the decision of CBS to allow a pro-life ad from Focus on the Family to air during the Super Bowl game. The ad features Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. Pam returned the kickoff of a life-threatening pregnancy to put Tim in the red zone for claiming that Heisman trophy. NOW has called on CBS to dump the ad, prompting Sarah Palin – currently the starting quarterback of the pro-life team, and a player with serious skin in the game – to respond with a characteristically bold forward pass from her Facebook pocket:

What a ridiculous situation they’re getting themselves into now with their protest of CBS airing a pro-life ad during the upcoming Super Bowl game. The ad will feature Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mom, and they’ll speak to the sanctity of life and the beautiful potential within every innocent child as Mrs. Tebow acknowledges her choice to give Tim life, despite less than ideal circumstances. Messages like this empower women! This speaks to the strength and commitment and nurturing spirit within women. The message says everything positive and nothing negative about the power of women – and life. Evidently, some women’s rights groups like NOW do not like that message.

NOW president Terry O’Neill says Palin is missing the point:

The goal of the Focus on the Family ad is not to empower women. It’s to create a climate in which Roe v. Wade can be overturned. There are always going to be women who need abortions. In this country, one in three women will have an abortion.

So, the point is that people who think Roe vs. Wade should be overturned lose their right to free speech? Does this principle apply to all Supreme Court decisions? If so, I guess we’d better get started on the Obama impeachment hearings, after the embarrassing disrespect he showed the Supreme Court during the State of the Union address.

It’s nostalgic to read a press release from NOW again. The organization was last seen sinking into the bubbling tar of the Clinton impeachment saga, babbling incomprehensibly about how sexual harassment really isn’t such a big deal when pro-abortion Democrat presidents do it. Like every appendage of the socialist state, NOW has no principle beyond fealty to the political party that grants it power, and the Democrats used to grant them a remarkable amount of power – enough to end the careers of Navy officers and combat pilots, after “investigations” that stopped just short of waterboarding. When NOW talks about “empowering” women, it speaks in the collective sense. Empowerment comes from obedience to feminist organizations, which use that power to drag an oversized chair up to the grim carving table where the Democrat Party wields its redistibutionist cleavers.

Some critics cite unquestioning support for unrestricted abortion rights as the primary demonstration of loyalty power feminists seek from their supporters, but the NOW offensive against the Tebow ad, and their response to Sarah Palin, suggest the true sacrament of radical feminism is not abortion… it’s opposition to the pro-life movement. Power in a collectivist system comes from tribal loyalty, and hatred is a powerful glue for holding collectives together. As with leftist racial groups, NOW has very little positive to offer its supporters these days, so it thrives by pointing fingers at its enemies. Religious people in general, and outspoken pro-life advocates in particular, look very good on the business end of a trembling finger.

The Tebow ad will not call for the overturn of Roe vs. Wade. It’s meant to be a heartfelt endorsement of life, from a mother who chose it against the recommendation of doctors, in the face of her own suffering and possible death. As Palin says:

NOW is looking at the pro-life issue backwards. Women should be reminded that they are strong enough and smart enough to make decisions that allow for career and educational opportunities while still giving their babies a chance at life. In my own home, my daughter Bristol has also been challenged by pro-abortion “women’s rights” groups who don’t agree with her decision to have her baby, nor do they like the abstinence message which she articulated as her personal commitment.

My own opposition to abortion-on-demand is not religious in nature. I believe there aren’t enough people in the world. The decision to deny a human being his, or her, opportunity to enter the living world and make the choices that compose a lifetime should never be made lightly. For people of religious faith, the exercise of free will was a parting gift to creation from its Author. For the atheist, the expanding nova of human choice brings light and meaning into a universe of cold dust and searing plasma. Either way, life is precious, and it follows that those who follow Pam Tebow’s path are worthy of respect. How can we render that respect, if we insist her choice was absolutely equivalent to terminating little Tim, right up to the moment when his head emerged from the birth canal?

We’re nowhere near the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, a naked exercise of raw judicial power… which is apparently so fragile that a son thanking his mother for the gift of life could tear it to shreds. I wonder how many of the other iron laws supporting statism are actually written on tissue paper. If Roe were repealed, the question of abortion restrictions would return to the states, and people contemplating the examples of Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, and Pam Tebow would gain the dangerous freedom to express their beliefs through smaller, more responsive governments. I can understand why NOW and its fellow travelers would be terrified of that possibility. It has nothing to do with “keeping abortion legal,” for there is no chance Americans would ever vote to outlaw it completely, in every state. It has everything to do with siphoning power from the useful fantasy of a world that will never exist, and the ugly caricatures who tower above it with scourges and holy books.

A society reveals much of its character in the way it treats its women and children. Palin finds common cause with NOW in calling out “advertisers and networks for airing sexist and demeaning portrayals of women that lead to young women’s diminished self-esteem and acceptance of roles as mere sexed-up objects.” Abortion on demand has been very useful for preserving the self-esteem of men who desire casual sex without consequence. Perhaps those men would be less likely to view the women in their lives as problems, if they didn’t know there was an easy solution right around the corner.

The Tebows are not planning to use their Super Bowl minutes for a sermon, or to impose their views on anyone. They only want their chance to testify that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not an equation that balances out to zero. The idea that such a statement is unacceptably political is further evidence that our lives have become too politicized, because too many decisions have been bumped to an upstairs office that doesn’t even have a suggestion box.

NOW is mistaking a compelling narrative for compulsion. No organization that demands suppression of the other side’s free speech is “pro-choice” in any sense of the words. Feminists are certainly free to produce their own Super Bowl ad, trumpeting the virtues of partial-birth abortion, or any other practice they don’t think Pam and Tim Tebow support with suitable enthusiasm. Something tells me most people would choose to change the channel during that ad.

Cross-posted at www.doczero.org.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6

Pro-choice is code for “my way or the highway”.

technopeasant on January 29, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Well said Doctor Z. Thanks.

chaswv on January 29, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Power in a collectivist system comes from tribal loyalty.

Entirely unsubstantiated assertion…one among many. You waste your time with this drivel. The idiots here read this, and have no idea how to identify where you simply make sh*t up. They eat it all up, like they do Limbaugh and Hannity, unaware that you’re just riffing on 1/2 truths and unfounded assertions.

While you occasionally make valid arguments, you never make any sound ones. I also doubt you, or anyone else here, knows the difference.

Karl Marx on January 29, 2010 at 4:56 PM

LIFE, it’s what’s for dinner.

moonbatkiller on January 29, 2010 at 4:57 PM

The goal of the Focus on the Family ad is not to empower women. It’s to create a climate in which Roe v. Wade can be overturned.

No, what they’re afraid of is that fewer women will choose abortion. They’re not “pro-choice”, they’re pro-abortion. They’re losing the war for minds and hearts, and they know it.

ddrintn on January 29, 2010 at 4:58 PM

Karl Marx on January 29, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Somebody call the Whabulance

Norwegian on January 29, 2010 at 4:58 PM

Karl Marx on January 29, 2010 at 4:56 PM

if you don’t like it…. Make your own blog or STFU.

upinak on January 29, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Palin is nauseatingly manipulative. Reliably. But it’s nauseatingly idiotically manipulative to say that this gay commercial empowers womens.

Does this daffy hoo really think commercials are empowering?

Creepy how stupid she is.

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:00 PM

So, the point is that people who think Roe vs. Wade should be overturned lose their right to free speech

Nailed again, Doctor! That is EXACTLY the view of liberals/communists/progressives/democrats: if you disagree, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS! Rights are not GOD-given in a Democrat society, rights are man-given to the anointed. NOW is simply backing up their beliefs with action in keeping with their core beliefs.

oldleprechaun on January 29, 2010 at 5:01 PM

While you occasionally make valid arguments, you never make any sound ones. I also doubt you, or anyone else here, knows the difference.

Karl Marx on January 29, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Why don’t you go first and show us how it’s done.

Lily on January 29, 2010 at 5:03 PM

NOW has been wrong on this issue for 40 years. Instead of fighting for real choices and true equality for women, so that we can live exactly the same life as men whether or not we have children, and whether or not we work outside the home, they have fought for a false “choice” that only helps women become more like men by denying the essential element of our womanhood. They fight to make women more like men by giving up our power and killing our children. They believe women are liberated by denying what makes us women.

This is not about abortion being legal, it’s about abortion being moral. It’s about continuing to deny that what is being sucked out and thrown in the trash is a person. Tim Tebow was never just a collection of cells. His mother knew it. NOW doesn’t want YOU to know it.

rockmom on January 29, 2010 at 5:04 PM

unwanted kids are fun!

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Does this daffy hoo really think commercials are empowering?

Creepy how stupid she is.

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:00 PM

NOW apparently thinks they’re empowering.

While you occasionally make valid arguments, you never make any sound ones. I also doubt you, or anyone else here, knows the difference.

Karl Marx on January 29, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Why don’t you go first and show us how it’s done.

Lily on January 29, 2010 at 5:03 PM

Really. “You’re wrong…you’re an idiot” isn’t exactly a compelling argument. It’s just standard lefty fare.

ddrintn on January 29, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Karl Marx on January 29, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Karl Marx was tossed onto the Ash heap of history. Assume your rightful place.

portlandon on January 29, 2010 at 5:06 PM

the true sacrament of radical feminism is not abortion… it’s opposition to the pro-life movement

I think they really do love abortion, but a pro abortion message doesn’t play as well as an anti-whoever message, so they go with that instead.

zmdavid on January 29, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Thanks, Dr. Zero. Wonderful post.

deidre on January 29, 2010 at 5:08 PM

So, the point is that people who think Roe vs. Wade should be overturned lose their right to free speech? Does this principle apply to all Supreme Court decisions

–The First Amendment only applies to government action. It doesn’t apply to what advertisements networks air or don’t air.

–Let me turn the tables on you a bit. CBS rejected ads by PETA and others in the past during Super Bowls, because they had a policy of rejecing advocacy ads. They’ve since changed that policy. They also rejected an ad for a gay dating site during this year’s Super Bowl. Should CBS have allowed those ads to run?

Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 5:08 PM

The actual NOW position on this one instance is actually not that unreasonable. They disagree with the ad and don’t want the heartburn of watching it during a widely watched football game. So they asked CBS to not show it, because apparently they have a policy of not running controversial ads.

It’s like some people don’t like to look at women’s boobs during a football game, so they don’t show that.

There are plenty of other times to get outraged by abortion, but to make progress on that debate it helps to not piss people off when they are trying to relax.

pedestrian on January 29, 2010 at 5:09 PM

“The organization was last seen sinking into the bubbling tar of the Clinton impeachment saga, babbling incomprehensibly about how sexual harassment really isn’t such a big deal when pro-abortion Democrat presidents do it.”

Pure gold, Doc…

Excellent, as always!

Seven Percent Solution on January 29, 2010 at 5:09 PM

There are plenty of other times to get outraged by abortion, but to make progress on that debate it helps to not piss people off when they are trying to relax.

pedestrian on January 29, 2010 at 5:09 PM

That could apply to any commercial on just about any program, unless you’re watching some televised calculus course.

ddrintn on January 29, 2010 at 5:11 PM

My own opposition to abortion-on-demand is not religious in nature. I believe there aren’t enough people in the world.

That statement is very accurate, I do have religous opposition to abortion but the idea of terminating the life of a baby is backwards to what really is hurting this country. We have to few young people trying to pay for to many older people so if the pro death party wanted to do something to mitigate our debt they would espouse euthanasia not abortion.

fourdeucer on January 29, 2010 at 5:12 PM

unwanted kids are fun!

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Just like a child. Apparently, it’s all supposed to be about your happiness. There are procedures for sterilization if you’re that concerned.

Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Good point. Let’s count the ways abortions are same as eggo waffles, ddrintn.

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:13 PM

So they asked CBS to not show it, because apparently they have a policy of not running controversial ads.

pedestrian on January 29, 2010 at 5:09 PM

Since when is being glad you’re alive controversial?

Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 5:13 PM

–The First Amendment only applies to government action. It doesn’t apply to what advertisements networks air or don’t air.

–Let me turn the tables on you a bit. CBS rejected ads by PETA and others in the past during Super Bowls, because they had a policy of rejecing advocacy ads. They’ve since changed that policy. They also rejected an ad for a gay dating site during this year’s Super Bowl. Should CBS have allowed those ads to run?

Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 5:08 PM

We haven’t seen the ad. Perhaps it really isn’t as “pro-life” as people are making it out to be.

Besides, I could care less what CBS desides to run. Perhaps NOW should run their own ad instead of trying to get this ad off the air.

deidre on January 29, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Doctor Zero never disappoints.

NoNails on January 29, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Karl Marx on January 29, 2010 at 4:56 PM

But somehow we know without a doubt that you’re full of sh!t.

AubieJon on January 29, 2010 at 5:14 PM

While you occasionally make valid arguments, you never make any sound ones. I also doubt you, or anyone else here, knows the difference.Karl Marx on January 29, 2010 at 4:56 PM

How can an argument be valid without also being sound? I interpret sound as standing to reason and logic. So it seems an argument wouldn\’t be valid unless it were already sound.As to your first notion that power is not derived from party or tribal loyalty in a collectivism, then where would power be derived from in a collectivism? It seemed that in the Soviet system, the notion of actually getting anything from their collectivism started and ended with being a \”good Party member.\” The proletariat were left to freeze to death standing in bread lines. So if power is not derived from party loyalty in a collectivism, where is it derived from?

Sgt Steve on January 29, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Karl Marx

Some sort of mechanism to polarize the people is necessary to any sort of Revolution. You cannot have a Revolution without Polarization. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is built upon it.
Progressivism is following the roadmap to Revolution that all Marxist revolutions have used (Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Che).

Holger on January 29, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Good point. Let’s count the ways abortions are same as eggo waffles, ddrintn.

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:13 PM

They’re not. The fewer abortions, the better. I couldn’t care less how many eggo waffles there are.

ddrintn on January 29, 2010 at 5:16 PM

So they asked CBS to not show it, because apparently they have a policy of not running controversial ads.

pedestrian on January 29, 2010 at 5:09 PM
Since when is being glad you’re alive controversial?

Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 5:13 PM

–Anything that’s not about football, beer and other manly things during the Super Bowl is controversial.

Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 5:16 PM

When in doubt about motives follow the money. NOW and its allies are deeply up to their necks in the billion dollar abortion industry that they has a heightened vested interest to see that it is not only maintained but expanded to the nth degree.

technopeasant on January 29, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Does this daffy hoo really think commercials are empowering?

Creepy how stupid she is.

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:00 PM

Yeah, NOW has the right idea. The mere fact that this commercial is shown during the Super Bowl will set back the cause of women and abortion and shouldn’t be allowed to influence all those poor, poor, easily influenced women who need abortions. *Please pardon NOW’s shrinking violets while they take to their fainting couches* That’s how smart they are.

Lily on January 29, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Just like a child. Apparently, it’s all supposed to be about your happiness.

no Esthier… it’s all about helping cable news superstar Sarah P out with her common sense conservative messaging on how we can promote child abuse AND make women what had abortions feel like crap during a football game… Which, bonus!!!

That’s empowerment!!

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 5:08 PM

I think you’re misunderstanding the point he’s making. NOW isn’t claiming the spot itself is problematic. By all accounts it says very little that has anything to do with politics. But they are simply saying that allowing Focus on the Family to purchase this time automatically makes the ad wrong, because of Focus on the Family’s views on abortion.

CBS has a right to air whatever it wants to air. That’s it’s legal right. But it is absurd that it should refuse to air noncontroversial ads simply because they come from potentially controversial organizations.

Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 5:17 PM

unwanted kids are fun!

happyfeet

If you don’t want children, prevent conception. Idiot.

mchristian on January 29, 2010 at 5:17 PM

While you occasionally make valid arguments, you never make any sound ones. I also doubt you, or anyone else here, knows the difference.

Karl Marx on January 29, 2010 at 4:56 PM

And I suppose, in your estimation, “The Communist Manifesto” is loaded with “sound arguments,” right?

Bwahahahahahah!

pugwriter on January 29, 2010 at 5:18 PM

I cannot figure out what the NOW harpies objection is to such a wonderful story.

katy the mean old lady on January 29, 2010 at 5:18 PM

no Esthier… it’s all about helping cable news superstar Sarah P out with her common sense conservative messaging on how we can promote child abuse AND make women what had abortions feel like crap during a football game… Which, bonus!!!

That’s empowerment!!

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:17 PM

No, it’s all about your hatred for Palin. She says black, you say white. She says up, you say down. It’s tiresome. Heck, if Obama makes a good point somewhere I can admit it.

ddrintn on January 29, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Hmmmmmm. Cable news superstar Sarah P isn’t exactly a walking contraception ad, is she mchristian?

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:21 PM

If you don’t want children, prevent conception. Idiot.

mchristian on January 29, 2010 at 5:17 PM

I don’t think that Karl Marx or happy feet could get laid in a ho house clutching a fist full of 50′s

katy the mean old lady on January 29, 2010 at 5:21 PM

katy that wasn’t an empowering message

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Hmmmmmm. Cable news superstar Sarah P isn’t exactly a walking contraception ad, is she mchristian?

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:21 PM

I think mchristian was just begging you not to reproduce.

ddrintn on January 29, 2010 at 5:22 PM

As I said in an earlier post, NOW is losing the culture war on this one. Now that people can actually see a fetus at 2 months sucking its thumb in the womb, it becomes harder to deny that you are ending a life. This country is moving towards a more pro-life position so don’t be surprised to see NOW and other groups stomp their feet about it. It is simply becoming untenable to fence-sit on this issue any more or to ignore the reality of it.

KickandSwimMom on January 29, 2010 at 5:23 PM

y’all are so mean with the personal attacks

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:23 PM

So, the point is that people who think Roe vs. Wade should be overturned lose their right to free speech?

Should people who think Roe v. Wade shouldn’t be overturned lose their right to free speech? It seems like you object that NOW should respond at all to the ad.

Focus on the Family is producing this ad and that says everything about the intent. It’s not just a heartfelt appeal from a private citizen; it’s openly part and parcel of a larger campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade. That deserves a response, and NOW is helping to provide it.

RightOFLeft on January 29, 2010 at 5:23 PM

–The First Amendment only applies to government action. It doesn’t apply to what advertisements networks air or don’t air.

–Let me turn the tables on you a bit. CBS rejected ads by PETA and others in the past during Super Bowls, because they had a policy of rejecing advocacy ads. They’ve since changed that policy. They also rejected an ad for a gay dating site during this year’s Super Bowl. Should CBS have allowed those ads to run?

Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 5:08 PM

True enough on the first point, but attempts to silence the expression of a group are unquestionably attempts to interfere with their free speech, even if they aren’t government violations of the First Amendment (which I didn’t invoke.)

There would be no controversy here if CBS had simply declined to run the ad – they can sell airtime to whoever they please, although it would also have been perfectly reasonable for the rejected group to complain about being unable to purchase the airtime, and for CBS to respond to that complaint.

Your second point hinges on the nature of this Tebow spot. I don’t have the impression that it’s going to be an angry harangue, or even a policy statement – just a heartfelt endorsement of the choice of life. I assume CBS executives are not fools (feel free to insert your own joke about their programming lineup proving otherwise) and have seen a cut of this spot, or at least a detailed proposal. Again, it would be one thing for them to have politely refused to sell the airtime… quite another to bow to demands from NOW to back out of the deal.

Doctor Zero on January 29, 2010 at 5:24 PM

no Esthier… it’s all about helping cable news superstar Sarah P out with her common sense conservative messaging on how we can promote child abuse AND make women what had abortions feel like crap during a football game… Which, bonus!!!

That’s empowerment!!

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Works for me.

rockmom on January 29, 2010 at 5:24 PM

–Anything that’s not about football, beer and other manly things during the Super Bowl is controversial.

Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Sexist! j/k

But really, that’s never been true. There have been ads for hybrids (which carries its own controversy), computers, H$R Block, FedEx, GM, cell phones, and there’s even one that thanked the troops (which was arguably controversial itself, especially in 2005).

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Do you actually expect to be taken seriously here when your entire comments rely on insulting other people?

Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 5:25 PM

The trolls are here. It’s obvious that someone’s mommy threw away the baby and raised the afterbirth.

pugwriter on January 29, 2010 at 5:25 PM

katy that wasn’t an empowering message

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Why would I try to “empower” a dipstick?

katy the mean old lady on January 29, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 5:08 PM
I think you’re misunderstanding the point he’s making. NOW isn’t claiming the spot itself is problematic. By all accounts it says very little that has anything to do with politics. But they are simply saying that allowing Focus on the Family to purchase this time automatically makes the ad wrong, because of Focus on the Family’s views on abortion.

CBS has a right to air whatever it wants to air. That’s it’s legal right. But it is absurd that it should refuse to air noncontroversial ads simply because they come from potentially controversial organizations.

Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 5:17 PM

–You may be right. I’m not sure if NOW is ticked because of the ad or because CBS just recently changed its policies to allow ads by controversials organizations to be aired and this ad was the first beneficiary of the change. I’m not sure, though, that this ad is going to have the impact that Focus on the Family hopes for. I was only half-joking when I said most of the Super Bowl viewers only want to see commercials for beer and other manly stuff (and they expect them to be funny).

Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 5:25 PM

y’all are so mean with the personal attacks

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:23 PM

If you don’t like them when you’re the target, then why don’t you rethink your approach?

ddrintn on January 29, 2010 at 5:26 PM

As I said in an earlier post, NOW is losing the culture war on this one. Now that people can actually see a fetus at 2 months sucking its thumb in the womb, it becomes harder to deny that you are ending a life. This country is moving towards a more pro-life position so don’t be surprised to see NOW and other groups stomp their feet about it. It is simply becoming untenable to fence-sit on this issue any more or to ignore the reality of it.

KickandSwimMom on January 29, 2010 at 5:23 PM

I couldn’t agree more, and it’s all going to come down to money. NOW and Planned Parenthood aren’t as concerned about women’s right to choose as they are about the money women pay for abortions.

AubieJon on January 29, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Should people who think Roe v. Wade shouldn’t be overturned lose their right to free speech? It seems like you object that NOW should respond at all to the ad.

Focus on the Family is producing this ad and that says everything about the intent. It’s not just a heartfelt appeal from a private citizen; it’s openly part and parcel of a larger campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade. That deserves a response, and NOW is helping to provide it.

RightOFLeft on January 29, 2010 at 5:23 PM

That’s completely wrong. I never said NOW should shut up. In fact, I explicitly invited them to produce their own ad. And you’re back to the identity of the speaker determining the extent of their free speech. It’s funny how quickly things seem to slide back to that rather ugly concept.

Doctor Zero on January 29, 2010 at 5:26 PM

y’all are so mean with the personal attacks

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:23 PM

I think they’re just trying to make you feel more comfortable, as it seems to be the only way you can talk to other people.

Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Hmmmmmm. Cable news superstar Sarah P isn’t exactly a walking contraception ad, is she mchristian?

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:21 PM

I said nothing about Palin. That obsession is all your own.

mchristian on January 29, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Anything that’s not about football, beer and other manly things during the Super Bowl is controversial.

Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 5:16 PM
Sexist! j/k

But really, that’s never been true. There have been ads for hybrids (which carries its own controversy), computers, H$R Block, FedEx, GM, cell phones, and there’s even one that thanked the troops (which was arguably controversial itself, especially in 2005).

–Hey, what’s not manly about hybrids, computers, GM, H&R Block, etc? I hope Apple’s not planning to run ads for its new Max-i-Pad.

Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Should people who think Roe v. Wade shouldn’t be overturned lose their right to free speech? It seems like you object that NOW should respond at all to the ad.

Focus on the Family is producing this ad and that says everything about the intent. It’s not just a heartfelt appeal from a private citizen; it’s openly part and parcel of a larger campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade. That deserves a response, and NOW is helping to provide it.

RightOFLeft on January 29, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Shoot the messenger even if you have no problem with this particular message? So we should oppose any PSA with Barack Obama talking about help for Haiti because we don’t like his health care bill?

Maybe Focus on the Family has decided to, you know, focus on the family. In this case, the Tebow family.

rockmom on January 29, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Abortion is difficult to defend. It is much easier to attack the other side.

zmdavid on January 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM

The only peron I’ve insulted is Sarah Palin, Esthier. And that’s cause it’s gross how she lurks in dim places waiting to opportunistically pounce on whatever red meat she can find to feed her hungry coterie of red state facebook intellectuals.

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM

*person* I mean

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:29 PM

y’all are so mean with the personal attacks

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Uh, read my name again please.

katy the mean old lady on January 29, 2010 at 5:29 PM

My husband adores me (and I’m the luckiest woman alive, because he’s a gem). But two things would have made him turn tail and run from me:

1. I wouldn’t take his last name and
2. I belonged to NOW

Just sayin’.

Grace_is_sufficient on January 29, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Hmmmmmm. Cable news superstar Sarah P isn’t exactly a walking contraception ad, is she mchristian?

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:21 PM

What a sad clown you are. With your melted ice cream, party hat and nobody at your party.

portlandon on January 29, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Should people who think Roe v. Wade shouldn’t be overturned lose their right to free speech? It seems like you object that NOW should respond at all to the ad.

Focus on the Family is producing this ad and that says everything about the intent. It’s not just a heartfelt appeal from a private citizen; it’s openly part and parcel of a larger campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade. That deserves a response, and NOW is helping to provide it.

RightOFLeft on January 29, 2010 at 5:23 PM

By trying to pressure CBS not to show the ad. That’s not a “response”.

ddrintn on January 29, 2010 at 5:29 PM

The only peron I’ve insulted is Sarah Palin, Esthier. And that’s cause it’s gross how she lurks in dim places waiting to opportunistically pounce on whatever red meat she can find to feed her hungry coterie of red state facebook intellectuals.

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM

You’re a vegetarian, aren’t you.

AubieJon on January 29, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Karl Marx on January 29, 2010 at 4:56 PM

I get that you don’t agree with DZ. But, in an argument whose gist is “You don’t make sound logical arguments”, don’t you think that you should have provided at least one or two premises to back up your conclusions?

You’re argument boiled down to this:
- This is one bad assertion amongst many
- This is a waste of time
- The people at HA are idiots
- People here aren’t masters of logical arguments

I certainly don’t claim to be the worlds best logician; however, that seems like a laundry list of conclusions without any evidence backing it up. So, while your conclusions might actually turn out to be valid, your argument itself is far from sound.

JadeNYU on January 29, 2010 at 5:30 PM

I am Pro-choice and i choose LIFE.If this country can not protect the most innocent unborn children then all else is irrelevant.

thmcbb on January 29, 2010 at 5:30 PM

no Esthier… it’s all about helping cable news superstar Sarah P out with her common sense conservative messaging on how we can promote child abuse AND make women what had abortions feel like crap during a football game… Which, bonus!!!

That’s empowerment!!

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Moms should feel bad because one mom didn’t kill her baby? Interesting.

Asking people to consider maybe not killing their kids is equivalent to supporting child abuse? Fascinating.

This new learning intrigues me Sir Bedevere. Tell me again how sheep’s bladders can be employed to prevent earthquakes.

TheUnrepentantGeek on January 29, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Anything that’s not about football, beer and other manly things during the Super Bowl is controversial.

Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Somehow winning the Heisman stikes me as quite manly.

katy the mean old lady on January 29, 2010 at 5:31 PM

There are plenty of other times to get outraged by abortion, but to make progress on that debate it helps to not piss people off when they are trying to relax.

pedestrian on January 29, 2010 at 5:09 PM

So all the people offended by a 30 sec ad promoting life can use that time to go to the bathroom.

katiejane on January 29, 2010 at 5:31 PM

katy that wasn’t an empowering message

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Neither is “pro-choice” the only choice they approve of is abortion. Without an abortion women would have to “suffer” having a child or take steps not to get impregnated. Since, pro-choicers don’t want choice; let’s call them pro-murderers instead. pro-life vs. pro-murder.

Jeff2161 on January 29, 2010 at 5:31 PM

y’all are so mean with the personal attacks

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Whhhambulance on the way tender one.

portlandon on January 29, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Focus on the Family is producing this ad and that says everything about the intent. It’s not just a heartfelt appeal from a private citizen; it’s openly part and parcel of a larger campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade. That deserves a response, and NOW is helping to provide it.

RightOFLeft on January 29, 2010 at 5:23 PM

So Focus on the Family shouldn’t be allowed to buy an ad no matter what it says? That is trying to deny the group free speech.

I’m not sure, though, that this ad is going to have the impact that Focus on the Family hopes for.

It probably won’t, but I can see it being a successful campaign. I’m sure many women have been told their children would be born with some handicapped and would be better off not being born, only to learn their child was perfectly fine.

And then, you could also throw in the Sarah Palins who would say it was worth it to have the child even if he’s not perfect. There’s almost a stigma these days for women who decide to keep them. Something close to 90% choose instead to abort.

I was only half-joking when I said most of the Super Bowl viewers only want to see commercials for beer and other manly stuff (and they expect them to be funny).

Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Sure, but heartwarming commercials also tend to do alright there. If this one stays in that territory, it shouldn’t be a problem.

Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Karl Marx on January 29, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Me thinks thou ‘projects’ to much.

PappaMac on January 29, 2010 at 5:34 PM

No Mr. Geek what I’m saying is if you’re an unchristian murderous strumpet what killed your baby, this commercial is going to make you feel sad.

And it’s on purpose.

If this commercial is at all effective then numerous murdery womens are going to be running to the baffroom in tears on Super Bowl Sunday.

I’m cable news superstar Sarah P and I approve this message.

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:35 PM

no Esthier… it’s all about helping cable news superstar Sarah P out with her common sense conservative messaging on how we can promote child abuse AND make women what had abortions feel like crap during a football game… Which, bonus!!!

That’s empowerment!!

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Interesting theory…Pro-abortion women abuse their children? Why would a woman that had an abortion feel like crap? It’s so empowering for them according to NOW.

Jeff2161 on January 29, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Anything that’s not about football, beer and other manly things during the Super Bowl is controversial.

Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 5:16 PM
Somehow winning the Heisman stikes me as quite manly.

katy the mean old lady on January 29, 2010 at 5:31 PM

–That was two years ago and the ad’s (probably) not about him winning the Heisman.

Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 5:36 PM

This just in: unwanted kids what are born to poor single mothers aren’t all picked up off the street by Sandy Bullock, Mr. 2161.

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:37 PM

–Hey, what’s not manly about hybrids, computers, GM, H&R Block, etc? I hope Apple’s not planning to run ads for its new Max-i-Pad.

Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 5:27 PM

They really have to change that name… and get it to multitask.

There’s nothing manly about hybrids (especially not smart cars), but the rest are arguably neutral.

The only peron I’ve insulted is Sarah Palin, Esthier. And that’s cause it’s gross how she lurks in dim places waiting to opportunistically pounce on whatever red meat she can find to feed her hungry coterie of red state facebook intellectuals.

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Is this supposed to be an excuse? Either you can have conversations without these, or you can’t. But it’s clear to most that you wanted to troll by insulting someone most people here admire, if not for her politics and career choices, at least for her decision to stand by her convictions and have Trig.

If you can’t give her the bare amount of respect to refrain from using name-calling in making your case against her, why should you expect others to give you greater respect?

The fact that some will do it, only speaks to their character, not yours.

Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 5:38 PM

No Mr. Geek what I’m saying is if you’re an unchristian murderous strumpet what killed your baby, this commercial is going to make you feel sad.

And it’s on purpose.

If this commercial is at all effective then numerous murdery womens are going to be running to the baffroom in tears on Super Bowl Sunday.

I’m cable news superstar Sarah P and I approve this message.

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Do you really care? Are you objecting to this ad because you’ve had an abortion and are ashamed of it? Or are you a typical liberal, imagining and projecting pain and suffering on a group of people because it will empower you?

AubieJon on January 29, 2010 at 5:39 PM

Hey, what’s not manly about hybrids, computers, GM, H&R Block, etc? I hope Apple’s not planning to run ads for its new Max-i-Pad.

Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 5:27 PM
They really have to change that name… and get it to multitask.

There’s nothing manly about hybrids (especially not smart cars), but the rest are arguably neutral.

–What’s not manly about saving money?

Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 5:39 PM

Even for women who favor abortion rights, getting an abortion is a traumatic event. So any discussion of it might be unpleasant to anyone who has had one. The unpleasantness is just in the political issue, but it is upsetting on a more personal level.

If CBS has a policy, it is certainly with NOWs perogative to request that this ad be covered by there superbowl policy. If CBS complies, then it is a whole separate issue whether that is some kind of censorship, but for that it doesn’t matter whether the issue is abortion. In any case, the superbowl being a television event that is well known for being watched by people in large social gatherings, a reasonable compromise is to keep things on a more superficial nature for that one show.

pedestrian on January 29, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Good point. Let’s count the ways abortions are same as eggo waffles, ddrintn.

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:13 PM

1.) Neither is a good choice.

Your turn.

PappaMac on January 29, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Why don’t the leftists just come out and do what they really want to do, amend the text of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th amendments with the phrase except for right wingers.

Brian1972 on January 29, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Let’s face it, abortion is evil. People pushing abortion are evil. Period.

Folks need to read up on Margaret Sanger, the matron saint of the pro-death crowd. She was a Ku Klux Klanner who hated blacks. Called ‘em “human weeds.”

Sanger’s whole push to make abortions acceptable was just so she could rid the world of those “human weeds.”

Progressives as are sick, twisted, and demented.

Not a redeeming bone in their bodies.

gary4205 on January 29, 2010 at 5:41 PM

–That was two years ago and the ad’s (probably) not about him winning the Heisman.

Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 5:36 PM

I’m going to take a guess here. If it did’t happen this week,or to you, it does’nt count.

katy the mean old lady on January 29, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Karl Marx on January 29, 2010 at 4:56 PM

So you and strawman ready to go a few rounds?

heshtesh on January 29, 2010 at 5:42 PM

we can promote child abuse AND make women what had abortions feel like crap during a football game… Which, bonus!!!

That’s empowerment!!

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:17 PM

The fact that you cannot follow logic to its ends doesn’t surprise most of us here 2LeftFeet, so lets break it down so you can understand. Pay attention now because I’m not going to explain it again:

1.Tim Tebow’s Mother made a CHOICE to keep her child.

2.This commercial shows the consequences of that CHOICE.

3.NOW does not want a positive aspect of choice to be shown.

4.Sarah Palin is pointing out NOW’s hypocrisy is not wanting a woman’s CHOICE to be shown nation wide, unless it is a CHOICE that NOW endorses.

If you still don’t get it, seek help.

portlandon on January 29, 2010 at 5:42 PM

This just in: unwanted kids what are born to poor single mothers aren’t all picked up off the street by Sandy Bullock, Mr. 2161.

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Unwanted kids being murdered by Mom is preferable?

Jeff2161 on January 29, 2010 at 5:42 PM

This just in: unwanted kids what are born to poor single mothers aren’t all picked up off the street by Sandy Bullock, Mr. 2161.

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Your really just pissed because CBS decided not to run the Gay Hookup Commercial, aren’t ya

PappaMac on January 29, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Women should be reminded that they are strong enough and smart enough to make decisions that allow for career and educational opportunities while still giving their babies a chance at life.

This is what cable news superstar Sarah P says on her facebook page. She’s saying women what have abortions are weak and stupid.

That’s a nauseatingly simplistic and a very unkind message for Sarah P to put out there I think.

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:44 PM

I forget which news show it was but there was an abortion debate on Australian TV and they brought in Sarah and Bristol Palin. Sarah has gone global.

Crux Australis on January 29, 2010 at 5:45 PM

If this commercial is at all effective then numerous murdery womens are going to be running to the baffroom in tears on Super Bowl Sunday.

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:35 PM

A video of a kid explaining that his mother had a choice, and that he’s glad she made the one that gave him a chance at life isn’t going to change the minds of those who don’t consider the unborn to be life. Ultrasounds sometimes help, but the knowledge that a person will be born if an abortion doesn’t take place isn’t news to them.

And it’s unlikely that’s the goal of the video anyway.

This is a video of a woman who was told by her doctor that an abortion was the right thing. She decided not to, knowing that she might have a deformed son as a result and has been glad to find out how wrong the doctor was.

It’s about showing other women who are in the same situation that they do still have a choice and can still have hope.

Anyone who feels badly while watching it likely feels badly about her abortion anyway, which is sadly all too common.

Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 5:45 PM

That’s completely wrong. I never said NOW should shut up. In fact, I explicitly invited them to produce their own ad. And you’re back to the identity of the speaker determining the extent of their free speech. It’s funny how quickly things seem to slide back to that rather ugly concept.

Doctor Zero on January 29, 2010 at 5:26 PM

NOW is not a government organization, so they can’t do anything to deprive Mrs. Tebow of her first amendment protections to free speech. The argument that NOW is somehow doing something unconstitutional by criticizing CBS’ choice of advertising is functionally the same as telling them to sit down and shut up. Which you’re free to do, it just strikes me as a little hypocritical.

RightOFLeft on January 29, 2010 at 5:46 PM

This is what cable news superstar Sarah P says on her facebook page. She’s saying women what have abortions are weak and stupid.

That’s a nauseatingly simplistic and a very unkind message for Sarah P to put out there I think.

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Show THAT exact quote you idiot.

Jeff2161 on January 29, 2010 at 5:50 PM

–What’s not manly about saving money?

Jimbo3 on January 29, 2010 at 5:39 PM

Nothing, but hybrids don’t accomplish this. They’re often more expensive than other similar new cars, and the mpg are often pretty horrible for the cost.

It often takes over a decade to make one cheaper, and that’s assuming you get one that has better gas mileage than your last car.

Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 5:50 PM

This just in: unwanted kids what are born to poor single mothers aren’t all picked up off the street by Sandy Bullock, Mr. 2161.

happyfeet on January 29, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Breaking News: If Happyfeets’s mother had aborted him/her, he/she wouldn’t be able to be here demanding Abortion.

Yes, I am still Pro-Life.

portlandon on January 29, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6