Running a pro-life ad is controversial enough for the Super Bowl but that Tim and his mom have teamed with Focus on the Family has made it virtually impossible for pro-abortion groups to keep their mouths shut. But these groups aren't stopping at just criticism. Even though no one has seen the ad and no one will until it airs live on February 7th, pro-abortion groups are pressuring CBS to reject the it anyway. And liberals claim to be the open minded ones:
The New York-based Women's Media Center is coordinating the attack on the ad along with the pro-abortion National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority and other groups"An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year -- an event designed to bring Americans together," Jehmu Greene, president of the Women's Media Center, told AP.
CBS officials told AP they have approved the ad for airing and that they would block and issue-oriented ad not "appropriate for air."
In an interview with reporters on Sunday, Tebow defended the ad.
"I know some people won't agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe," Tebow said. "I've always been very convicted of it (his views on abortion) because that's the reason I'm here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it."
Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, told AP that officials with the pro-life group "were a little surprised" by the opposition to the life-affirming ad.
"There's nothing political and controversial about it," he said. "When the day arrives, and you sit down to watch the game on TV, those who oppose it will be quite surprised at what the ad is all about."
It seems the ad will be more along the lines of a testimonial about how Tim's mom was encouraged to end her pregnancy with Tim when she contracted a dangerous infection:
Pam Tebow and her husband were Christian missionaries in the Philippines in 1985 and they prayed for "Timmy" before she became pregnant.Unfortunately, as the Gainesville Sun reports, Pam entered into a coma after she contracted amoebic dysentery, an infection of the intestine caused by a parasite found in a contaminated food or drink.
The treatment for the medical condition would require strong medications that doctors told Pam had caused irreversible damage to Tim -- so they advised her to have an abortion.
As the Sun reported, Pam Tebow refused the abortion and cited her Christian faith as the reason for her hope that her son would be born without the devastating disabilities physicians predicted.
Pam ultimately spent the last two months of her pregnancy in bed and, eventually, gave birth to a health baby boy in August 1987.
Good for Tim and his mom for standing by their convictions, especially when it will result in Tim becoming a target of pro-abortion groups. Many athletes go out of their way to avoid controversies for the purpose of protecting their images. That Tim is willingly discussing his pro-life principles in the largest public forum on the planet is truly refreshing.
Hat tip: Hot Air



Comments (22)
What this issue shows is th... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | January 26, 2010 1:38 PM | Score: 11 (13 votes cast)
What this issue shows is the progressives do not want people to hear any other ideas but theirs. Fact is, I believe in reproductive rights. You have the right not to get pregnant. Once you are, however, you become the caretaker of a new life. It is my firm belief those who favor abortion should be subjected to it. Post natal. I'll bet you that would change a few minds and some behavior.
1. Posted by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | January 26, 2010 1:38 PM |
Score: 11 (13 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 13:38
2. Posted by Jim Addison | January 26, 2010 2:04 PM | Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
Yes, not only do those favor killing babies demand the "right" to do it, but also the "right" not to have to hear any objections.
Is this the stupidest thing you've heard since Obama's last statement, or what:
"An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year -- an event designed to bring Americans together," Jehmu Greene, president of the Women's Media Center, told AP.
I've been watching Super Bowls since Bart Starr vs Lenny Dawson in "I" and this is the first I've heard the event so described. Always thought it was designed to be a pro football championship game. Or, in the immortal words of the late Johnny Carson, "I did not know that."
Say, isn't the "Women's Media Center" one of the groups that used to perpetuate the LIE that violence against women spikes during the Super Bowl?
2. Posted by Jim Addison | January 26, 2010 2:04 PM |
Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 14:04
3. Posted by 914 | January 26, 2010 2:10 PM | Score: 11 (13 votes cast)
""An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year -- an event designed to bring Americans together"
Its an event designed to make money and entertain You stupid obnoxious twit!
3. Posted by 914 | January 26, 2010 2:10 PM |
Score: 11 (13 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 14:10
4. Posted by GarandFan | January 26, 2010 2:33 PM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Liberals are for each of us getting to express our own thoughts - DIVERSITY - is encouraged.
Unless it's something they oppose. It's no longer "patriotic", it's "disruptive or obstructionist". Or as Barry would say, "STFU and get out of the way!"
4. Posted by GarandFan | January 26, 2010 2:33 PM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 14:33
5. Posted by HarryPrimate | January 26, 2010 2:50 PM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Of course they don't want to hear opposing views. How often would you want to be reminded that you advocate the murder of innocents?
5. Posted by HarryPrimate | January 26, 2010 2:50 PM |
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 14:50
6. Posted by James H | January 26, 2010 2:51 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
So ... in lieu of encouraging the network to reject this ad, why can't pro-choice groups pass the hat around to buy their OWN ad?
6. Posted by James H | January 26, 2010 2:51 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 14:51
7. Posted by Drago | January 26, 2010 3:10 PM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
JamesH: "So ... in lieu of encouraging the network to reject this ad, why can't pro-choice groups pass the hat around to buy their OWN ad?"
Oh, they will. They will.
Just as soon as they receive their fair share of our taxes through a federal subsidy direct from ObamaChicagoInc.
You know, the way all "legitimate" organizations do.
Plus, their ad will probably be properly "peer reviewed" by "non-partisan" academics, at least according to the "non-partisan" Soros-funded (insert name of one of the myriad of liberal organizations funded by well-known "pro-American" George Soros here).
7. Posted by Drago | January 26, 2010 3:10 PM |
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 15:10
8. Posted by Speller | January 26, 2010 3:11 PM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
"An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year -- an event designed to bring Americans together,"
Wow.
Next they'll be saying that the Super Bowl should always end in a draw so that nobody gets their feelings hurt, 'cause that would be devisive along, you know, team lines of fan support or something.
Everybody wins when nobody loses.
(except the aborted babies, but Hey!, they can't vote Democrat anyhow)
8. Posted by Speller | January 26, 2010 3:11 PM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 15:11
9. Posted by Madalyn | January 26, 2010 3:34 PM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
God bless Tim and his family for having the fortitude to live according to their convictions. It's a shame the same people who advocate killing babies now want to kill free speech (unless it is their speech of course).
Madalyn
9. Posted by Madalyn | January 26, 2010 3:34 PM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 15:34
10. Posted by Scott | January 26, 2010 3:51 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
I thought abortion was a "women's rights issue?"
Do women not have the right to choose not to have an abortion?
10. Posted by Scott | January 26, 2010 3:51 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 15:51
11. Posted by OLDPUPPYMAX | January 26, 2010 4:17 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
And some Yahoo sportswriter is already taking shots at Tebow's "inability to line up under center." "Will it destroy his NFL chances?" Ya think his pro life stand might be responsible for this jerks article? Nah. Surely not!
11. Posted by OLDPUPPYMAX | January 26, 2010 4:17 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 16:17
12. Posted by James H | January 26, 2010 4:32 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Of course they do. Which is why it strikes me that NARAL et. al. would do well to put together their own advertisement. They could feature interviews with one or more women who obtained abortions and are willing to speak about how they made the right decision.
Or something like that. Maybe an ad memorializing George Tiller. Perhaps a simple placard that says, "Choose. It's your right."* Seems to me this is an opportunity to buy an advertisement and reach an audience. It's a shame the pro-choice side does not seem to realize this.
* Note: Pro-lifers objections to the ad are precisely as relevant as pro-choicers' objections to the pro-life ad.
12. Posted by James H | January 26, 2010 4:32 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 16:32
13. Posted by SER | January 26, 2010 5:10 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
James H.,
I do not think anyone here objects to a "pro-choicer's" ad. The only objection I have heard is that we don't want our tax money spent on it. You must have us confused with leftists who have "speech codes" on campuses or leftists who believe that "pro-life" speech should be suppressed.
13. Posted by SER | January 26, 2010 5:10 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 17:10
14. Posted by James H | January 26, 2010 5:18 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Not necessarily here ... I'm thinking of some of the Brent Bozell types who make policing content their business.
14. Posted by James H | January 26, 2010 5:18 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 17:18
15. Posted by Dave | January 26, 2010 6:11 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
"An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year -- an event designed to bring Americans together," Jehmu Greene
What, does she think the Colts and Saints are going to gather in a circle and sing "We Shall Overcome"? Someone should explain to this poor confused woman the competitive nature of "the biggest sporting event of the year".
15. Posted by Dave | January 26, 2010 6:11 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 18:11
16. Posted by bryanD | January 26, 2010 6:11 PM | Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
Image placement blitz before fitz?
http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2010/01/26/slippery-rock/
EXTRA! _FBI nabs ACORNian Playa_
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/acorn_gotcha_man_arrested_for.html
16. Posted by bryanD | January 26, 2010 6:11 PM |
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 18:11
17. Posted by LiberalNitemare | January 26, 2010 7:43 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Its interesting to note just how defensive those who support the right to choose become, when an alternate choice is demonstrated.
Its not like she's shooting wolf cubs from an airplane - she just chose not to kill a baby. Whats the issue?
17. Posted by LiberalNitemare | January 26, 2010 7:43 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 19:43
18. Posted by Speller | January 26, 2010 7:57 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
I do not think anyone here objects to a "pro-choicer's" ad.
~SER
I object.
The grounds for my objection are that I am PRO-Truth in Advertising.
"Pro-Choice" proponets are nothing of the sort, as evidenced by their efforts to prohibit the advertising for the alternative to abortion, which is pro-life.
Pro-Abortion ads I'm OK with, as long as the lies stop on the pro-abortion side.
18. Posted by Speller | January 26, 2010 7:57 PM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 19:57
19. Posted by Bob | January 26, 2010 9:25 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Choice" implies alternatives. The "pro-choice" position is presumably that a pregnant woman can choose abortion or choose life. Anyone who is offended or upset by this ad is not pro-choice; she is simply pro-abortion because that is the only alternative she considers appropriate.
19. Posted by Bob | January 26, 2010 9:25 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 21:25
20. Posted by gary perez | January 26, 2010 11:40 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I am a retired air forc special operations veteran and a Christian, thank God for People like Tim Tebow, I'm also a Gator Fan and I was born in Milton Florida. MY LIFE LONG MESSAGE TO PEOPLE WHO ARE PRO-CHOICE(YES THEY ARE REALLY PRO-ABORTIONIST, WE ARE NOT STUPID). THIS IS IT, LISTEN GOOD, HERE GOES; PEOPLE FOR ABORTION, THEY'VE BEEN BORN!!!!!!!!!!! NUFF SAID.
20. Posted by gary perez | January 26, 2010 11:40 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2010 23:40
21. Posted by Flu-Bird | January 27, 2010 2:40 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Some call it ABORTION some call it FREEDOM OF CHOICE its realy LEGALIZED MURDER
21. Posted by Flu-Bird | January 27, 2010 2:40 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2010 02:40
22. Posted by Mary Hunt | January 27, 2010 5:39 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
A Nation that murders its children has NO hope. Good for Tebow
22. Posted by Mary Hunt | January 27, 2010 5:39 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2010 05:39