Should CBS pull the Tebow ad?

"Tebow will appear in the commercial with his mother, Pam, who reportedly will tell one of the Tebow family's favorite stories: How, after severe complications arose in her 1987 pregnancy, she declined medical advice to have an abortion."

This commercial appears to be a pro-choice commercial; I'm sure that she is glad that she had the freedom to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

I would hope that she would want all women to continue to have the same freedom of choice that she had.

they should have the right to voice their opinions just like anyone else. This IS america, right ??????

How do we know it's the truth? She may have an agenda. In all the news reports I've seen there is no mention of the doctor's version of the story.

David Waters

In your article you wrote, ""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, said in a statement."

Should it be "political correctness" that "unites" Americans or should it be, at least so far, that in America we still have "freedom of speech" not "freedom to say what others think we should or should not say"?

Whoever may happen to see the "ad" should be able to make up his or her mind as to what they think of it, not some self-appointed censor.

Does anyone know why it seems that some of the so-called "pro-choice" people seem to be all for "choice" as long as your choice is the choice that they think you should have?

Do you know if Jehmu Greene has actually seen the "ad"?

If so, then she could make a "counter-ad", if not, then how can she say anything about it?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Does anybody REALLY make such a monumental a decision as to whether or not to terminate a pregnancy based on a Super Bowl commercial?

Baum -

Greene asserts two things that you, and perhaps most of us, would agree with: 1) sports has the power to unite Americans, and 2) the issue of abortion is one that divides Americans.

Where she gets more controversial is when she says, in effect: let's not mix the two and dilute the power of the Super Bowl as an event that unites us.

Whatever you think of that (censoring, sensible, etc.), we are surely headed for a lot more "issue" ads in our precious tv space, given the USC's recent decision on corporations and elections.

I'm not so sure I love that.

Tebow's amateur career is clearly at an end. Mother and son are probably being quite well paid to aire this particular ad...I suppose future NFL teammates will have to put up with alot of praying in the huddle, etc. etc.

On the other hand, plenty of Heisman winners never make the pro cut, so time will tell.......

This is obviously neither the time nor the place for such a politically plaintive and divisive add but money speaks louder that good taste every time.

Color me cynical - the media stops at nothing to enhance potential viewer numbers whether in visual or written form. I predict a record Superbowl viewing audience this year!

Here's what should happen: if CBS does end up showing this ad, it should also give "pro-choice" supporters equal airtime during the Super Bowl. Personally, I don't think the major networks should be broadcasting any kind of advocacy advertisements whatsoever.

Tebow is out of line...anti abortion ad during the Super Bowl...what an arrogant young man...so his mother gave birth to him and his world turned out wonderful...tell that to the millions of children who live in the gutter of despair...who's parents are no where to be found or are lost in a sea of drugs, poverty, and abuse....give me a break Mr. Know it All.

And to CBS...do the right thing...pull the plug on this crusade of Mr. Tebows'

He certainly has the right to express his opinion. That said, I don't need Mr. Tebow's proselytizing either on his face or during the Super Bowl. Most of what is wrong with the world today is brought upon us by those who feel the irresistible need to evangelize and to convert. Please go away, no one appointed you overseer of my salvation. I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions. Thank you. Now leave.

EVERYONE TAKE NOTICE! The user poll is completely dishonest. The question says:

Should CBS pull the Focus on the Family/Tim Tebow pro-life ad from its Super Bowl lineup?

I voted yes, but when I clicked "view results"
it shows the results as the answer to the question: Should Super Bowl ads include divisive social or political content?

Which makes it seems like more people are for this ad than against it, which isn't true.

REALLY WASHINGTONPOST??? That's just sad.

It is sad that people are offended by this at all. People are broken

"Tebow is out of line...anti abortion ad during the Super Bowl...what an arrogant young man...so his mother gave birth to him and his world turned out wonderful...tell that to the millions of children who live in the gutter of despair...who's parents are no where to be found or are lost in a sea of drugs, poverty, and abuse....give me a break Mr. Know it All."

I know right?! I am sure all those people would rather be dead. He is promoting family not anything about Abortion. Get over yourself.

For those who don't agree with the message..don't watch. This is a 30 second spot in a 4 hour broadcast. Certainly you can find something to do for 30 seconds while it airs.
I'm not going to bit** when Obama ties up the airwaves tonight even though I don't agree with many of his views.
Get over it people.
For those who don't like hearing or watching viewpoints which are opposite their own...get used to it. With the recent SC decision this is just the beginning of ads that will divide many in this country.

A real switch-a-roo there by the "Post" for sure but it's also possible that it's just one of their ever-expanding daily "editing errors". Anyway - that football player guy wasn't born here. Where's the birth certificate! He's not qualified for the quarterback office cause he's not an American citizen. AAhh feels good.

Why not? Free speech for Christians, conservatives, the NRA and Palin's corporate contributors.

Soon, thanks to Cheney's Great White Supreme Court, large corporations will be able to buy Superbowl ads for or against candidates depending whether or not they have sold out to the lobbyists.

To the richest go the spoils in the Huckabees' new "brighter" whiter corporate Jesuslandia.

What a psy/ops scam this bs paper is running. I, like most of you voted against T-blow's stupid arse ad and they then switch the question after you vote to make it seem like we want more of that sh**!!
You people are sick and you deserve the Tebow's, Palin's and Bush's of the world.

For the record: NO we don't want religous drivel on SB Sunday!

What a psy/ops scam this bs paper is running. I, like most of you voted against T-blow's stupid arse ad and they then switch the question after you vote to make it seem like we want more of that sh**!!
You people are sick and you deserve the Tebow's, Palin's and Bush's of the world.

For the record: NO we don't want religous drivel on SB Sunday!

Posted by: flyingtrees

I agree completely. This "news" paper is a complete sham. Like crisis pregnancy centers and most things right-wing oriented, they have to lie and deceive to spread their message.

p.s.
Nice for Tebow's mom that it worked out but countless women lost their lives in childbirth being forced to have a child before abortion was legal. Irrisponsible and dispicable CBS- but par for the course in the new Corporate/Fascist/Christian Amerika.

I know folks want to assert the choice that Tebow's mother made and call this an inclusive ad. But in actuality, regardless of the tone, it's an ad for Focus on the Family, an anti-choice, homophobic organization.

As a result, I will not be watching the Super Bowl this year.

I think people need to wait and see this ad before spouting their opinions. As I understand it, the ad encourages women that their is an alternative to seeking an abortion. A CHOICE. But maybe all the pro-CHOICE people would prefer to be called pro-abortion or pro-death. President Obama, in his commencement speech at Notre Dame said, "Let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term." If the ad ends with a plea to outlaw abortions, that is one issue, but if it is an encouragement to seek other options, who can really be against that? Is the right to choose so sacred for some people that they actually long to see more abortions? That is sick.

Obama, in his commencement speech at Notre Dame said, "Let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term."

yeah, but i don't think this ad is going to say anything about better access to contraception and birth control or comprehensive sex-ed. now, that's sick.

their opinions. As I understand it, the ad encourages women that their is an alternative to seeking an abortion. A CHOICE.
Posted by: MrDumberton

The ad is paid for by Focus on the Family, who takes the position that there is only ONE right choice, ever. If you are pregnant, you must deliver.

What's wrong with someone saying I'm glad my mother didn't kill me while I was still in the womb so I could go on to live this wonderful life I've had so far? Getting people to think about the possible repercussions of their actions shouldn't be considered divisive. Abortion is wrong and should be avoided but we shouldn't allow abortion either as it will just lead to women receiving the procedure in dodgy clinics and self performed procedures that will lead to higher death rates for the pregnant women. Let's boost adoption.

Whether or not I agree with the particular views expressed in this or any other commerical, I think this is a simple issue of free speech for those placing the ad and free choice for the network in deciding whether it makes commercial sense to run the ad.

For those who disagree with the ad's contents, they have the choice to "vote with their feet" by not watching the game, organizing a boycott, not watching the commercial, etc. They are also free to present an opposing view in their own commercial at the next available opportunity.

What's wrong with someone saying I'm glad my mother didn't kill me while I was still in the womb so I could go on to live this wonderful life I've had so far?

Posted by: Liberty4America

I work with children and teens in foster care who were born to drug addicts or were raised in physical and/sexual abusive households. None of them have ever expressed gratitude to their derelict parents, but many do attempt suicide. If everyone could have Tebows life, you might have a point, but you're wrong. Instead of trying to govern everyone's lives they way you think they SHOULD be (perfect), wake up and view world the way it is.

There isn't anything wrong with the story, and there certainly isn't anything wrong with being pro-life. It just has no place in an add televised during the Super Bowl. End of story.

In fact, Focus on the Family endorses abstinence education.

Of course, teen pregnancy rates increased 3% in 2006, so those abstinence programs sure must work!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/01/teen-pregnancy-abstinence.html

-----

yeah, but i don't think this ad is going to say anything about better access to contraception and birth control or comprehensive sex-ed. now, that's sick.

Can someone please explain to me the controversy here??

It's an ad, paid for, right? SO WHAT?

I believe in choice, and this is an example of a choice. SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?!

This is a football game, not the state of the union address "sponsored by..." For crying out loud, get a grip!

I don't have a problem for an advocacy ad per se. However, the CBS is exhibiting a great deal of hypocrisy here.

In prior years, they turned down a spot by the United Churches of Christ. This spot simply said that Jesus didn't turn anyone away and showed two men (without mentioning their sexuality, implied or otherwise) walking through the doors of the church.

Of course, CBS cowed to the anti-gay crowd saying they do not air "controversial" ads.

Either they need to be consistent with their stated policies, or allow ALL viewpoints, however repulsive they may be to either side.

I'd prefer the latter. Let Focus on the Family put Tebow on. And let UCC do what they want too. And PETA. And Godaddy.com. And whoever coughs up the coin. That's what free speech is about.

I'm sorry. It must be something I ate, but the Christian Evangelical movement must be stopped! There might be some well-meaning Evangelicals out there, but their droning on about abortion all the time is making me sick! This Tebow fellow is so glad he wasn't aborted. Well, duh! But that argument is meaningless. What about all the embryos that never gestated past 3 weeks because of some DNA abnormality? Gee, I bet those embryos wish they had been born and grown up to be a baby, toddler, adolescent, young adult, adult, whatever. It is foolish talk by foolish people. CBS will take the millions of dollars, but we must ask, could this Evangelical Family for Jesus group have used this money to help the poor and downtrodden as opposed to a proselytizing rant?

An ad such as this has no place whatsoever on the Super Bowl.

In the past, people looked forward to as much entertainment from the ads being shown as the game itself, if not more so.

This ad would seem to be very offensive. Choice is a PERSONAL matter, not something to be touted by some fundamentalist religious group on unsuspecting families throughout the world. It is totally inappropriate.

Women are people too something people like Focus on the Family forget. How tacky and gross.

On its face, I have nothing against this commercial, even though I am pro-choice. I am disappointed that just a few years ago, the United Church of Christ denomination tried to pay for and have an commercial aired during the Super Bowl that said as a denomination, it was open to people who are gay. This commercial was not allowed. CBS has said that the UCC commercial would have been allowed under their new guidelines, but it still sounds like picking and choosing sides to me...

I love it! A marketing slogan like "Pro-Life" belongs in silly marketing extravaganza like Super Bowl which itself exists only for the commercial exploitation of the American consumer. What bizarre hysteria gives this particular craziness any more impact or credence than the average useless beer commercial?

How is this any different from Janet Jackson's exposure? I just want to relax and watch the Super Bowl.

It truly is wonderful that Tebow's mom CHOSE life, and that a potentially tragic pregnancy turned out so well! Would that all women had such luck! Unfortunately, they don't, and that's why CHOICE is so important. Considering that this ad was created by the rabidly fundamentalist Focus on the Family, there's no way that it'll celebrate that CHOICE; it'll imply (however nicely) that women should have no choice at all. Fundamentalists like these haven't changed - they've just gotten sneakier.

How is this any different from Janet Jackson's exposure?
Posted by: jimward21

I think it's safe to assume that the network did not agree ahead of time to her flashing the audience.

Pam Tebow, it is nice you defied your doctor and had a good outcome. If it had gone the other way and you died from complications from a bad pregnancy, what would your other children do without their mother? What would your husband do without his wife? No one thinks about bad outcomes, only the fairy tale ending. Anti-choice groups like Focus on Family are intrinsically evil, because they are focused on the wrong issue. They imbue ignorance and folly in their social message. When enough tragedy befalls these self-righteous bigots, they will see how selfish and self-serving they have been. Quite the opposite of Jesus' teachings, I'd say.

A bit nazistic. If Mom Telbow had chosen abortion, she would not have given birth to a future Heisman trophy winner.

Should pro-choice advocates now run ads featuring mothers who opted out of abortion and gave birth to vegetables that lived for eleven days? (On respirators?)

To Bruce19:

from Isaiah 5-

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

Jesus would NEVER support destroying human life . Abortion is akin to slavery. For former fetuses that got their(life) it is very hypocritical to support the aborting of human life.

This young man is a national hero . Why shouldn't he be able to tell his atory? We are constantly bombarded with immoral images and stories that depict the anti-life message.

Absolutely - as long as NARAL is allowed to buy it's own commercial advocating choice.

I seem to recall Move On or some other group trying to purchase a Super Bowl spot to protest Bush's anti-family policies and being denied because of network policy not to allow sports to be divisive or some such. It seems that only a conservative agenda may be advanced. Would anyone be offended by an ad that depicted the suffering of a child that would have been avoided had an abortion decision been made? Whatever happened to mind your own beeswax as a national value?

Not only should CBS not be airing any advocacy ads during the Super Bowl, they should certainly not allow themselves to be used by Tebow to promote his own career (and his sanctity, of course). Any team that drafts this self-aggrandizing blowhard will not get my support next year.

Sir or Madam,

Your first screen, where the question is posed asks: "Should CBS pull the Focus on the Family/Tim Tebow pro-life ad from its Super Bowl lineup?" The answer I chose, No. 2, answers that question in the negative and expresses my belief that the ad should not be pulled by CBS. However, in the next screen which shows the response, the question is posed as: "Should Super Bowl ads include divisive social or political content? Why are you attempting to misrepresent the results of the vote? My answer to the question in the second screen would not be "No" but "Yes" as I believe that anyone willing to pay the network's rate to air the ad should be able to do so (subject to nudity, profanity and other FCC rules).

Those who oppose airing of the add are part of the ever so progressive movement who resort to censorship (not a progressive idea)in order to quash opinions with which they disagree. Planned Parenthood or any other abortion purveyor should be allowed to air their ad, again, assuming they come up with the money to pay for it.

As a pro-choice physician who performed abortions on women after counseling them on alternatives I still must allow that bringing up the abortion issue during any non-political sports event is not in good taste but has to be permissable. I would also assume that CBS would allow commercials for gay marriage and against the superstition, I mean religion, that intrudes on our daily lives in this country. Imposing myths and beliefs"Jesus wouldn't like abortion" type talk is probably as disgusting to me as allowing a woman the right to choose is to the daily myth perpertrators. That said let them air their beliefs for the money, contributing to the coffers of CBS. Good luck to the team that drafts this guy. The locker room will never be the same.

Has anyone even seen the ad other than the makers and CBS? Could this be a case of "control speak"? If the Tebows want to air their personal history and somebody is willing to pay for the ad, let them. Could this be that the pro-choice is upset that either they did not get there first or they were afraid of the consequences of an ad that would probably not be "family friendly"?

I assume that neither the NFL, CBS or the advertisers will be happy to read this but I gave up long ago on most of pro sports and the SB especially. If I want or need to watch a full day of advertising I will buy a video of nothing but ad's.

In most any interview that has featured Tebow he come across as an idiot who got rich playing ball and needed 5 years to master it.

Anyway if the RTL's can get an ad then everyone should as well. Given the recent SC ruling CBS cannot deny any one or group. You got the money, you got the ad. Pretty simple.

hmmmmmmmm...
i guess Tebow and Mommie also thanked god
for the love they received from Alabama...
sheesh, onward christian soldiers...

The vote question asks if CBS should pull the ad, however, the results show a different question reflecting the opposing view: The results shows asking if the Super Bowl should include devisive social or political content. Therefore, if you answer yes to the original poll question, it appears in the results as if you answered yes to its ok to include divisive content.

something is wrong with that poll.

Jehmu Greene has acknowledged that she has not seen the ad.It still wouldn`t change her opinion that Mrs.Tebow should have aborted her son in respect to the sacred sacrament of the left:Roe V Wade.A woman must have the right to choose...but only if she makes the choice to eliminate her unborn child.No other choice is acceptable or to be considered and Ms.Greene reinforces that reality.

You should be ashamed, You asked if the Tebow ad should be pulled but when you vote and the results come up the question is completely different so if you voted yes, it should be pulled when you click vote you actually voted yes that ads such as these should be permitted. Shame on you for allowing this

This poll is skewed, and so scr*wed.

I agree with a post by LillyP. This poll is dishonest and requires attention to detail instead of to the words of the article or the lead up to the poll.

The last paragraph prior to the poll's question:

"What do you think? Should Super Bowl ads contain divisive religious, social or political content? Should CBS pull the ad?"

The last question leads the reader to think "No" if they are pro-life, and "Yes" if they are pro-choice.

Yet the poll question:

"Should Super Bowl ads include divisive social or political content?"

would be 'yes' for a pro-lifer, and 'no' for a pro-choicer.

Nasty little twist Washington Post. If you want to run an honest poll you should do so honestly.

Does anybody REALLY make such a monumental a decision as to whether or not to terminate a pregnancy based on a Super Bowl commercial?
Posted by: lepidopteryx
* * *
Hey, I make the monumental decision about what beer to drink based on Super Bowl ads, so what the heck, why not add medical procedures as well!

Mr. Tebow is a national hero, someone wrote above. Really? Did I somehow miss the newspaper story about his rescue of Haitian earthquake victims or his enlistment and service in the military in a combat zone or his donation of time and money to cleaning up a downtrodden neighbourhood. After I stopped laughing hysterically, I felt unutterable sadness that there are really sentient humans who could really believe that a college football player is a national hero just for playing a game.

By the way, I voted No (to the original question, not the rephrase on the results screen), not because I agree with the nutjobs at Focus on the Family or Pam Tebow's callous disregard of medical advice, but because I believe in free speech, and that means taking the good, the bad, and the repugnant. Those of you ranting about pulling the ad should go back and read the Bill of Rights. Denial of rights is exactly what the anti-choice forces are all about -- don't sink to their level.

I'd like to say no, but since the consistency-challenged CBS wouldn't allow the UCC ad a few years back, I have to say yes, I'd like it pulled. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, you know. Truth is that no one should be barred, but if one is, then all are.

{snip}On the other hand, plenty of Heisman winners never make the pro cut, so time will tell.......{snip}
---------
@persiflage: I wouldn't worry about Tebow the NFL player much. You're probably aware that one of the threads of pop wisdom involves just how few Heisman-winning quarterbacks were successful in the NFL. Or, more to the point, were/are not. To be fair, there have been a few (Roger Staubach, Jim Plunkett, for example), but many more that tanked (Gino Torretta, Ty Detmer, Charlie Ward, Danny Wuerffel, Eric Crouch, Chris Weinke) or were on an NFL roster but can hardly be called a success (Doug Flutie, Troy Smith, Andre Ware). And look what just happened to Sam Bradford. The jury's still out on Palmer and Leinart. As for Tebow himself, he blew his wad early by winning as a sophomore, meaning to me he's on the downswing.

"On Faith" declares that THE AD is divisive. "On Faith" says CBS is airing a "divisive" ad. "On Faith" doesn't make the case that an ad telling the story of a woman's decision to have a child is "divisive", "On Faith" just declares that it is. Proving once again that "On Faith" is not about faith, but about left-wing politics. Constantly. Forever and ever. Amen.

The Post's poll fiasco is one reason I shy away from polls in general. At their worst, they tend to mislead, skew or inaccurately represent the views of those who participate. One cannot add a qualifier when participating in a poll

As far as the ad is concerned, I'll reserve judgement on its content until I see it.

Having said that, I think CBS needs to be careful accepting political, religious and/or cultural advertising during a major sports entertainment event such as the Super Bowl. The media company is opening itself up to a fairness issue in terms of allowing any and all organizations who have the money to advocate a particular position, whether pro-life, pro-choice, or otherwise to do so.

I don't think the controversy lies so much in the anticipated message as it does in the incongruent nature of the venue in which it will be displayed. Imagine legions of football fans, with a beer in one hand, and a nacho cheese-dipped taco chip in the other, seriously responding to what may well turn out to be a lecture on morality.

In the end, the 2.5 million dollars that Focus on the Family is reputedly spending on this ad might be put to use in a more effective and direct fashion - such as direct aid to families suffering from our current economic downturn.

The ad will be as inappropriate as an ad that Presents Cheney, Rove, Bush and Gonzales as doing the right "Christian" thing when they invaded Iraq.

Disgusting to use the Superbowl as as Ideology Ad source. Disgusting! Too bad that the Sponsors weren't aborted.

7900rmc

You wrote, " not because I agree with the nutjobs at Focus on the Family or Pam Tebow's callous disregard of medical advice,"

Are you serious about "Pam Tebow's callous disregard of medical advice"?

Maybe more people should have "callous disregard", as in making up their own minds, rather than letting the dictates of others tell them what to do.

I know virtually nothing about this situation but it does seem that the "medical advice" was given and Pam Tebow made the decision that she made.

You also wrote, " Denial of rights is exactly what the anti-choice forces are all about -- don't sink to their level."

Just who are the "anti-choice forces"?

Is it those that have "callous disregard" and make their own decision or those that follow "medical advice" and make no choice of their own?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

JefComment

You wrote, "Whatever you think of that (censoring, sensible, etc.), we are surely headed for a lot more "issue" ads in our precious tv space, given the USC's recent decision on corporations and elections.

I'm not so sure I love that."

We can pretend that there are no "issues" out there and stick our heads in the sand like an ostrich or we can save our "precious tv space" for the important things in life like not having streaks on our drinking glasses or which "new and improved" product we now can't live without even tho last week we were able to or some other such nonsense to use our "precious tv space" for.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies."
a quote from Justice Douglas which reflects my confirmed judgment. Repeal of Roe v. Wade would throw the whole abortion question back to the individual states and would precipitate a couple of generations of additional state and federal litigation. The solution is persuasion, to change people's minds and hearts and this can only be accomplished with free speech.

What a crappy trick - you pose one question, then show the results underneath an entirely different question. This ad should never be shown - it's manipulative right-wing BS. And this site is a steaming pile of it.

"It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies."
is a quote from Justice Douvglas and reflects my confirmed judgment that persuasion, and that neither legislation nor judcial action will ultimately bring the needed solution to the devisive issue of abortion. Only persuasion can change people's minds and hearts and this can only come through free speech.

There is certainly a preponderant weight of opinion on TV and other media that abortion is the best alternative. Who is harmed by someone voicing the contrarian opinion that I disagreed, and that in my case not aborting was the right decision? She is entitled to her view, and the time to say it.

First, it's actually a pro-choice situation that gave Ms. Tebow the opportunity to employ her personal beliefs. How Ironic.
Second, Fthe NFL; they've got Hank Williams Jr. Appearing at republican events wearing whatever local team jersey; they're already a partisan organization.
Fthe NFL.

First, it's actually a pro-choice situation that gave Ms. Tebow the opportunity to employ her personal beliefs. How Ironic.
Second, Fthe NFL; they've got Hank Williams Jr. Appearing at republican events wearing whatever local team jersey; they're already a partisan organization.
Fthe NFL.

2.5 million could pay for a lot of birth control and prevention of abortion through prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

Imagine the scene. An ad for beer or cars, with lots of pretty young large american breats, followed by this religious crap, then another ad for tampons or "feminine wash" immediately thereafter.

Sandwiched between breasts and twats, that's the place you want your religious commercials. Right.

I believe that Tim Tebow and CBS have a right to air the ad, but I wish they would not. In the future, we will probably have to sit through advocacy ads of all kinds, especially if we are watching in a venue where we are unable to change the channel.

Pretty predictable. Tebow has no class whatsoever, it's all about me, me, me to that guy. At least he'll flop in the NFL and then we won't be afflicted with his presence any longer.

Feminists are always free to put forward an advertisement of their choosing. Of course they won't, becuase all their interested in is muzzling all opinions, except those they deem worthwhile...whether held by an man or woman.

How on earth is a mother saying she's glad she didn't have an abortion "divisive"? Are there people out there who believe she should have aborted her son? I find it disturbing, astonishing, and utterly amazing that anyone would try to find something objectionable about a mother expressing love for her son in this manner. Shame on those people.

When MoveOn.org tried to buy a Super Bowl ad, they were turned down flat. Told that political ads weren't appropriate during the game. Funny how the network scheduled a conservative political ad with no questions asked. If anti-abortionists get to run this commercial, we'll know once and for all that rules only apply to liberals.

NO! A nationally televised sporting event is NOT an appropriate venue for airing any sectarian religious view. The Tebows are simple minded literal Bible nincompoops, who belive the Earth was created by God in six days exactly 6004 years ago. Is CBS prepared to promote that brainless nonsense, also?

Equal time for women's right to choose. Or maybe for Freakonomics author to explain how improving women's right to choose decreased violent crime 20 years later. Or showcasing a few specimens whose mothers should have chosen differently. Oh, I forgot -- some of these will be on the field.

Who cares? Does anyone think that this commercial will carry any weight with a bunch of beer swilling men?

I doubt there are any expectations that the ad will cause thousands of newly pregnant moms to rush away from death clinics.

The ad signifies a breakthrough in trying to address abortion. It is obvious that pushing for a legal remedy has only alienated people further.

We must address abortion the same way we did with HIV-Aids. We must appeal to the hearts and minds of everyone and convince them selfishness, irresponsibility, and lack of accountability are NOT the general order of things. That the hard decisions in life, even when they go against everything that we hope and dream for, make us stronger and make us better.

What other kinds of political and religious advocacy commercials can we expect to see now? Will the other side(s) in this culture war argument be given the chance to waste their money like this too?

Will we soon be seeing the last barely concealed boobs selling beer, only to be replaced by the images of aborted fetuses so favored by the anti-abortion crowd?

I'm glad I lost track of the superbowl back in the 90's. Who is playing this year? Are there any cities with new teams? Have they had any female cornerbacks by now?

There are more important questions you know.

The Super Bowl has the right to say yes or no as the business owners and that is all that matters to me.

Sure, let 'em run the ad. But also let a pro-choicer (with the same kind of money the anti-choice crowd has--good luck finding him or her) run an ad depicting a back alley abortion in all of its gory details. Show the woman after the "operation" being taken to the emergency room with the doctors treating her massive internal bleeding (if she's lucky enough to be transported to a hospital that won't throw her out on the street untreated because of no medical insurance).
How about that, all of you righteous anti-choicers? Fair is fair, right? Don't you believe that an opposing view should be shown next to this ad?
I didn't think so . . .

I, for one, don't feel I have enough information to determine if the commercial crosses the line or not. I can imagine several versions where the commercial could be apolitical and focus on the football and family aspects of the story. So I think it's more than possible that some people are overeacting.

What a sneaky poll. The question askes "Should CBS pull the ad?" Presumably Pro-lifers will vote no and pro-chocers vote yes.

Then after you vote, the question is listed as "Should Super Bowl ads contain divisive content?" A very different question and could have bvery different responses from voters.

Shouldn't you be happy that someone chose Life? Are you not glad your Mom did ?

Come on, if there is ONE DAY in the year where politics and religion on the back burner is SUPER BOWL SUNDAY... Seriously, can't we just leave it be for one day and focus on the one thing that makes our country great: football, beer, junk food and having a good time.

Who really cares what Tebow says? After all, he is a bonehead athlete. Geez..

Hello, dear ladies and gentlemen,
Buy now proposed a "New Year's gift '. A rare opportunity, what are you waiting for? Quickly move your mouse bar.
commodity is credit guarantee, you can rest assured of purchase, coolforsale will provide service for you all, welcome to
1. sport shoes : Jordan ,Nike, adidas, Puma, Gucci, LV, UGG , etc. including women shoes and kids shoes.
2. T-Shirts : BBC T-Shirts, Bape T-Shirts, Armani T-Shirts, Polo T-Shirts,etc.
3. Hoodies : Bape hoody, hoody, AFF hoody, GGG hoody, ED hoody ,etc.
4. Jeans : Levis jeans , Gucci jeans, jeans, Bape jeans , DG jeans ,etc.NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 --- NFL Jersey $35--- NBA Jersey $ 34 --- MLB Jersey $ 35--- Jordan Six Ring_m $36 --- Air Yeezy_m $ 45--- T-Shirt_m $ 25 --- Jacket_m $ 36
--- Hoody_m $ 50 --- Manicure Set $20 For details, please consult , http://www.coolforsale.com

The NFL lost me as a viewer when it allowed vick to play again. Companies that buy advertising during NFL games are losing me as a customer for advertising after vick was allowed back into the NFL.

I have absolutely no problem with boycotting CBS when they take the anti-women stand they will if they let that reactionary-moron spot focus on the "family" (except that women are apparently NOT part of the family when it comes to their lives and health) wants to run. I'm positive I will not be the only person who will act in such a fashion so have fun with a smaller viewing audience CBS.

I'm pro choice, and also pro freedom of speech.

Tebow should worry more about his football career.. Sounds like the great qb from florida might not cut the mustard as a qb in nfl. As for the ad, I wonder how much of the information is true? Perhaps she was sick but doubt it was life threatening and if it was... she at least had the choice...And what if she had died, who would have taken care of her other kids? Would they have sued the doctor? A lot of money to spend on an ad that most won't care or change their mind.

I don't have a problem with the ad (I find it hilarious when Sarah Palin and Tebow's mom publicly state their pro-choice experiences). But if I'm the NFL, I'm not so happy about the ad. The NFL (where Tim hopes to work next year) is a broad national brand that sells best by remaining non-political. I expect that the league welcomes his opinions but does not wants to keep hot-button political issues out of its biggest event of the year.

Hyjanks,

Perhaps a better anti-life commercial might involve a family discussing the potential consequences of having sex. About the responsibility and accountability that might result.

Instead, current family discussions are more akin to "Try to remember to wear protection!" (Even though condoms fail to protect against HIV up to 31% of the time).

It is up to CBS, but if the Christian group has the money to pay for the ad then I say let them have their voice! This is america after all. Whether you like the message or not is not the point. The point is whether they should be allowed to air the commercial. And for anyone that says no does not believe in freedom of speech.

But one poster made a good point. If the Christian group is smart, they could use this opportunity to satisfy both sides of the argument. According to the story Mrs. Tebow was given a CHOICE of whether to have an abortion or to let her baby come to term. She chose life, and look what happened because of her choice. Just because you are pro choice doesn't mean you are anti-abortion.

I find it quite amusing and also hypocritical that so many of the so-called "Choice" groups and sanctimonious posters have such a problem with an ad that says " Choose Life" but, these same people are perfectly OK with the other Super Bowl ads that are scheduled i.e. men and women parading around in their underwear in various stages of undress!

Just shows you what's become of this country. Sad.

Your poll is faulty. It asks two opposing questions. If you think that opinion ads should NOT be in the SuperBowl, then you are likely to want CBS to pull the ad. That would require a NO answer to the first qustion and a YES answer to the second, and visa versa for the opposing point of view. The poll results, therefore, are not even valid for curiosity's sake.

Larry,

"And what if she had died, who would have taken care of her other kids?"

Good question. One that should be discussed PRIOR to engaging in an activity that creates such a problem.

It's simple, isn't it? Don't want to have kids (for whatever reason) right now? Don't have sexual intercourse.

sure are a lot of people assuming facts not in evidence here regarding the compensation and motives of the Teabows. I think Superbowl commercials have gotten dreadful so I don't have much of an opinion either way. Would you guys have a problem if the spot ran in an exhibition game next season? Hockey match? Oprah's last show? Just curious.

I'm pro-choice but I see no problem with issue advocacy ads like this. It's a market place of ideas.

Regardless of my opinion on the content of the ad (I am adamantly pro-choice, as it happens) it seems inappropriate to try and pressure the network to decide what social content is and is not appropriate.

Jim Dobson is a poisonous bigot and I will be glad to see him to go to his reward in due time (and I am open to bets on whether God has the same reward in mind as Dobson), but his right to public expression is not limited for that reason, no matter how loudly he will be screaming in hellfire hereafter.

Pam Tebow's story doesn't make sense -- her doctor suggested an abortion due to a health problem that could kill her during a pregnancy. So, the doctor was covering his ass in case she died while pregnant. Who knows what Mr. Tebow would have done if there had been an adverse outcome. And there is something else I am confused about -- Tebow was born in the Phillipines, a heavily Catholic country where abortion is illegal. Was she in the U.S. when her doctor examined her? Or in the Phillipines?

I don't really see what's wrong with a mother saying she's glad she didn't have an abortion. Having said that, I don't see the point of it, either. I don't see it as an "anti-choice" ad because she is reinforcing that she had a choice and is happy with the outcome. I view it as a feel-good story, like she and her son overcame the dire medical prognosis to go on to live happy, productive lives. My take-away is "to thine own-self be true." How is that divisive?

I am pro-choice, and I am not threatened by people who are happy about the choices they have made.

I think the so-called leaders of the "pro-choice" movement really turn-off open-minded people when they appear offended by people who have exercised their right to not have an abortion. Do they think doctors should have forced her to have an abortion? That's as bad as forcing someone to give birth.

ABOUT THE POLL: The question that one answers is different from the one presented with the results. I agree with the earlier post that the results are invalid, even as a non-scientific poll.

Free speech is free speech for everyone, and, as the recent SCOTUS decision points out, especially if you can pay for it.

I'm pro-choice, and IMO instead of complaining about the Tebow ad, NARAL and its allies should have demanded that CBS air a pro-choice ad of their own.

Of course THAT would have sent every Right To Lifer screaming through the roof, but it would have made for an interesting educational moment. There are plenty of people on both sides of this issue whose primary motive seems to be to force the other side to shut up.

Another example of how this column bears little relation to "religion"; just another abortion spat with a TV overlay.

blah who cares. If someone pays for the air time then let it be. It's when a network picks and chooses which topics or groups can be aired that it really becomes a problem.

ps Tebow is a d-bag.

Actually, liberal groups HAVE tried to get SB ads on in the past, but were denied that "free speech right" by the networks. (All of them, including the so-called "liberal" NBC.) And yeah, people object to the sleazy GoDaddy and Lingerie Bowl ads, too. But, any publicity is good publicity in some people's minds.

Mrs. Tebow had a choice. So do I. It's called a TiVo. It enables me to zap through commercials and dumb talking heads. Don't like the commercial? Don't watch it. Don't bellyache about it. Ignore it. Because generating controversy is what the whole thing is about.

They're having this commercial for the same reason the washington post is talking about it - attention. Maybe people aren't clicking on the ads, but the post is getting pageview stats they can claim when they charge for their ads.

same thing with the nfl. Controversy gets attention. Attention means viewers, more viewers means more money charged for the beer commercials.

By the way, what kind of ads do they have on the superbowl these days? I haven't watched football in years.

Why should it bother people who call themselves pro-choice if women watch Pam Tebow and her son Tim on Super Bowl Sunday and freely decide to choose life? Would fewer abortions be a bad thing? As for the argument that the ad should not be shown because it is divisive, since when do we broadcast only things on which the American people all agree? In that case, the Super Bowl itself could not be broadcast.

As for the argument that the ad should not be shown because it is divisive, since when do we broadcast only things on which the American people all agree?

There's a time and place for everything. Sports contests are entertainment first and foremost, where the conflict is a form of play for both athletes and fans. Their artificially binary nature of the contests provides a type of sanctuary from the messy gray areas of the real world. When one drags a political issue into that realm, it unnecessarily changes the tone by injecting real conflict. (That's also one of my objections to celebrities using award ceremonies as political platforms.)

I'm not arguing that CBS should pull the Tebow ad. Nor am I arguing that if a group like NARAL submitted an ad, that the network should also pull the ad as well. I'm saying that both sides should voluntarily take their dispute elsewhere, to a more appropriate venue. Can't we have one day without both sides trying to hijack the microphone?

Given that the Super Bowl audience is primarily males (except for strange women like me who love football), wouldn't an ad for condoms be more appropriate? Or a PSA for good fatherhood skills? I can see some drunken lout now saying, "You can't have an abortion, b***h, because my kid may turn out to be a Heismann Trophy winner!"

Just a few points:

1. Allowing Tebow and the network to air this ad is the personification of free speech. Fair enough, but instead of touting their saintly selves the same way Tim pastes Bible references to his face, I strongly believe that the money would be better spent promoting contraception and adoption. How many medically-fragile infants, special-needs children, and hard-to-place teens fall by the wayside each year while some anti-abortionists spend time and money highlighting the baby pageant winners and child prodigies as their carefully-selected, heart-warming little showpieces? Put the cash and airtime where it really matters.

2. It's the Superbowl--as offensive as some of the ads already are, there are some pretty funny and creative ones, too. Politics don't really belong there.

3. Tebow is a limelight-seeker who tries to pass himself off as a humble Christian. Obviously he doesn't know how to best spread his message, and from what I've read, he's not performing that well on the practice field, either. Timmy, get thee to a seminary.

4. Finally, regarding abortion itself, I'm very grateful that a dear friend and co-worker of mine had access to doctors with the knowledge and specialized skills to perform abortion-related procedures when her ectopic pregnancy ruptured a fallopian tube. If the surgeons hadn't been able AND allowed to perform laparoscopic surgery to remove the fetus, she would have died, just like many other women who suffer extreme hemorrhaging due to ectopic pregnancies. It was a heart-breaking loss for her and her husband, but they're both extremely thankful to the doctors for saving her life. So am I.

There's something hollow in the arguments against showing this ad. Why is this story so threatening? What's to be afraid of?

And aren't women grown up enough to hear it without needing to be shielded from it?

The Tebow story is a remarkable one. It deserves to be told.

Jehmu Greene hates freedom of speech.
Jehmu Greene wants to control free speech.
Jehmu Greene should appreciate freedom, her ancestors did.

Here's a simpler way of making my point about time and place - imagine if someone invited to give a toast at a wedding or an anniversary party (emphasis on invited) turned the toast into a political rant.

Andrea,
It's not about not wanting women to hear that Pam Tebow carried a pregnancy she was advised to abort and everything turned out groovy for her and little Timmy.

Yes, there is freedom of speech, but there is also a time and place for every kind of speech, and this just seems like a really strange place and time for an ad from Focus on the Family, especially when the network has a general policy of not airing issue ads during this particular broadcast.

lepidopteryx

Concerning your comments on the 29th at 10:23 AM, doesn't Tebow play football and just might some people find this a "human interest" story.

Seems as if a lot of people with "open minds" sure do get upset if something goes against their "open-mindedness", does it not?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Ah nothing brings the idiotic out of us like abortion. First, I'm pro choice but could care less if they air the ad. To me the ad seems like its pro choice for if she didn’t have that option there would never be the commercial.
What irks me about the ad is CBS’s love affair with Tebow. He is their great white “pure” hype who they can’t seem to get enough of. This seem like nothing more to me than a perceived liberal network trying to maintain their southern viewers in the SEC. Fox is probably making a move on SEC football.

It takes real courage, in today's world, to be a Christian. Tim Tebow and his family are the best role models for "doing the work Christ instructed us to do" that I have ever seen. Forget Sarah Palin and other politicians who say they are Christian but can't seem to follow the directions given in the Bible; but, please, listen to the Tebow family. Put your faith in Christ and please listen to the message Tim and his Mom are saying.
God Bless.

This spot is not about Tim Tebow, or his mother, or her choice not to abort. This spot is about Focus on the Family advertising their anti-abortion message. Like all the others who buy a Superbowl ad slot, they have something to sell. Christianity is a product, just like Budweiser. It was manufactured by mankind to sell to fellow men to make them feel good and give them hope. Focus on the Family is a tax exempt organization, as are most religious "not for profit" groups. Collectively they spend hundreds of millions of dollars influencing governments of the world. And since they are tax exempt, the US taxpayer is subsidizing their efforts as well. Think about it... As much as I personally loath FOTF, they are completely within their rights to buy air time and advertise, just like anyone else. Tebow and his mom are just good choices for the spot during a Superbowl game, probably less so for an ad running during the World Series baseball playoffs. Millions of women make the same choice Tebow's mom did as millions make the opposite choice. The right to chose must be preserved.

other people are NOT allowed to put up ads regarding their opinions!

that is basis for opposition to the Focus ad.

I'll be boycotting the Superbowl entirely. It doesn't matter what the content of the Tebow anti-abortion ad is, it's the fact that some group is USING what used to be one of the few times that everyone could get together to watch a major sporting event and get away from the politics, arguing and proselytizing that inundates out daily lives and have a good time. I don't WANT to see someone pushing their politics and their morality in my face during a sporting event. I would feel exactly the same way if it were any politically-charged ad, whether it was pro-abortion, gay rights or whatever. Keep your politics out of our sports.

If CBS and the NFL don't pull the ad, my eyes will be watching a different network. Period.