Comments on: I Bet He Says Swell

By: Heidi

Heidi — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 04:15:28 +0000

I don’t believe i ever said NOW was pro-abortion. I understand that no one is. However, the pro-choice movement itself often comes of as angry and stifling anyone who doesn’t agree with them – that being said, so does the “pro-life” side.

Unfortunately, the kicker in this whole debate is that CBS, as a private entity, has the right to pick and choose their advertising whether we like it or not. It doesn’t seem to me that NOW even TRIED to run an ad countering the Tebow ad – the Tebow, as many people fail to acknowledge “celebrates family and life” never once does it say abortion. What is there to be so upset about if they’re not saying ABORTIONS ARE WRONG? It seems to me that if NOW could get if their high horse, they’d realize this ad might just go toward a greater goal – reducing pregnancies, reducing abortions and encouraging responsibility/abstinence which is something BOTH sides should be able to rally around.

By: J

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 04:04:44 +0000

Perhap NOW is countering the ad because it doesn’t have the million dollar fee it takes to run an ad during the Superbowl? It seems to me you are stifling NOW’s decision to speak out against Tebow, not NOW stifling Tebow. I don’t know the answer to the problem, but I do know FOR SURE that NOW’s message is not PRO abortion– no one is pro abortion. NOW is pro-CHOICE– you have the right to choose to carry to term, and another woman should have the right to choose abort if that is what is best in her situation.

By: KT

KT — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:06:32 +0000

Sorry, the Tebows lived in the Phillipines at the time.

By: KT

KT — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:05:51 +0000

I am not a member of NOW, nor have I been on their site recently, but I don’t think that anyone believes that abortions should be used as birth control.

Anyway, I think that:

#1 CBS should either stick to their “no advocacy ads allowed policy” or allow other advocacy ads (they did admit that the bad economy was a reason for allowing the ad- you are just making MORE money by allowing other advocacy ads)

#2 that Focus on the Family is probably wasting their money because most people are drunk when they watch the Superbowl

#3 According to Gloria Allred, Mrs. Tebow didn’t have a choice in whether she had an abortion or not. Abortion has been illegal in Malaysia since the 1930s and with stiff penalties, doctors there would not have suggested the procedure. So the ad is misleading in that she didn’t choose life, she simply didn’t have a choice. However, the ad won’t discuss that part.

By: The Modern Gal

The Modern Gal — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:57:47 +0000

I will, though, respectfully disagree with Anamarie on one point . CBS CAN pick and choose what they want to air as advertisements. It’s not really a First Amendment issue because it’s a commercial venture not the government we’re talking about.

Please don’t take that the wrong way. I’m one of the biggest First Amendment advocates out there. I think CBS should consider the ManCrunch ad, but they don’t have to.

By: The Modern Gal

The Modern Gal — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:46:55 +0000

Sally Jenkins is one of my favorite writers.

I don’t agree with abortion, but I think the “pro-life” (I put that in quotation marks because I don’t think “pro-choice” is “anti-life”) goes about it all wrong. It should be about getting rid of the stigmas that lead women to abortion, like poverty and shame. Making abortions illegal won’t make them go away. It just means women will have unsafe, unregulated procedures.

That said, I don’t really care whether CBS runs the ad or not, but it does seem like there’s a double standard at play.

By: Anamarie

Anamarie — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:49:36 +0000

At first, I was all gung-ho about it (I am who I am, man) . Then Mr.Ford brought up a good point–well did NOW try to do a counter ad? The answer was no (and stopped me in my tracks). This is where the problem rests: when CBS decides to air an “advocacy” ad–they need to be open to all advocates. Like how they rejected ManCrunch (a gay dating site) from advertising — the DOUBLE STANDARD *is* very much a problem. You can’t pick and choose the first amendment,dude.

Here’s the ad, btw:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28/mancrunch-superbowl-ad-ga_n_440773.html

And for those of you saying it’s inappropriate to see two men kissing, ie “it’s not family friendly,” well I would counter that abortion–choice or anti, is *not* family friendly, either.

By: Kristen

Kristen — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:26:42 +0000

I think the issue people are having is that CBS, as a matter of practice, does not air commercials that are controversial or advocacy ads. That’s why everyone is so up in arms. Personally, I am pro-choice, but I also worked in advertising and believe in free speech. It’s not the ad itself that is the problem, it’s that CBS is all of a sudden igorning it’s own rule.

By: Jen

Jen — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:05:31 +0000

I couldn’t agree with you more. I’m pro-life; I believe that abortion is murder. But I am not so close-minded in my opinion that I believe shoving pictures of dead babies in pregnant mothers’ faces is going to change anything. You are right: in order to decrease the number of unneeded abortions, we need to listen. We need to not accuse those who we assume to understand.

By: Liz

Liz — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:42:47 +0000

I dunno. I like the ad. I like the message. It’s a beautiful story, much like Sarah Palin’s. But it drives me crazy because they then forget that they had a CHOICE.

It’s conflicting, especially since… well, you know where I work.

But I think that much ado is being made over something where the more ado that is made helps both sides in it. I’mjustsayin.