FOTF Buys Pre-Game TV Time for Second Ad, Neither Ad Mentions Abortion Specifically

ChelseaAbortion, Pro Life1 Comment



I just told you that the Focus on the Family ad with Pam and Tim Tebow is set to air during the first quarter of the Super Bowl this coming Sunday. Now it appears that the group has bought time in the pregame show to air a second ad four times. From USA Today:

The new ad also features star quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. It was filmed in Orlando last month at the same time as the group’s controversial — though yet unseen — in-game ad.

Although Focus on the Family won’t reveal its ads’ details, CEO Jim Daly says the original ad was rejected by CBS. In it, Pam Tebow, who was advised by a doctor to have an abortion for medical reasons when pregnant with her son, said, “Both of our lives were at risk.”

“They felt that was too much,” he says. “So we dropped the line. We didn’t fight them.” The word “abortion” is never used.

The ad is “an open discussion on the sanctity of human life — not just the issue of abortion,” Daly says. It was made for less than $100,000 with “a bit of humor in it — in fitting with the Super Bowl theme.”

Did you catch that? The word abortion is never used – in either ad! I have suspected this all along as, I’m sure, the mere mention of the word abortion in any ad, whatever the context, is probably automatic grounds for refusal. And this is why the pro-aborts who have been making such a huge deal out of the ad are going to end up looking really silly (as if they don’t already) once everyone has a chance to finally see it. Pro-choice Washington Post sports columnist Sally Jenkins says it best:

If the pro-choice stance is so precarious that a story about someone who chose to carry a risky pregnancy to term undermines it, then CBS is not the problem.

Neither, I would ad, is Focus on the Family.

One Comment on “FOTF Buys Pre-Game TV Time for Second Ad, Neither Ad Mentions Abortion Specifically”

  1. As produced in the first Quarter of the Super Bowl game, the ad was so tepid as to seem pointless, if a viewer was unaware of the controversy.
    I suppose that the effort was worth it, and the viewership of the ad was probably greater than it would have been absent the controversy.
    TeaPot562

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *