Abortion Rights Groups Go Nuclear on Tim Tebow Ad
Advocates of legalized abortion bristle when pro-life advocates call them pro-abortion. Their typical position is best defined by President Clinton’s position on the procedure: that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare."
A 2003 CNN poll did show some amazing results regarding abortion restriction questions asked in straightforward ways. Americans oppose abortion in the second (68%) and third (84%) trimesters. Americans likewise support informed consent laws (88%), a 24-hour waiting period (78%), parental consent for minors (73%), and even spousal notification for married women (72%).
Yet not many on the left advocate for these policies. Indeed, each restriction on abortion only passes as a result of herculean efforts to shepherd the bill through the legislature and then fend off years of court challenges. While many Americans are sincerely pro-choice, the leftist groups that claim to represent pro-choice Americans have shown themselves to be sincerely pro-abortion.
First consider the Super Bowl ad starring college football standout Tim Tebow. The ad is a thirty-second spot produced by Focus on the Family that tells the story of how Tebow’s mother continued her pregnancy despite complications that threatened her life. Abortion rights groups have gone nuclear with calls for the ad not to be aired and attacks on Tebow and Focus on the Family. (A second ad, also featuring Tebow, was announced by the pro-life group on the Friday before the Super Bowl.)
The ad doesn’t advocate for or against any legislation. It only encourages women to choose to continue their pregnancies. If the goal of pro-choice America is to reduce the number of abortions, why does anyone have a problem with the ad?
Consider also the attempts to crackdown on crisis pregnancy centers with nuisance laws. In Baltimore, the city approved an ordinance requiring pregnancy centers to post signs indicating they don’t do abortions or offer contraception, but the city refused to require that abortion clinics inform patients they don’t offer abortion alternatives. In Washington state, legislation backed by the National Abortion Right Action League and Planned Parenthood would regulate crisis pregnancy centers, which provide $15 million in free services to women in crisis pregnancies.
The argument for this regulation centers on a few allegations of inaccurate information being provided. Some of this is not so much inaccurate as it is disputed between the two sides of the abortion debate, or the information is accurate but politically incorrect. One witness at a committee hearing said that one pregnancy center told a woman that some studies showed a link between abortion and breast cancer. The truth? Some studies have.
But again, why is the left attacking pregnancy centers? They help to reduce the number of abortions. Isn’t the goal to make abortion rare?