Opponents of Tim Tebow's Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad Should Make Their Own

| by Foundation for Moral Law

By Ben DuPre

Hell hath no fury like pro-abortionists faced with the truth.

Pro-aborts like the National Organization for Women are throwing public tantrums over CBS’s decision to run an ad featuring Univ. of Florida quarterback and evangelical Christian Tim Tebow and his mom Pam during the Super Bowl this Sunday. Pam tells how, when she became ill in the Philippines while pregnant with Tim, she rejected a doctor’s recommendation that she abort her child. The Super Bowl ad, financed by Focus on the Family, tells this life-affirming story that, with good reason, has NOW and the like worried.

One of the best takes on this tempest-in-a-TV-spot comes from Sally Jenkins, a “pro-choice” staff writer at The Washington Post. In  Tebow’s Super Bowl ad isn’t intolerant; its critics are, Jenkins takes apart Tebow’s feminist critics and the “group-think, elitism and condescension of the ‘National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.’” Jenkins thinks the Tebows’ story is a good one, and notes that NOW & Co. are revealing themselves to be not pro-choice, but pro-abortion. After all, they’re trying to shut down a story of a women making a choice about abortion. Jenkins notes:

Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one.

Jenkins even praises Tebow for his chastity and self-control, a rarity even in college sports that has largely earned him unbelieving snickers. You really should read this entire column.

Jenkins should be applauded for standing up for Tebow’s message, even if she admits she disagrees with many of his beliefs. What she does not understand, however, is that radical, pro-aborts cannot afford to have the truth about life exposed in such a public forum (and the threat that the “choice” of abortion poses to lives like other future Tim Tebows of the world).

Even The New York Times editorial board opposes the censorship that NOW & Co. are calling for in this case:

The would-be censors are on the wrong track. Instead of trying to silence an opponent, advocates for allowing women to make their own decisions about whether to have a child should be using the Super Bowl spotlight to convey what their movement is all about: protecting the right of women like Pam Tebow to make their private reproductive choices.

In the end, CBS is standing by its decision, and the opposition to the Tebow ad has only raised awareness and support for it nationwide.

Strategically, NOW & Co. might have been smarter to ignore the ad rather than try to abort it, but, you see, it’s not in the abortion industry’s DNA to allow truth or accurate information to see the light of day, especially a day like Super Bowl Sunday.

The Times’s suggestion of an opposing ad promoting “the right of women like Pam Tebow to make their private reproductive choices” is more fair than censorship, but it also (necessarily) ignores the point of the Tebow ad: there would be no Tim Tebow if Pam had made a different choice. Tim’s life, from conception onward, is precious and sacred, no more and no less than Pam’s or any other unborn child’s. No thanks to NOW, women and pregnant mothers around the nation will get to see that message during the Super Bowl.

In the end, maybe NOW should run its own ad: one that shows what would have happened to Tim if his mother had made a different choice.