Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Tim Tebow rushes into the abortion debate

Abortion rights groups are angry that CBS will run a pro-life ad during the Super Bowl from the rabidly homophobic and anti-abortion group Focus on the Family. Few have actually seen the 30-second spot. But we know that it will feature football phenom Tim Tebow, whose mother chose to ignore her doctor's advice to terminate her pregnancy.

Did you catch that? Ms. Tebow was presented with a choice.

She was a missionary in the Philippines when she was stricken with amoebic dysentery. Doctors feared for her life and urged her to abort her fetus. That she would give birth to a son who would become the first underclassman to win the coveted Heisman Trophy is wonderful. Also wonderful is that Ms. Tebow was able to make an informed decision. Her doctors weren't muzzled by far-right zealots who want women to carry their pregnancies to term no matter what. And she wasn't forced by those doctors to end her pregnancy.

Focus on the Family is touting Ms. Tebow's right to choose while trying to deny the same opportunity -- the same right -- to other women. Whether CBS is right to run this advocacy ad after rejecting others in the past, I'll leave to others for the moment. But abortion rights advocates, such as the National Organization for Women, would do well to point out this hypocrisy with an ad of their own.

By Jonathan Capehart  | January 27, 2010; 8:34 AM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Mourning 'Mac' Mathias
Next: What to watch for in McDonnell's response to Obama

Comments

The question is - would CBS accept an ad by NOW or Planned Parenthood or another group that promotes choice? Or would it give some lame excuse as to why it could not (would not) air it?

Perhaps Focus on the Family will give us some numbers as to how many of its members have adopted unwanted children, crack babies, mentally or physically challenged children, teen-agers who have been shuffled from one foster home to anoter.

Oh - most of the members just talk about the children and how precious they are? Guess they are all talk and no action. Wanting babies to be born no matter the circumstances and then ignoring them from birth until adulthood. Sounds about right for this American Taliban.

Posted by: Utahreb | January 27, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Just like Sarah Palin -- if choice wasn't legal, we'd never have heard that she made one.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 27, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Tebow can be pro-life or pro-choice, just not pro quarterback

Posted by: oaxacavine | January 27, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

I'm confused by the anger on the left about this ad...

I thought the bottom line, for even pro-choicers, is to reduce the number of abortions in this country???

To denigrate this ad is to tell Mrs. Tebow that she made a poor choice.

And you really insult the intelligence of people who see this ad....you want to talk people into having abortions....what's wrong with talking people into choosing life? Isn't it still about choice?

I think the left should be celebrating this ad....

Posted by: boosterprez | January 27, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Let's clarify things: He's a FOOTBALL player from a FOOTBALL factory pitching for a POLITICAL not RELIGIOUS organization. Who really cares what a FOOTBALL player, paid by a fringe POLITICAL outfit (with a tax exemption)has to say?

Posted by: dubhlaoich | January 27, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

If Mr. Tebow were some Hollywood actor promoting abortion rights, the conservatives would tell him to just shut up and act.

Also, Mr. Tebow is not the first underclassman to win the Heisman. There have been many underclassman winners before him, including Doc Blanchard who won it as a junior in 1945, and Archie Griffin who won it twice-as a junior in 1974 and as a senior in 1975.

Posted by: dgloo | January 27, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

The abortion and euthenasia ghouls want no one to question the morality of killing innocent humans. Welcome to the Death Industry.

Posted by: pgr88 | January 27, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Are all football players able to wear little messages under their eyes or other places during a game? If so, we need more female football players. Will the Man wear his little messages on the ad. Is his mother's church donating money to the ad? Perhaps, his mom should be in the ad?

Posted by: judithclaire1939 | January 27, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

@boosterprez: "...you want to talk people into having abortions...."

Statements like that undermine your entire argument. Nobody is pro-abortion. Nobody is trying to talk anybody into having an abortion. If you want to discuss the concept honestly, we can have that debate. But don't suggest that anybody is pro-abortion.

Posted by: dgloo | January 27, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Absolutely right, didn't see the hypocrisy the first time around. Thanks...

Posted by: dcdoug | January 27, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Jonathan- What offends you more?
-Tebow`s mom didn`t get an abortion.
-She exercised what you claim to want...a
CHOICE to keep her child.
To celebrate her CHOICE is unacceptable to the intolerant pro choice mob because it`s evident there is only one choice you can accept...a bag of dismembered body parts in a dumpster.

Posted by: bowspray | January 27, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

How do you place a value on life. Is s troubled life less valuable than another life we label "normal."

Focus on the Family is an organization that has done some great things. My own children were raised partly on it's advice. I grieve that founder James Dobson now advocates some policies that I personally consider unchristian. But the organization is not some underground bunch of crazies.

Monty Keeling

Posted by: cstation | January 27, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Can we just leave these kind of Ads to the Oprah Winfrey show....I just want to watch some football & cook my burgers...

Posted by: RockStorm_Radio | January 27, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

We can have this discussion. We need to continue this very important discussion.

But for crying out loud, not during the Superbowl!!!


This is the crux of the argument.

Posted by: whitneyuevans | January 27, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

This is her story what does the doctor say. Also, this group is known for it's anti-choice views. Will CBS also show a woman who had the opportunity to make a choice and chose to abort to save her life; because of rape and/or incest?

CBS refused to air an ad, from a church, talking about inclusion.

Hypocrites.

Posted by: rlj1 | January 27, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

According to Wikipedia, "Hypocrisy is the act of persistently pretending to hold beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually hold." It sounds to me like the ad is not about whether or not women should have a choice but is pretty straightforward about encouraging women to choose life. This may be an unpopular view, but it is sincerely held so I don't see the ad as hypocritical.

Utah-reb seems to think that pro-life people are just talk but many actually do adopt orphans and parent foster children. I've done so, and I know many others who have as well. In fact, my impression from interactions in these circles is that the vast majority of people who extend themselves in this way do so because they see each human life as so valuable.

Posted by: choco241 | January 27, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

@boosterprez: "...you want to talk people into having abortions...."

Statements like that undermine your entire argument. Nobody is pro-abortion. Nobody is trying to talk anybody into having an abortion. If you want to discuss the concept honestly, we can have that debate. But don't suggest that anybody is pro-abortion.


Posted by: dgloo |
__________________

Oh really? If some are deemed anti-abortion, what is the opposite?

Again, I will say, by denigrating this ad and its message, the left is telling Mrs. Tebow that she made the wrong choice given her situation.

EVERYONE should be encouraged by the strength shown to not take the easy way out, to show no selfishness when faced with the crisis she faced.

I think the left hates that some people are actually selfless....in most cases, abortion is a selfish act, like it or not, and the left hates this fact...

Posted by: boosterprez | January 27, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Tim Tebow is a good athelete and a good guy but he is still a phony self righteous blowhard and this debate has no place in sports and certainly no place in commercials at superbowl. I for one will watch game obviously and ignore the commercial and rethink watching CBS The Christian Conservatives won't be happy till they pull apart this country and ruin it they are much like the Taliban their way or highway sad,sad.Tim should take his bible verses he wears and instead of playing football which he will fail at be a minister go for it but do in CHURCH

Posted by: lildg54 | January 27, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

choco - the hyprocrisy is hugely on the side of CBS, who refused to run liberal-themed advocacy ads during the Bush years, citing network rule against running "controversial" issue advocacy advertising - but yet they turn around and have absolutely no problem running this ad. That's HUGE hypocrisy on the part of CBS.

Posted by: hohandy1 | January 27, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

No one has seen the commercial yet so we don't know if the message is "outlaw abortion" (which I doubt) or simply "choose life" (which seems much more likely).

At least pro-lifers can trot out the children of parents who chose life. Pro-lifers can get testimonials from the greatful friends and family of that nearly aborted child--friends and family that have been touched by that one precious life that was hanging in the balance. The message is that life really is the ONLY choice.

I see no hypocracy here. The message is the same when legal abortion is the law of the land (urging women to choose life) or when it is not (lobbying/urging governments to choose life by keeping abortion illegal unless the life of the mother is at risk).

Posted by: GodFamilyNation | January 27, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

This is her story what does the doctor say. Also, this group is known for it's anti-choice views. Will CBS also show a woman who had the opportunity to make a choice and chose to abort to save her life; because of rape and/or incest?


Posted by: rlj1

______________

If done tastefully, CBS has said that it will any and all comers....Tebow's ad sounds like it will be beautifully done.

And as for your suggestion about putting on an ad for someone who made the equally difficult choice of ending a pregnancy because of rape, incest or poor health? Considering that most abortions are NOT done for those reasons, I'd say the ad might be a bit disingenuous....

Posted by: boosterprez | January 27, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Utahreb stated: "Perhaps Focus on the Family will give us some numbers as to how many of its members have adopted unwanted children, crack babies, mentally or physically challenged children, teen-agers who have been shuffled from one foster home to anoter.

Oh - most of the members just talk about the children and how precious they are? Guess they are all talk and no action. Wanting babies to be born no matter the circumstances and then ignoring them from birth until adulthood. Sounds about right for this American Taliban."

-------------------------

That is really an misrepresentation of the problem. The waiting list for adoption of babies is over 40,000 in this country, but political, legal, financial and 'cultural' considerations prevent many from going to welcoming homes/families. The majority of the crisis in foster care is among older children; notably teens with behavioral issues. Again, it is often the courts or the intervening of certain politically oriented groups that prevent this.

These issues almost always require the use of an adoption legal team and pushes the cost of an adoption into the $15K - $20K (minimum) price range. It is less costly to adopt from China or Honduras.

Ironically, our political/cultural climate has made it too difficult to adopt our own children.

Posted by: WestTexan2008 | January 27, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Just like Sarah Palin -- if choice wasn't legal, we'd never have heard that she made one.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 27, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

GREAT POINT AND VERY RIGHT ON POINT

Posted by: lildg54 | January 27, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

I don't have a problem with the ad, as long as CBS would be willing to provide a time slot for a pro-choice group at the same price. If they can't because the time slots are sold out, that's fine. If they won't because they don't want to or because they support pro-life causes, then that could affect their ratings, which is also fair. I can't imagine that most football fans want to see this political battle being fought during halftime of their favorite games. Most people will tune it out like they tune out the other commercials.

Posted by: Grandblvd03 | January 27, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Just like Sarah Palin -- if choice wasn't legal, we'd never have heard that she made one.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 27, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

GREAT POINT AND VERY RIGHT ON POINT
----------------------------------------

Wouldn't it be nice if the issue wasn't she "saved a life"? I have yet to know of any extremely popular person that got an abortion and openly flaunts it - why is that? What if someone had a commercial showing all the things that a kid would have done - but he was aborted. "We would of named him Timmy - he would be 21 next month, but I sure am glad I aborted him."

Posted by: Holla26 | January 27, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

You're right Capeheart, Mrs Tebow made a choice. Isn't that what pro-choice is supposed to be about? Yet in this bizarro new world of ours, pro-choice apparently does not mean the choice to actually have the baby only the choice to have an abortion.

The whiners in the "choice" community have given way more publicity to the commercial (yet unseen) than they would ever have received through airing. What dummies - they whined against their own interests.

Posted by: bandmom22 | January 27, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

It seems to me that this commercial promotes choosing life rather than making abortion illegal. Are you suggesting Mr. Capehart that since abortion is legal, no one is entitled to encourage a certain choice? If this ad was supported not by Focus on the Family but by a different organization would your response be as strong?

Posted by: cardonap | January 27, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

The question is - would CBS accept an ad by NOW or Planned Parenthood or another group that promotes choice? Or would it give some lame excuse as to why it could not (would not) air it?

Perhaps Focus on the Family will give us some numbers as to how many of its members have adopted unwanted children, crack babies, mentally or physically challenged children, teen-agers who have been shuffled from one foster home to anoter.

Oh - most of the members just talk about the children and how precious they are? Guess they are all talk and no action. Wanting babies to be born no matter the circumstances and then ignoring them from birth until adulthood. Sounds about right for this American Taliban.

Posted by: Utahreb | January 27, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Wow Great Post!!
The American Taliban is so true believe what I believe or be dammed LOL

Posted by: lildg54 | January 27, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

That is incredible hypocrisy, fantastic point Mr. Capehart

Posted by: packsfan18 | January 27, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Hey left pansies, from the description of the ad it sounds like it is a Pro-Choice ad. But you get upset because your retarded hate filled WHO organization didn't come up with it.

Posted by: SanMrcos | January 27, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Hey Timmie, if you are oppossed to abortion, just don't have one. Pretty simple,eh dude. Quit trying to mess in other people's lives. TFL, Ken

Posted by: kentigereyes | January 27, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

I don't understand what Capehart's point is? Isn't the ad with Tebow an example of the positive side of choosing to not have an abortion? Instead it's being depicted as "take away choice from all women" -- is that what he says in the AD? Please clarify -- my impression is that he is merely advocating a choice OTHER than abortion, no? Does that offend your feminist sensibilities Johnathan?

Posted by: dbunkr | January 27, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

choco241 - the only hypocrisy of the ad is the so-called pro-choice feminazis going beserk over the ad because Tim's mom made a choice contrary to the choicers (meaning kill your unbabies) propaganda.

Posted by: memyselfI1 | January 27, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

We only hear about the abortions they didn't have -- never about the abortions they did have.

Or should one believe that those who are pro-life never have abortions?

And that who are pro-choice never have babies?

Life ain't that simple.

Posted by: WhatHeSaid | January 27, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

The abortion and euthenasia ghouls want no one to question the morality of killing innocent humans. Welcome to the Death Industry.

Posted by: pgr88

__________________________________________

If you have any information or evidence about the "killing of innocent humans" you should take it to the law enforcement authorities ASAP.

Please keep us informed of the results.

Posted by: WhatHeSaid | January 27, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

A lot of people are expressing strong opinions about an advertisement no one has seen.

Does the advertisement ask people to vote to ban abortion? I suspect not. If it did, CBS would not run the ad.
Does the ad tell the story of someone who choose life when confronted with a difficult decision? I suspect so.

If that message is threatening and controversial, then the people who say that no one is "pro abortion" are wrong. It is pro abortion to object to bringing to the public's attention stories from people who chose not to have an abortion and are pleased with their decisions. There is nothing "pro choice" about opposing dissemination of information about people's choices.

This is the reason why Sarah Palin draws so much animosity from the pro abortion movement. I don't believe Ms. Palin has any record at all of abortion related activity in executing her duties as an elected official. The affront Ms. Palin has committed is sharing the reasons for her personal decision about abortion with the public. I believe she did this to influence people making decisions who also face tough choices. I expect this ad will take the same approach - one mother pleased with her decision despite the risk she took.

If someone is pro choice, then information about the choices people have made on either side of the issue should not be threatening. Only someone who is pro abortion should object to someone saying they are happy with their decision not to have an abortion. If you are pro abortion, then own up to it. People who are anti-abortion freely admit it. So, if you think on the whole abortion creates more positives than negatives, tell the world about the many benefits and how satisfied people are with the results of their decisions, but don't try to limit the speech of others sharing their experiences in difficult personal circumstances.

That's what my adopted daughter says.

Posted by: jfv123 | January 27, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

The abortion and euthenasia ghouls want no one to question the morality of killing innocent humans. Welcome to the Death Industry.

Posted by: pgr88 | January 27, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

LOL LOL you people crack me up
PHONY SELF RIGHTEOUS HYPOCRITES LOL
The Taliban right here in the USA

Posted by: lildg54 | January 27, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Tebow can be pro-life or pro-choice, just not pro quarterback

Posted by: oaxacavine | January 27, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

LOL he can be a pro phony is what he can be

Posted by: lildg54 | January 27, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Don't plague me with anti abortion mania. Nobody should have the right to go on national TV and say it is better NOT to kill a baby. I say let them kill all the babies they want. It's good for the economy because it is a huge and growing industry that mostly keeps the poor from propagating so quickly, plus gets women back to work faster.

I only wish we could do POST BIRTH abortions on some people. There are some truly worse than worthless people, people who don't pay taxes, and who are sucking the life out of our country. I mean, doesn't survival of the fittest (evolution) support that? Go back a few million years and find me a society that would pay taxes so they could provide free food and shelter for life just because somebody survived the womb but didn't have the ambition to go farther on their own.

In any case, let's just watch football and hot bikini babe commercials and drink some beers on that special day.

Posted by: rDens | January 27, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

It's great that Tebow's mother received information and made a decision. And I'm glad Tebow wasn't harmed by his mother's illness. The point is, she had a choice, and she made it herself, after hearing advice from a doctor. That's exactly what some people want to take away from women.

But the aims of Focus on the Family and groups like them are not to just encourage women to choose life. Have you seen and heard the way that some people try to "encourage" women not to have an abortion? Go stand outside a clinic on a Saturday morning (but not on clinic property, because it's illegal unless you're a patient, employee, or volunteer) and hear what sort of "encouragement" these people provide. It's certainly not information about prenatal health or even adoption resources.

Posted by: scarlet_begonia | January 27, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse


Gee, . . I wonder what those "pro-lifers" thought of the mass murder of civilians, fathers, mothers, children, babies, huddled together, terrified, as we bombed and blasted them apart, burned them alive, shot them to death in Shock and Awe?

These people are not "pro-life" they are anti-YOU.

Posted by: gkam | January 27, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Although I'd prefer that politics not extend into the Super Bowl (I'd also hope to not see erectile dysfunction ads), as long as they'd also accept a Pro-choice ad, which I believe they would, I see no problem here.

After his crying on national TV about not winning ANOTHER national championship, I wish he would just go away.

Posted by: jeadpt | January 27, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Why does anyone think that people against this ad must automatically be against the choice Ms. Tebow made? The commercial and the choice are not the same.

The commercial comes from a group that is historically anti-choice, so what is Focus on the Family trying to accomplish? Why would they spend so much money on it?

I am sick of hearing people being labeled "anti-baby" or "anti-life" just because we don't want an anti-abortion group lobbying during the Super Bowl. Women are not your baby factories: get over it.

Posted by: MissWairsey | January 27, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

I think it's pretty interesting to see so many comments on an ad NO ONE HAS SEEN YET.

Posted by: eaconnor1 | January 27, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

eaconnor1,

You stated: I think it's pretty interesting to see so many comments on an ad NO ONE HAS SEEN YET."
=================

That way nobody is burdened with facts before they comment.

Posted by: WestTexan2008 | January 27, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

it is easy to understand that tebow is glad his mother made the choice to give birth to him but they don't all turn out to be tebows - as i recall hitler's mother made the same choice - if he were alive maybe he could have a spot on the super bowl ad also.

Posted by: gyrene1 | January 27, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

We only hear about the abortions they didn't have -- never about the abortions they did have.

Or should one believe that those who are pro-life never have abortions?

And that who are pro-choice never have babies?

Life ain't that simple.

Posted by: WhatHeSaid

-----------------------------------------------

Thank you for bringing a bit of levity to this ridiculous fighting.

I personally know 2 women out of 6 kids in a very VERY Catholic family who are over the top PRO-LIFE and happened to have had abortions. They sure enjoyed their right to a choice, but somehow think it is acceptable to deny other women rights to make the same decions.

Posted by: theobserver4 | January 27, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

If someone has a problem with an ad just turn it off.

As to those who insist abortion is murder please think about this;

The effects of large #'s of murders on all societies is well known and consistant throughout history without regard to temporal, geographic or cultural differences. These murders had dramatic impact on every aspect and level of society. Since 1973 there have been over 30 million abortions in America. If in fact abortion is a murder of a human being how is it there has been no discernable impact on our society?

Posted by: kchses1 | January 27, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

What ever happened to not discussing religion and politics in public. When you wear your religion on your sleeve, or in Tebow's case under his eyes it cheapens it like some commodity or it becomes a NASCAR jacket or car.

Posted by: MerrillFrank | January 27, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

It's difficult to comment on an ad that no one has seen yet. However, the issue is CBS's decision to ignore it's own policy against running any ad that is steeped in social controversy. They have refused to run ads promoting acceptance of diversity, as well as political ads. Focus on the Family is very political and does not preach diverse acceptance. Seems heavy-handed, but only the future will be able to tell for sure.

Posted by: mikescorpio | January 27, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

To the extent that the airing of this ad advances the cause of ending the moral travesty of legal abortion in America, it is a good thing. My only criticism would be if the ad fails to make clear that it is the wrong of permitting abortion on demand that is at the heart of the moral conflict that presently confronts America.

Posted by: kenger1 | January 27, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

I don't think anyone ever really wants to have an abortion. I can't believe women go to the clinic and say "oh boy, I'm going to get another abortion! I'm so excited!" The right to choose is there, but does anyone enjoy using it? Of course not.

If you want to exercise that right, fine. If not, also fine. But to try and force others to fall in line behind your beliefs isn't fine. Mind your own business.

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | January 27, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I find the hypocrisy argument weak. I had a "choice" to rob my local convenience store this morning, but I chose not to based on my moral standards. Am I a hypocrite if I favor laws that make robbing convenience stores illegal and take that decision-making right away from others?

The whole argument is too glib as presented here. For some people, abortion is a very serious issue that weighs heavily on their entire understanding of the world. I may not agree with their position, but I can respect it.

Posted by: xSamplex | January 27, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Wouldn't it be nice to actually see the commercial before commenting on it, one way or the other?

:-)

Posted by: Paladin7b | January 27, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Mr.Capeheart, for stating the simple truth. These people have the same block to logic that the zealot Muslims have about all non-Muslims being infidels that must be destroyed. No one ever wants to abort a child, and I would think that only the most twisted and infinitesimal minority would use abortion as birth control. And how is the prospect of losing both mother and child when one can be saved- how is that preferable? What do you tell the already living children of the mother who was lost? Most of the people who make these assertions over other people's lives have never had to deal with the prospect of the tragic choice- for which they will tell you that they would never get themselves in the position to have to make the decision- but that's false bravura, because for one thing- the men never have the problem from the standpoint of carrying the child and the women who say that have never been raped or the victim of incest- which is not something a woman chooses. Mostly people need to stop telling others how to live- because no one, NO ONE is perfect. What Mrs. Tebow did, many women who are in committed relationships do- they have the child because they want the child, however it turns out- but it is not fair to brand her a heroine and another woman evil in this matter- it defies what I was taught is Christian charity, an it closes the discussion on all of the options.

Posted by: poppysue85 | January 27, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Does it really matter what tone the advertisement takes? It's not just advocating for one position, it's advertising an organization - Focus on the Family - that is anti-choice and homophobic.

I will be contacting CBS and informing them that I will not be watching the Super Bowl as a result. I'm sure they don't care - it's not like they're struggling to find viewers.

Posted by: JohninMpls | January 27, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I don't have to see the ad to know that Focus on the Family is an agenda-driven supposedly Christian organization (not really-Christ is frankly appalled, he told me so) and that the point of having Tim Tebow speak about his mother's choice is to emphasize that abortion should not be a choice at all. I doubt Focus will be putting on a woman who did choose to have an abortion. It's stunning to me that anyone would argue to have equal air time for a woman who did choose to have an abortion - it's a leagl medical procedure (so far) that shouldn't be treated any differently than any other medical procedure. Who is to say a miscarriage by God, Nature, whoever was appropriate due to fetal anomaly - but that a woman can't have the same right to determine whether her body, her fetus, her situation can sustain a child? Abortions have been happening for thousands of years and will continue to happen unless the right wing crazies follow Sarah Palin down the path to destruction for an ever-increasingly ignorant society. CBS declined six years ago to air an ad during the Super Bowl that promoted inclusion of homosexuals. I see no difference between that ad and this one - both political, it's just that CBS knows that it's the right wingers that have the guns and no self-control, not the lefties.

Posted by: paulaann25 | January 27, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

From the AP:
"CBS said Tuesday that the decision to air the Tebow ad reflected a change in its policies toward advocacy ads that has evolved over the past several years.

“We have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms,” said spokesman Dana McClintock. “In fact, most media outlets have accepted advocacy ads for some time.”

He said CBS “will continue to consider responsibly produced ads from all groups for the few remaining spots in Super Bowl XLIV.”

In 2004, CBS was criticized by many liberal organizations for rejecting an ad by the United Church of Christ highlighting the UCC’s welcoming stance toward gays and others who might feel shunned by more conservative churches.

CBS said Tuesday that, under its new policies, the UCC ad would have been accepted for airing. The network said that it has run ads in the past year or so with divergent views on topics such as the health care overhaul, climate change and energy policy.

Thirty-second commercials during the Super Bowl are selling for $2.5 million to $2.8 million."

I'd love to see the UCC ad run, just to test CBS's new policy. Sadly, the cost may be prohibitive.

Posted by: mikescorpio | January 27, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Tebow will cry some more, if he doesn't get his way again.

Posted by: gkam | January 27, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Capehart writes: "we know that it will feature football phenom Tim Tebow, whose mother chose to ignore her doctor's advice to terminate her pregnancy. Did you catch that? Ms. Tebow was presented with a choice."

So if the Ad presents the "choice" the Pro-Choice position.. and the decision, she choose life (the Pro-Life position)
shouldn't both sides be celebrating ?

Posted by: pvilso24 | January 27, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Since our government has condoned and encouraged the genocide of over 40,000,000 babies since Roe v Wade. And Planned Parenthood (an abortion business) has consistently filled the air with misinformation, (like, your not killing a baby your only removing a zygote, or we care about a women’s “right” to choose to abort her baby.)

This commercial provides some balance to the debate. We all can see that Tebow was a zygote as the miracle of birth began, and we all know that he grew for nine months in his mothers womb. And even though some Doctors and Nurses thought abortion (killing Tebow) was a preferred option… his mother could not bare the thought of killing her baby. And it is because of her moral courage that her son Tebow lived to became what he is today.

Just think of each of the 40,000,000 children that our government has had a hand in murdering. I wonder what value each one of their lives would have had, if they were allowed to live? At least most would be productive Tax Payers and our country wouldn’t have to import undocumented immigrants to fill jobs.

Everyone (even the doctors and nurses that kill the babies) know that it is wrong… there is not one valid excuse for this atrocious behavior. I send Tebow and his mom, many, many, thanks… for having the courage to use Tebow’s example to balance the propaganda of the misguided RIGHT TO CHOOSE movement.

Posted by: btrask3 | January 27, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

the ad is hypocritical because the group running it doesn't believe that choice should exist, so it isn't 'merely' celebrating Ms. Tebow's choice. They don't actually believe that she made the "right" choice, they are just using the fact that she had a quarterback as a silly argument that choice should be taken away because it could have deprived us of a quarterback IF she had made the wrong choice.

If they were just trying to encourage women with choice to lean toward not having an abortion, that would be perfectly OK. but that's not the message at all. The ad is just the "your mother had a choice" bumper sticker.

Posted by: JoeT1 | January 27, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Everyone understands that she not only made a choice, she made the right choice.

Posted by: fishcrow | January 27, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

(Posted by: WhatHeSaid | January 27, 2010 10:59 AM)

"If you have any information or evidence about the "killing of innocent humans" you should take it to the law enforcement authorities ASAP."

That's exactly what those who oppose abortion as a right of choice are attempting to do. Apparently, for you, having a beating heart and DNA of its own is not enough evidence to satisfy you that aborting a preborn is an act that destroys an innocent life. If you ever do come to grips with this compelling reality, please join in the effort to put an end to this moral atrocity in America.


Posted by: kenger1 | January 27, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

It is not true that Focus is "homo-phobic". This implies a fear that recoils in stark dread and terror. If you actually listen, they do not portray that kind of response in any broadcasts I've heard. I hear "love them", "don't speak hateful things", etc., in order to win the right to share their viewpoint. The Taliban is homophobic - see if Al Jazeera uses that kind of language!

Also of interest - a recent Focus broadcast featured Abby (forgot last name), former director of a Planned Parenthood facility in Texas, who came across the fence. She disclosed the lack of "choice" women are given when PP's funds run short. They push abortion to make up revenue shortfalls. Do any of us think that woman is getting a truly informed decision?

Posted by: kluth_vs | January 27, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

That pro-choicers are working so furiously to block this ad WITHOUT HAVING EVEN SEEN IT is just more evidence of the pro-abortion strategy to keep the truth about the cruel and murderous practice from being known. What if the millions of viewers start asking themselves what would have been lost had Tim Tebow been aborted? Such questions must not be asked if abortion is to remain a viable lifestyle option! The perception of abortion must remain that it isn't a child and it never would have lived a worthwhile life! Someone must stop the Tebows!

Posted by: WhatUpDawg | January 27, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Maybe she wants you to understand that she made the RIGHT choice. Perhaps her intent is to encourage other expectant mothers to make the same right choice. My mother received the same medical advice as Mrs. Trebow. Good thing for me she told them where to stuff it, lol.

Posted by: ZZim | January 27, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

(Posted by: ravensfan20008 | January 27, 2010 12:10 PM)

"If you want to exercise that right, fine. If not, also fine."
_______________________________________

A classic example of taking a see-no-evil position on an issue of grave moral consequence. So what if a life hangs in the balance. Just let individuals do as they please, no matter what the consequences may be.


Posted by: kenger1 | January 27, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

The effects of genocide on all societies in which it has been practiced are well known and appear to be universal. That none of these effects in any degree have ever been observed in the US should be obvious. Therefor those who claim that the 40 million abortions that have aoccured in the US since 1973 are the equivalent of genocide need to explain why none of the historical and seemingly immutable effects of genocide are observable in the US.

Posted by: kchses1 | January 27, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I PINCH MYSELF WANTING TO KNOW WHETHER IT IS REAL OR NOT THAT IN AMERICA SOME PEOPLE CAN BE MAD ABOUT AN AD THAT PRAISES A MOTHER FOR NOT ABORTING HER CHILD,IS THAT THE END OF THE WORLD OR SOMETHING ELSE. CHRISTIANS WE MUST PRAY AND ALSO MOBILIZE BECAUSE WE WILL WIN THIS WAR IN JESUS' NAME.

Posted by: tomitomipili | January 27, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

The term certainly does not make such implications.

And while you hear "love them" in their broadcasts, I read about their belief of a "pro-gay revisionist history" and their "counseling for unwanted same-sex attractions."

They have a fear of a perceived homosexual agenda and of the influence or impact of homosexuality in our society. They may not be recoiling in terror, and they may espouse rhetoric that implies an actual love of the people (while emphasizing a hatred of the so-called sin), but they are most definitely homophobic.

-----

It is not true that Focus is "homo-phobic". This implies a fear that recoils in stark dread and terror. If you actually listen, they do not portray that kind of response in any broadcasts I've heard.

Posted by: JohninMpls | January 27, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

I have no problem with anti-abortion groups running ads. what I do object to is their virulent opposition to freedom of choice. I oppose abortion as a means of birth control; I do, however, support every woman's right to make her own decision about it. The hypocrisy of some who cry loudly about constitutional freedoms while, almost in the same breath, wanting to deny it for those whose beliefs differ, baffle me.

Posted by: Diogenes | January 27, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

As usual the leftist whack jobs are out in full force denouncing something they don't know about.

NO ONE HAS SEEN THIS AD...

Why don't we all get worked up AFTER we see it?

My God, the left-wingers are crazy!!! They love a 30 minute television show about gay people... that's OK... no problem. But a 30-second television spot... WHAAAA!!!!!

Even if you don't like the ad too damn bad!!! Your view is seen and hear loud-n-clear.. give someone else the stage.

Posted by: ravioliman6666 | January 27, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"rabidly homophobic and anti-abortion group"

Reasonably critical of the gay agenda and pro-life group.

"Focus on the Family is touting Ms. Tebow's right to choose while trying to deny the same opportunity..."

What a silly parsing of words. You are silly.

Posted by: Hembo | January 27, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

A Woman's right to choose is the established law of the land. Tim Tebow is violating that law. He should be banned from the NFL. He's highly over rated and if he is drafted by the NFL, he will spend his whole career sitting on the bench, pointing towards the sky, clutching his Roman fetish and holding his knees tightly together like a little girly boy. Why is it so difficult for these weak minded, weak kneed Je-sus, freaks to keep their primitive voodoo, witchcraft Religion to themselves. The NFL should be about FOOTBALL, not Christian proselytizing. The NFL also need to ban long hair, earrings and other sissified, feminized female behavior. What's next, players wearing panties.

Posted by: ODDOWL | January 27, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

A Woman's right to choose is the established law of the land. Tim Tebow is violating that law. He should be banned from the NFL

Posted by: ODDOWL

______________

Holy Batman ODDOWL! His mother made the CHOICE to have him. How is his existence violating the established law of the land? You are obviously reading a woman's right to choose as only a woman's right to choose an abortion rather than life.

The rest of your entry is stupid too and totally off point.

Posted by: bandmom22 | January 27, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Take a look at an ultrasound before you end the life of the child that you so happily dismiss for your montra of choice. Capeheart, you comfortable label those who disagree as zealots; where is your defense of the choice of the child. 115000 children will lose their lives today through no choice of their own.

Posted by: joy14 | January 27, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Those who celebrated the horrors of Shock and Awe, the mass murder of living, breathing, civilians, huddled, terrified in their homes while our Compassionate Conservatives bombed them, blasted them apart, burned them alive, are now trying to pass themselves off as "pro-life"? Those who champion - no, insist - on Capital Punishment, those who allowed torture, they have the nerve to tell the rest of us about the sanctity of life??

They are as hypocritical as "pro-life" Bush, the draft-dodging "patriot" who killed hundreds of thousands for his "greatness" (his very word)!

Posted by: gkam | January 27, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

(Posted by: Diogenes | January 27, 2010 2:22 PM) - "I oppose abortion as a means of birth control; I do, however, support every woman's right to make her own decision about it."
____________________________________

What else does abortion do besides control birth and preventing it from happening by destroying a growing preborn life?


(Posted by: Diogenes | January 27, 2010 2:22 PM) - "The hypocrisy of some who cry loudly about constitutional freedoms while, almost in the same breath, wanting to deny it for those whose beliefs differ, baffle me."
______________________________________

How about your own hypocrisy in saying you oppose abortion as a means of birth control, and yet also support a woman's right of choice to have an abortion to do just that? If abortion doesn't prevent birth from happening, why would any woman ever have one?


Posted by: kenger1 | January 27, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Diogenes posted: "...I do, however, support every woman's right to make her own decision about it. The hypocrisy of some who cry loudly about constitutional freedoms while, almost in the same breath, wanting to deny it for those whose beliefs differ, baffle me."

--------------------
--------------------

Let's not be disingenuous here. Please. The position of the conservatives is to ban abortions entirely. Period. There is no choice at all in their opinion. And by the way, No one I know is advocating for abortion as birth control. That's just another in a long line of made up nonsense from the conservative echo chamber.

And by the way...Isn't it strange that the right wingers cry foul every time they perceive someone telling them what to do, yet they have no problem whatsoever forcing their dogma down our throats??

Posted by: swatkins1 | January 27, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

kenger1 posted: "...A classic example of taking a see-no-evil position on an issue of grave moral consequence. So what if a life hangs in the balance. Just let individuals do as they please, no matter what the consequences may be."


----------------------
----------------------

Wait just a second here! Isn't that just what the neo-conservatives have been advocating since forever? That they don't want anyone telling them what to do? That it's a free country, and no one should tell them what they can and can't do? Apparently their mantra only holds for their ideology, and no one else's. Can you take a breath and see the hypocrisy in their position? Conservative morality is the ONLY WAY??? I don't think so.

So, to borrow from the conservative playbook, keep your nose out of our business. Don't tell us what to do. Leave us alone. OK?

Posted by: swatkins1 | January 27, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Many (not all) of conservatives in the pro-life movement are anti-non-procreative sex, not "pro-life." They want to make sure everyone is saddled with consequences of poor judgment. If that was not the case, I assume anti-abortionists could find more time and money to spend on contraception (especially barrier methods, which would not raise any issues re conception). No conception, no abortion to worry about.

As for a good counter-ad, how about a bunch of tombstones of mothers who died giving birth? Perhaps the people in these anti- organizations know only women that went through easy pregnancies, but many I know did not have that luxury, and it is lucky they are still here. No woman should be required to expose herself to that level of risk; it needs to be a choice.

It is unfortunate CBS decided to go down this road. The Superbowl is supposed to be about entertainment and commercialism; why cloud it with the hackneyed arguments and counterarguments people on both sides have been making since well-before I could have been aborted? They should save that kind of thing for the Comments section of the Post.

Posted by: MShake | January 27, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

FYI, if you're a junior, you're an upperclassman. Get YOUR facts straight. Slightly off-topic, yes, but while we're talking about facts and such ...

Are any pro-choice groups attempting to advertise during the Super Bowl now, too? Shouldn't there be a law -- as there is with candidates -- that every viewpoint gets equal time?

On the bright side, I think people will be more than willing during the broadcast to move on to the next commercial after FOTF's. It's football -- I watch to escape, not enter into political discourse. Yeesh. (And it's not like Tebow will ever play in the NFL, at least as a starter.)

Posted by: SteelCityGal | January 27, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

kenger1 posted: "...If abortion doesn't prevent birth from happening, why would any woman ever have one?"

-----------------
-----------------

Let's just take a moment and critique this statement.

Kenger1 crafts an amazingly Quixotic paradox. In one fell swoop, he plainly insults women by painting them as too stupid to understand what abortion means, while simultaneously illustrating the ignorance behind conservative ideology on abortion. Well done! Keep 'em in their place, eh? Go to the head of the class.

Posted by: swatkins1 | January 27, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I hate it when posters start playing English Professor.

Just state your case and be done with it... No one needs on-line English lessons from frustrated elitists with too much free time.

Posted by: ravioliman6666 | January 27, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Capeheart is offering a crashing non-sequitir. Mr. Tebow's position is pro-life. If Mr. Tebow had his way, therefore, women would not have the choice to abort. Therefore, Mr. Tebow does not have the right to express his pro-life views, thereby depriving women of the information based on which they would make a choice that Mr. Capeheart wants them to have.

This is an intellectual loop-the-loop. The pro-choice position, in order to logically be pro-choice, cannot in principle deprive individuals of the information and arguments on which to base their choice.

In any case, the real question is whether CBS should be allowing the advertisement to go forward. Here again, however, the pro-choice argument cannot logically be opposed to CBS airing a diversity of opinions.

Now if Mr. Capehart were arguing that CBS should be open to telecasting an advertisement from NARAL, he would have an intellectual leg to stand on. As it is, his principles sound merely tinny, brittle and self-servingly expedient,

Posted by: ffrey63 | January 27, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

The disingenous part of most of what passes for our debate on abortion is how many arguments that are directed at pro-abortionists argue as if everyone who supports the right to choose an abortion acts as if they wished to totally suppress all information about different options other then abortion or inhuman perpetrators of a genocidal slaughter.

Equally disingenous are arguments directed at all anti-abotionists as if they are all christian fanatics who love watching us drop bombs on non-americans for any half concocted reason.

There are people who think like the above. They tend to scream the loudest and draw the most attention but hardly constitute the bulk of society and there are simple not insulting arguments that easily refute their positions. It would be nice to get past the screamers and discuss the real issues of abortion.

Posted by: kchses1 | January 27, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Jesse Jackson's argument, Tebow's mother, Pam, she is making the same argument that Rev. Jesse Jackson made in his article, «How we respect life is the over-riding moral issue», in the January 1977 issue of «Right to Life News».

Among other things, Rev. Jackson wrote:

«I was born out of wedlock (and against the advice that my mother received from her doctor) and therefore abortion is a personal issue for me. From my perspective, human life is the highest good, the summum bonum. Human life itself is the highest human good and God is the supreme good because He is the giver of life. That is my philosophy. Everything I do proceeds from that religious and philosophical premise.»
. . .
«Human beings cannot give or create life by themselves, it is really a gift from God. Therefore, one does not have the right to take away (through abortion) that which he does not have the ability to give.»
. . .
«Some argue, suppose the woman does not want to have the baby. They say 'the very fact that she does not want the baby means that the psychological damage to the child is reason enough to abort the baby'. I disagree. The solution to that problem is not to kill the innocent baby, but to deal with her values and her attitude toward life -- that which has allowed her not to want the baby. Deal with the attitude that would allow her to take away that which she cannot give.»

This argument, it boils down to, «I am glad I am alive», it is the Old Time Religion, it was good enough for Jesse, it it good enough for Tebow, and it's good enough for me!

The ad, CBS should air the Super Bowl pro-life ad, maybe just one doubtful pregnant lady, she is considering elective abortion, she will watch the ad, it will convince her to have her baby.

One life, «a few very generous friends», if this ad saves just one life, it will be worth all the money the «few generous friends» are paying CBS, save lives with Football, Pro Football, Pro Life.

Posted by: abu_ibrahim | January 27, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"Also wonderful is that Ms. Tebow was able to make an informed decision."

Not unless you're a eugenicist, which Mr. Capeheart seems to sympathize with.

Posted by: DesScorp | January 27, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

(Posted by: swatkins1 | January 27, 2010 3:15 PM) - "No one I know is advocating for abortion as birth control."

Let me get this straight. Advocating for abortion as a right of choice to destroy a preborn life is not advocating for a right to prevent the birth of a preborn. Please explain to me what else it is an abortion does?

Posted by: kenger1 | January 27, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Good thing Focus on the Family doesn't think Mr. Tebow is gay. Otherwise they'd want to kill him retroactively.

Posted by: damannion | January 27, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

The biggest hypocrisy here is that the super bowl is considered to be an inappropriate vehicle to promote life yet appropriate to promote just about anything else.

Posted by: cabrioterri | January 27, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Rev. Jackson's argument is a strong argument against abortion.
On the other side is the argument, when is a fetus truly a human life and therefore subject to our moral codes. There is great deal of historical tradition that grants life only upon the drawing of the first breath. As I've noted earlier there is also indirect evidence that unborn children don't seem to count very heavily in the world of cause and effect. Tens of millions of abortions have been performed world wide in the past decades with no noticable effect. When human beings are killed in such large numbers, even if only small children, there is a noticable and devastating effect upon society. No such effect has ever been observed.
In addition there is now a great deal of medical evidence that a fetus is not viable before 5 months in womb.

Posted by: kchses1 | January 27, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

The primary question citizens should be asking is how is an abortion anyone else's business? So what if someone wants to end their pregnancy, how does that become the subject of approval for Focus on the Family?

Perhaps they should butt out and stick to focusing on their own families, or change their name to Focus on Someone Else's Family.

Posted by: jimfive | January 27, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Tebow's mother CHOSE to continue her pregnancy. No one forced her to do so. And no one should have the right to force others to do so, either.

Get a grip, you nuts. You aren't in charge of other people's bodies or their medical choices. If you want to be, then you will have to accept their input on YOUR medical decisions. You want that? I doubt it.

Posted by: notation | January 27, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Tebow was lucky that her doctor had the courage to advise her about an abortion at all, considering that abortion has been illegal in the Philippines since 1930. It's not even clear if abortion is allowed to save the life of the mother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Philippines

"The act is criminalized by the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, which was enacted in 1930 but remains in effect today. Articles 256, 258 and 259 of the Code mandate imprisonment for the woman who undergoes the abortion, as well as for any person who assists in the procedure, even if they be the woman's parents, a physician or midwife. Article 258 further imposes a higher prison term on the woman or her parents if the abortion is undertaken "in order to conceal [the woman's] dishonor".

There is no law in the Philippines that expressly authorizes abortions in order to save the woman's life; and the general provisions which do penalize abortion make no qualifications if the woman's life is endangered. It may be argued that an abortion to save the mother's life could be classified as a justifying circumstance (duress as opposed to self-defense) that would bar criminal prosecution under the Revised Penal Code. However, this has yet to be adjudicated by the Philippine Supreme Court.

Proposals to liberalize Philippine abortion laws have been opposed by the Catholic Church, and its opposition has considerable influence in the predominantly Catholic country. However, the constitutionality of abortion restrictions has yet to be challenged before the Philippine Supreme Court.

The present Constitution of the Philippines, enacted in 1987, pronounces as among the policies of the State that "[The State] shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception." (sec. 12, Art. II)"

Posted by: jdgreen1 | January 29, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

I am a Filipino. Abortion is illegal for more than a century in our Roman Catholic country. There is no legal exception for the life of the mother. So either Mrs Tebow is lying or she just risked jail time for the doctors who risked their lives and livelihood for their families so that she could have all the options at that very trying time. So either a liar or an ingrate, is what she is.

I wont let the Tebows misrepresent my country of birth, just so they can make a POLITICAL point against the Democrats. I think people look down on the Philippines too much already. Now they are using Filipino Doctors as the "bad guy" in this commercial. Doctors who dont abide by the laws of their own country.

Hey Tebow, if you hate the Philippines so much LEAVE THE PHILIPPINES ALONE AND DONT EVER COMEBACK YOU B1aTCH!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: callmesurfer | January 31, 2010 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Wow, all of the hate filled discussion just because this man celebrates his mother's choice of life. Someone please explain to me what is so wrong with choosing life.

Posted by: UnenlightenedSoutherner | February 2, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

The bottom line- Right wing takes a lie and manufactures a truth out of it. There was no choice here and Mrs. Tebow knows this. Typical of the Right wing, Oliver North said it best in Iran Contra- The Ends Justify The Means. Will that fit under Tim's eyes? That is a far truer statement about the right than what is being espoused by Focus on the Family. Does this poor boy know he's being played?

Posted by: slmdarien | February 2, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company