Double Standard, Double Foul

Lots of fussing in the US -- and rightly so -- over a planned ad for the upcoming Super Olympics of Commercialism and Cholestrol-loaded Snacks Bowl XLIV bought to you by James Dobson's right-wing, anti-choice, anti-same sex marriage, super Christian Focus on the Family.

The spot, which advocates against choice, features college football star and minister Tim Tebow and his missionary mother in what is obviously a heartwrenching story.

But American women -- whose reproductive choices are already under attack by other religious groups, plus their own Congress -- are objecting, claiming that the ad is divisive and doesn't belong on the highest-rated show of the year.

The ad - paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family - is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987 with a theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim, who went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy while helping his Florida team to two BCS championships.

The controversy over the ad was raised Sunday when Tebow met with reporters in Mobile, Ala., before beginning preparations for next weekend's Senior Bowl.

"I know some people won't agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe," Tebow said. "I've always been very convicted of it (his views on abortion) because that's the reason I'm here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it."

Thirty-second commercials during the Super Bowl are selling for $2.5 million to $2.8 million. Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, said funds for the Tebow ad were donated by a few "very generous friends" and did not come from the group's general fund.

Now, believe it or not, I have no problem with advocacy groups buying airtime on the publicly-owned airwaves, even if I don't agree with their cause. I see pitches for all sorts of issues, religions and, of course, during elections, politicians I loathe. 

I just think it's fair that the sources of funding for the ads be revealed.

I also feel that the policy should apply across the board. If you can buy an ad that is against choice, then you should be able to buy an ad that promotes choice or any other idea, as long as it's legal. No?

In recent years, there's been one Super Bowl ad controversy after another -- and all of them are ''resolved'' by CBS kowtowing to the (religious) right.

In 2004, the network did not see fit to air an ad by Move.on advocating against George W. Bush.

In 2006, it rejected a United Church of Jesus ad promoting its open arms policy towards gays and lesbians.

At the time, CBS claimed it had a policy of refusing advertising that "touches on and/or takes a position on one side of a current controversial issue of public importance".

Last year, it was a PETA ad that didn't get by the network censors. Okay, so it was sexist but it isn't much different from much of what airs in prime time already.

Now, once again, the network appeases the right by offending those who believe that a woman 's rights trumps those of the fetus in her body. Nothing like drop-kicking women.

But wait!

Before we Canadians get that smug, superior look on our mugs, know that Vancouver-based AdBusters, an anti-corporate advocacy group, has repeatedly tried -- and failed -- to get its non-commercial commercials (eg. the vodka ''ad'' above) on the networks. Not even the public broadcaster CBC will give it access. Not at any price.

And, as two readers have informed me, guess what's been airing in primetime Toronto, on the CTV-owned CP24?

Yup.

You guessed it.

 

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: Give it up for Shakespeare Sister Melissa in yesterday's Guardian!

... such ads make no effort to appeal to women's reason. Implicit, and not very subtly so, is the narrative that a pregnant woman should prostrate herself at the feet of the Fates because of the possibility that she may give birth to A Great Man.

And let us not mince words: It is no coincidence that we are meant to "imagine" the snuffing out of a man's potential via abortion, forestalling as it does our "imagining" the protagonist's potential come to a screeching, shuddering halt in the shadow of an unwanted pregnancy that cannot be terminated.

WAY UP THERE WOMAN DATE: Wow. Luna, our favourite Feminist Christian Socialist and frequent commenter, posted this awesome commentary.

How did Pam Tebow do it? How did she have four kids, and spend the last part of her pregnancy in hospital? Did she have AWESOME health insurance? No... she was in the Philippines where her medical needs were taken care of. Focus on the Family is AGAINST the health care bill. Again, they are proving that they don't have a second thought for women, or even for the babies, once they are born.

And who looked after her other kids? Obviously, she had a support system. What would I do in her situation? I have two kids at home who need constant care. I don't have family in town. The women at my church, while awesome, are not capable of looking after Crackle, his meltdowns and his extremely restricted diet. If I'm incapacitated, we're screwed. The Tebow's had more than just luck and God's blessing. They had resources. It's amazing how that sort of thing is just brushed under the rug. How we're all lumped into the same category.

Comments

[the_fool]

The problem with advocating for "equal opportunity" or "free market" ideals for advertising is that the outcome is that the many sides of an issue do not get fair access. The theory works ("well anyone can buy air time"), but the real world situation is nowhere close. Like many other things in life, it's whomever has the coin, which is those already in positions of power... they advocate for the status quo or their specialized agenda (aka them getting what they want, which is the status quo). To even begin to think that all people have equal access to media is a dangerous misunderstanding. You also have to take a look at how few people own the majority of media sources such as television and print, who ultimately get to decide what gets disseminated (not to suggest they personally puppet master such a large undertaking).

[CatBoreal]

You know, it's funny. Pam Tebow's mother had the choice to carry her son to term. No one held her down and forced her to have an abortion. And yet she's not willing to allow other women the same choice. Procreate or else. She knew the risks and she CHOSE!

That is what the Pro-Choice movement is about - the choice to carry a baby to term or not. Had she been in the States, I wonder how likely her insurance company would have been to support that choice and support her and her child had the outcome turned out differently?

[CatBoreal]

Whoops, I meant Pam Tebow, Tim Tebow's mother.

[Jim M]

The Tim Tebow story is a textbook example of how extreme right-wing Christians, like James Dobson, use the "power of testimony" (i.e., anecdotal evidence) to mislead people. Wendy Mesley encountered the same problem when she investigated an overhyped and enormously expensive brand of Goji juice for CBC's Marketplace. Even with legitimate lab results in her hands showing that the juice is like Jonestown massacre Kool-Aid minus the cyanide, she was unable to convince the faithful customers she interviewed that they were being deceived. Why? Because they had heard too many great anecdotes about the product, and probably because they were partial to their sound of their own story. Whatever causes people to reject evidence when it is presented to them like that — no charge, gift-wrapped and all — is the problem. The sponsors who anonymously paid for Superbowl ad space to promote a mere testimony would be wasting their money if there were no such thing as problems like cognitive dissonance and Goji spirituality.

[Luna]

What really bothers me about this is the way that Focus on the Family seems to be advocating ignoring doctors' advice that is in your best interest if it's in the interest of the fetus. They seem to be saying that Pam Tebow's doctors were lying or wrong. Even if it didn't kill her, it sure could have. Luck was on her side. What if it isn't for the next woman?

[Jim M]

Unless someone can name two softer targets in Canada with more divide and conquer potential than women and same sex couples, then Conservative motives for focussing on these two groups should be obvious. They cannot win without creating division.

[Prole]

The Tebow's story is questionable anyway, as abortion has been illegal in the Phillipines since the late 19th century with no exceptions, not even for the life/health of the mother. Their laws are every bit as draconian as Ceausescu's Romania. She had no legal "choice", and it's reasonable to doubt that a physician there would risk a 6-yr. prison sentence and suspension or revocation of their license in order to give her an abortion.

[myna lee johnstone]

Killing a respected doctor who performed abortions on girls under 14 who had been raped by their fathers does not speak well for the the anti abortion gangs.
Why do they avoid mentioning the statistics on domestic abuse.?
Why do they overlook child poverty in America and the numbers of homeless children?In the last election, John McCain, said: no don't abort, give those babies to us.
Did this mean that Cindy was going to turn a few of their 20 houses into a 24/7 daycare?