Washington Post Challenges Pro-Abortion Critics of Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad

This morning's Washington Post included a column from award-winning sports reporter Sally Jenkins on the upcoming "Focus on the Family" Super Bowl ad, which uses Florida QB Tim Tebow to promote life. 

Of course, the pro-abortion lobby is fighting hard to get the ad pulled, especially in light of the gay dating service ad recently getting pulled by CBS.  Ms. Jenkins, who is pro-choice, takes a shot at those pro-abortion leaders who are, indeed, hypocrites and intolerant. 

Glad to see that there are some individuals on the pro-choice side who are willing to listen to other side and at least respect their position. Hopefully, this ad will convince other like-minded pro-choice Americans that intolerance, typically indentified with the Religious Right, is in reality more prevalent on the Left...


Tebow's Super Bowl ad isn't intolerant; its critics are

By Sally Jenkins, Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 2, 2010

I'll spit this out quick, before the armies of feminism try to gag me and strap electrodes to my forehead: Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time. I realize this stance won't endear me to the "Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep," otherwise known as DOLL, but I'll try to pick up the shards of my shattered feminist credentials and go on.

As statements at Super Bowls go, I prefer the idea of Tebow's pro-life ad to, say, Jim McMahon dropping his pants, as the former Chicago Bears quarterback once did in response to a question. We're always harping on athletes to be more responsible and engaged in the issues of their day, and less concerned with just cashing checks. It therefore seems more than a little hypocritical to insist on it only if it means criticizing sneaker companies, and to stifle them when they take a stance that might make us uncomfortable.

I'm pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I've heard in the past week, I'll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time." For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.

Tebow's 30-second ad hasn't even run yet, but it already has provoked "The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us" to reveal something important about themselves: They aren't actually "pro-choice" so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.

Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn't be allowed to. 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. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn't.

There's not enough space in the sports pages for the serious weighing of values that constitutes this debate, but surely everyone in both camps, pro-choice or pro-life, wishes the "need" for abortions wasn't so great. Which is precisely why NOW is so wrong to take aim at Tebow's ad.

Here's what we do need a lot more of: Tebows. Collegians who are selfless enough to choose not to spend summers poolside, but travel to impoverished countries to dispense medical care to children, as Tebow has every summer of his career. Athletes who believe in something other than themselves, and are willing to put their backbone where their mouth is. Celebrities who are self-possessed and self-controlled enough to use their wattage to advertise commitment over decadence.

You know what we really need more of? Famous guys who aren't embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it out loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions. See, the best way to deal with unwanted pregnancy is to not get the sperm in the egg and the egg implanted to begin with, and that is an issue for men, too -- and they should step up to that.

"Are you saving yourself for marriage?" Tebow was asked last summer during an SEC media day.

"Yes, I am," he replied.

The room fell into a hush, followed by tittering: The best college football player in the country had just announced he was a virgin. As Tebow gauged the reaction from the reporters in the room, he burst out laughing. They were a lot more embarrassed than he was.

"I think y'all are stunned right now!" he said. "You can't even ask a question!"

That's how far we've come from any kind of sane viewpoint about star athletes and sex. Promiscuity is so the norm that if a stud isn't shagging everything in sight, we feel faintly ashamed for him.

Obviously Tebow can make people uncomfortable, whether it's for advertising his chastity, or for wearing his faith on his face via biblical citations painted in his eye-black. Hebrews 12:12, his cheekbones read during the Florida State game: "Therefore strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees." His critics find this intrusive, and say the Super Bowl is no place for an argument of this nature. "Pull the ad," NOW President Terry O'Neill said. "Let's focus on the game."

Trouble is, you can't focus on the game without focusing on the individuals who play it -- and that is the genius of Tebow's ad. The Super Bowl is not some reality-free escape zone. Tebow himself is an inescapable fact: Abortion doesn't just involve serious issues of life, but of potential lives, Heisman trophy winners, scientists, doctors, artists, inventors, Little Leaguers -- who would never come to be if their birth mothers had not wrestled with the stakes and chosen to carry those lives to term. And their stories are every bit as real and valid as the stories preferred by NOW.

Let me be clear again: I couldn't disagree with Tebow more. It's my own belief that the state has no business putting its hand under skirts. But I don't care that we differ. Some people will care that the ad is paid for by Focus on the Family, a group whose former spokesman, James Dobson, says loathsome things about gays. Some will care that Tebow is a creationist. Some will care that CBS has rejected a gay dating service ad. None of this is the point. CBS owns its broadcast and can run whatever advertising it wants, and Tebow has a right to express his beliefs publicly. Just as I have the right to reject or accept them after listening -- or think a little more deeply about the issues. 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.

Tebow's ad, by the way, never mentions abortion; like the player himself, it's apparently soft-spoken. It simply has the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." This is what NOW has labeled "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning." But if there is any demeaning here, it's coming from NOW, via the suggestion that these aren't real questions, and that we as a Super Bowl audience are too stupid or too disinterested to handle them on game day.

Reagan's Words Still Ring True Today!

Special thanks to Gary C. for sending this along...

Miss Him Yet?

"Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it."
-Ronald Reagan

'Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.'
- Ronald Reagan

'The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
-Ronald Reagan

'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.'
-Ronald Reagan

'Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.'
- Ronald Reagan

'I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.'
-Ronald Reagan

'The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.'
- Ronald Reagan

'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.'
- Ronald Reagan

'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.'
- Ronald Reagan

'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.'
- Ronald Reagan

'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it'
- Ronald Reagan

'Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.'
- Ronald Reagan

'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'
- Ronald Reagan

'If we ever forget that we're one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under.'
-Ronald Reagan

Obama's State of the Union Address

As always, great job by FactCheck.org for its analysis of President Obama's State of the Union speech last night. 

Summary

President Obama peppered his State of the Union address to Congress and the nation with facts, which were mostly right but sometimes cherry-picked, strained or otherwise misleading.

• He said “there are about 2 million Americans working right now” because of last year’s stimulus bill. But his own economic advisers say the total could be as little as 1.5 million, and independent estimates range down to as low as 800,000.

• He quoted the Congressional Budget Office as saying health care legislation could “bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion” over the next 20 years. But CBO has made clear that’s a soft and uncertain estimate.

• He said that when he took office, the deficit already was projected to total $8 trillion over the next 10 years. But the estimate is from his own Office of Management and Budget; the CBO put the figure at trillions less.

• He said he believes a Supreme Court decision will allow foreign corporations to spend in U.S. elections. Perhaps so, but it actually did not address a law still on the books forbidding any foreign-based corporation from spending on electioneering here.

Analysis

This was the president’s first State of the Union address, but not his first speech to a joint session of Congress. We found a number of errors in his first one on Feb. 24, 2009, and also in his health care speech Sept. 9 (when a GOP House member shouted "you lie").

This time Republicans merely scoffed and grumbled at some of Obama’s statements. And while we found Obama strained the facts or cited uncertain statistics at times, we uncovered nothing we could show to be false.

How Many Jobs?

The president said the stimulus bill was responsible for "about 2 million" jobs, but that’s far from certain. Other estimates put the total as low as 800,000.

Obama: Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed.

The 2 million jobs estimate comes from the latest report of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. It said: "CEA estimates that as of the fourth quarter of 2009, the [stimulus bill] has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by 1½ to 2 million." So his own economic advisers say the number could be as low as 1.5 million, but Obama took the higher number in their range. And the CEA report also cited fourth-quarter estimates from others, including the Congressional Budget Office and private economic forecasting firms, most of which are lower than the 2 million figure Obama used. The other estimates for job creation are:

• CBO: 800,000 to 2.4 million

• IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million

• Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.1 million

• Moody’s Economy.com: 1.6 million

Furthermore, it’s difficult to say definitively what the employment situation would have been without the legislation, and the CEA report acknowledges that, saying: "As we have emphasized, measuring what a policy action has contributed to growth and employment is inherently difficult because we do not observe what would have occurred without the policy. Therefore, it must be understood that our estimates are subject to substantial margins of error."

Hopeful on Health Care

Obama touted an optimistic — and highly uncertain — estimate on how the Senate health care bill could affect the deficit:

Obama: And according to the Congressional Budget Office – the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress – our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.

It’s true that the CBO’s admittedly rough estimate said the bill could reduce the deficit below its projected level by “as much as” about $1 trillion over 20 years — but it also said the reduction could be half of that amount. And it noted the estimate is subject to a great deal of uncertainty.

CBO normally gives estimates for 10-year periods, and the nonpartisan entity doesn’t like to go beyond that. It said the Senate bill could produce a net deficit reduction of $132 billion over 2010-2019. For the next decade, CBO said the reduction would be “in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP.” Senate Democrats estimated that would mean a reduction of $650 billion to $1.3 trillion.

But CBO emphasized how squishy that large range is: “The imprecision of that calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to it.” Plus, the numbers count on a reduction in the growth of Medicare spending, of which CBO isn’t so confident. “It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care,” CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf wrote.

Stretching Deficit Facts?

Republicans laughed when Obama described the huge deficits he had inherited when he took office.

Obama: At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause.)

Now — just stating the facts.

Despite the Republican scoffing, Obama’s claims are backed up by the historical record — mostly.

• Budget surplus in 2000: The Congressional Budget Office reported on Nov. 14, 2000, in its Monthly Budget Review: "Fiscal year 2000 ended with a total budget surplus of $237 billion."

• Deficit when Obama took office: By the time Obama took office, that black ink had turned to gushers of red. "CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion," CBO said in its "Budget and Economic Outlook." That was released Jan. 8, 2009, days before Obama’s inauguration.

So the president actually understated matters regarding annual surpluses and deficits for years past, but he may have strained the facts when he spoke of what was being predicted for future years at the time he assumed office. He said he inherited a projected 10-year deficit of $8 trillion. But at the time, CBO projected only a $3.1 trillion deficit over 10 years (Table 4, page 15).

In fairness, that CBO figure assumed that all of President Bush’s tax cuts would be allowed to expire on schedule. And in reality, Obama and congressional Democrats supported extending many of the cuts, while Republicans supported extending all of them. Extending all of the Bush tax cuts would add another $2.9 trillion to that (Table 7, page 22), for a total of $6 trillion — still short of Obama’s claim.

His figure is based on a "baseline" projection issued Feb. 20 by his own Office of Management and Budget (Table S-2, page 115). The OMB projected a 10-year deficit of $8.9 trillion, including the $787 billion stimulus package that Obama had just signed.

So it’s fair to say that Obama was facing an ocean of red ink when he took office, but it could have been anywhere between $3.1 trillion (CBO’s unrealistically low estimate) to a bit over $8 trillion (OMB’s estimate minus Obama’s stimulus bill).

Foreign Corporations Donating?

The president claimed that "foreign corporations" could begin spending big money to influence U.S. elections under a recent Supreme Court decision.

Obama: Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.

Justice Samuel Alito, who with the other justices sat at the very front of the chamber last night, was seen shaking his head and mouthing what appeared to be the words "not true" as Obama said this. Alito joined the majority in the 5-4 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision issued by the Court last week, which knocked down restrictions on corporate spending on elections.

But it’s unclear whether the court’s opinion will lead to allowing foreign-based corporations to buy campaign ads and engage in other electioneering activities. There is still a law barring foreign corporations from spending money in connection with U.S. elections (see 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3)), and that’s a matter likely to be litigated further. The court’s most recent decision explicitly didn’t deal with that question. But strictly speaking, Obama couched his claim as something "I believe," making it a statement of opinion and not of fact. So whether his view turns out to be right remains to be seen.

Taxes

The president correctly pointed out that he signed a number of tax cuts for individuals and businesses as part of the stimulus package, and also said this:

Obama: And we haven’t raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.

That’s true, according to Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center. But it’s not the whole story. As Obama himself later said, tax increases are coming, at least for some:

Obama: To help working families, we’ll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can’t afford it.

Great Catholic Blog!

Just stumbled on to a great Catholic blog, which features regular contributions from Fr. John Bartunek, LC, author of bestseller, "The Better Part -- A Christ-Centered Resource for Personal Prayer".  The blog, "Catholic Spiritual Direction" can be found here. 

I've also added it to the RC Blog's Favorite Blogs listing on the left.  Enjoy!

Great Video by a Great American

This is a "must see" video. Enjoy! God Bless Col. North, the NRA, and America!