Danielle Bean, a wife and mother of eight, is editorial director of Faith & Family magazine and author of My Cup of Tea, Mom to Mom, Day to Day, and most recently Small Steps for Catholic Moms. Read more of her blogging at Faith & Family Live and DanielleBean.com.
There’s been quite a bit of furor since we first learned about Tim Tebow’s upcoming pro-life Super Bowl ad.
While some pro-abortion feminists have been performing mental and linguistic gymnastics in a desperate attempt to remain “pro-choice” while demanding that CBS deny Pam Tebow the opportunity to share her story of choosing life, others have lifted their heads above the fog for long enough to see the situation with some clarity.
“I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not,” writes Sally Jenkins in the Washington Post. “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 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.”
While they don’t support the Tebow ad, Frances Kissling, the former president of Catholics for Choice and Kate Michelman, the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, also appear to see the Super Bowl ad controversy with some sense:
“Women’s and choice groups responding to the Tebow ad should take a page from the Focus on the Family playbook,” they wrote recently in the Washington Post, “Erin Matson, the National Organization for Women’s new vice president, called the Tebow spot ‘hate masquerading as love.’ That kind of comment may play well in the choice choir, but to others, it makes no sense, at best; at worst, it’s seen as the kind of stridency that reinforces the view that pro-choice simply means pro-abortion.”
The rest of their piece reads like a sad look back at a failed movement.
They report that science has managed to humanize the unborn: “Today, the first picture in most baby books is the 12-week 3D ultrasound, and Grandma and Grandpa have that photo posted on the fridge.”
They note the success Feminists for Life has had by “reaching out to college students, talking not about making abortion illegal but about helping college women keep their babies.”
The “pro-choice” movement is far from dead. But when I see hard-core feminists nervously chronicling the success of a positive pro-life message and struggling to distance themselves from the tyrannical shrieking of their pro-abortion counterparts, I see hope. I see promise. I see life.