Proposed Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad Stirs Controversy

By John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News The plan to place a pro-life ad amongst the parade of beer commercials that traditionally have dominated the advertising sponsors of the televised Super Bowl has stirred supporters of abortion to oppose its broadcast. In the ad, Heisman Trophy-winning college quarterback, Tim Tebow tells the story of how his mother chose to give him life after doctors advised her to abort him. Feminist lawyer Gloria Allred has urged Les Moonves, President and Chief Executive Officer of CBS, to block the because it is “misleading.” “The implication that any fetus saved from being aborted will grow up to be a valuable person is about as far from the truth as you can get,” Allred asserted. “The vast majority of abortions prevent unwanted births that would otherwise ruin the lives of everyone involved. The vast majority of women contemplating an abortion should not be allowed to be dissuaded by such blatantly biased propaganda.”Allred’s take was buttressed by Joy Behar on the ABC TV show, The View. Behar belittled Tebow’s pitch for life, characterizing his story as “improbable.” “Any woman who foregoes an abortion on the chance that her child would live a worthwhile life is bucking the odds,” Behar contended. “It’s more likely the child would grow up a racist or pedophile. We shouldn’t be promoting advertisements that distort this reality.”Jehmu Greene, President of Women's Media Center, called the proposed ad “a thinly veiled attempt to subjugate women to a patriarchal agenda. They’re saying that being a mother is a better choice than having an abortion. Well, being a mother exposes a woman to a lifetime of obligations that an abortion would avert. Pressuring women to accept these obligations with a high-profile ad is a manifestation of the kind of male-dominated culture our organization has been fighting. The fact that the ad is slated for a football game—a male-centered form of entertainment—reveals, I think, their true objective.”A statement from the National Organization for Women (NOW) reminded that “we shouldn’t allow women to be influenced by this one exceptional case. There’s a greater chance that a woman could end up the mother of a severely handicapped child, like former Republican vice-presidential candidate and Alaska governor, Sarah Palin did. The proposed ad conceals this truth. It is unfit for TV.”Homeland Security Announces Major ArrestDepartment of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Nappertaliano announced that “our efforts against terror have taken a significant step forward with the arrest of James O’Keefe and his accomplices in Louisiana this past week.”O’Keefe is the journalist who gained notoriety last September for exposing corruption in the offices of Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). He and three associates were arrested in the Louisiana office of Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La) and accused of attempting to “bug” the Senator’s phone lines.“Based on his past activities, it is clear that Mr. O’Keefe represents a real threat to the government of the United States,” Nappertaliano said. “His defamation of ACORN, an organization of crucial importance to the success of President Obama’s agenda and continuation in office, helped put him on our Department’s radar screen. Now that we actually have him in custody, I think we can all rest a lot easier.”The Secretary gave a public demonstration of the reassuring comfort the arrest has provided as she was observed dozing in her seat at President Obama’s “State of the Union” speech on Wednesday.Senator Calls for Censure of Supreme Court JusticeSenator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) called for a sharp rebuke of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s behavior at the “State of the Union” address given by President Barack Obama. During the President’s remarks characterizing a recent Supreme Court decision as a threat to democracy, Justice Alito was observed to be shaking his head and silently mouthing the words “not true.”“President Obama is the one who was elected by the people to rule this country,” Feingold said. “Obstructing the governance of this country through bad judicial decisions or by letting himself be seen publicly disagreeing with the president is the type of thing my legislation was devised to control.”Feingold admitted that “we don’t have the votes to impeach Alito. That takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate and Republicans are sure to block that.” But held that “a censure vote only requires a majority.” The Senator said he hoped that “the public condemnation of a censure would give average people the moral support they need in order to carry out the President’s call for them to ‘get in the faces of those who oppose my agenda for change and let them know they won’t get away with it.’”Senator Feingold’s feelings on this issue run strong. It was the McCain-Feingold Bill’s ban on independent advocacy expenditures that the Supreme Court decision invalidated. “Because of Alito and others on the Court, anyone can say anything about any public official whenever they want,” Feingold complained. “Candidates now will have no protection from unauthorized criticisms in the key weeks running up to election day. We’ve lost control of the election process. It’s a sad day for America.”In related news, fresh from a private briefing with President Obama, international investor and major lobbyist/financier for liberal political causes, George Soros, announced that he would head up efforts “to bury the opponents of President Obama with a blizzard of campaign dollars, just like we did in the 2008 election. Let’s see if the Court’s ruling will enable the so-called ‘independent’ enemies of the President can match us.”New York Times Chides SarkozyThe editors of the New York Times newspaper chastised French President Nicolas Sarkozy for sponsoring legislation that would outlaw facial coverings in public. Sarkozy’s ban has been applauded by some French Muslim women, but has been criticized by Muslim leaders, who say it could provoke Muslim men to violence.The Times editors derided Sarkozy’s measure as “intolerant and insensitive.” “Covering the female body is an essential tenet of devout Islamic belief,” the editors wrote. “Prohibiting it tramples on the freedom to practice one’s religion as one sees fit. It is just as wrong as banning female circumcision or arresting Muslim men for disciplining their wives. We cannot rightfully impose Western values on the rest of the world. We must respect the right of others to live as they please.”The editors explicitly rejected arguments based on “the imagined oppression of women said to be taking place under Islamic law. From what we hear, most of the women who wear burqas express gratitude to their husbands for enforcing the Islamic laws that ensure women’s purity.”Neither should we accept that public safety warrants the ban, say the editors. “We acknowledge that the burqa may be used to conceal weapons or explosives that are then smuggle into public places for intended violent actions,” the editors conceded. “But just as covering women is sacred to Islam, so, too, is making war on infidels. Tolerating these beliefs is a price we must be willing to pay to preserve our belief in freedom of religion.”Jesse Jackson Offers Plan to Revive EconomySaying that President Obama hasn’t been audacious enough, a dark-skinned former presidential aspirant with a distinctively Negro dialect, Jesse Jackson, proffered what he called “a simple plan for a free man.”Jackson’s simple plan urged the President to “forget about the deficit. It’s just a number. The real solution is for people to have enough money to buy what they need. The government is uniquely empowered to supply this money.”The gist of Jackson’s proposal is for the government to create money and give it out to those who are unemployed. “If a man has money in his pocket being unemployed won’t hurt,” Jackson argued. “He could buy food, pay the rent, and have something left over for fun.”A byproduct of his plan, according to Jackson, is that it would help reduce health care costs. “Working is a source of stress,” Jackson observed. “Traveling to work also exposes a person to risk of a crash. If people could be assured of an income without having to work these causes of medical expenses would be eliminated.”“If everyone currently unemployed were given the median income—about $40,000/year—the cost of my plan would only be $600 billion a year,” Jackson estimated. “This is less than we’re spending on the various stimulus packages right now. So, it’s definitely doable.”Jackson said “if my plan goes well it could eventually be expanded to cover everyone in America. Then everyone would be ensured of a decent standard of living AND have a lot more free time to spend with family and friends once the need to go to a daily job is eliminated. I think this is the change President Obama intended and one that everyone who voted for him believed in.”John Semmens’ Archives