Washington Examiner: National Organization for Women upset over ‘domestic violence’ in Tebow pro-life ad?
From the Washington Examiner:
Naturally, the National Organization for Humorless Scolds Women couldn’t stand to see a positive pro-family ad go without comment:
“NOW president Terry O’Neill said it glorified violence against women. ‘I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it,’ she said. ‘That’s what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don’t find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself.’
Oh good grief. It takes a lot of gall for one of the country’s leading abortion defenders to accuse others of violence, let alone when it’s obvious and harmless slapstick. Remember, domestic violence is only okay when committed against unborn children — am I right, NOW?
Still awaiting word on whether or not NOW is boycotting Snickers for it’s portrayal of Betty White.
The Backfire Heard Around the World
Ok, seriously, I’m trying to be gracious to our neighbors at WV Free, Planned Parenthood, and NARAL, but part of me is wondering this morning if they’re waking up with red faces over their multiple week crusade tirade against Focus on the Family, the Tebows, and the First Amendment.
As it happened, I missed the Tebow ad during the game last night. But, I just watched it this morning and found myself incredibly surprised at how . . . corny it was! If you haven’t watched it, here it is:
Ok, let me explain my comments. I liked the commercial. It’s cute and, in keeping with the majority of Super Bowl commercials, it has an element of silliness to it. Sure, it’s a little corny, but that’s what makes it endearing.
But, it’s not Tim Tebow’s gushing smile or his Mom’s parting line that has me laughing. I’m incredibly amused that “reproductive justice” organizations spent so much time, money, and energy bemoaning THIS ad as an insult to women and their sacred “right to choose.” Talk about giving legs to a story! In fact, the marketing team at Focus on the Family might get an historical award for having the most memorable lead-up to a Super Bowl ad in history, but the reality is, the actual ad was far, far different from what the leftists lead us to believe – and through their rhetoric against life, they actually served to promote the sanctity of human life (and the First Amendment)!
Beyond the (accidental) genius marketing by Focus, our Colorado Springs friends have succeeded in their goal: raising the discussion about the importance of life and calling for real solutions to a societal problem that has dispatched – without offering them a choice – 52 million children to an eternity beyond this physical world.
Super Bowl 44 will long be remembered for a quarterback who is yet to play his first NFL football game. Long after Colts fans commit to forgiving Peyton Manning for throwing an interception with less than 2 minutes left in the game, and long after New Orleans returns to normal, Americans will remember that expectant women do, indeed, have a choice – one difficult and seemingly lonesome to make, but one that pits self verses selflessness, life verses death, potential verses present.
For that message, we say thank you to Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and WV Free for helping to promote.
By the way, if you haven’t watched the longer, remarkably poignant interview with Bob and Pam Tebow, please go to www.FocusOntheFamily.com to watch today.
PRESS RELEASE: FPCWV Applauds Attorney General
FPCWV Applauds Attorney General’s Support of Religious Freedom, First Amendment
Family advocacy supports Attorney General Darrell McGraw’s support of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez before SCOTUS
CHARLESTON, W.Va., – As a critical First Amendment case makes its way to the Supreme Court of the United States, the Family Policy Council of West Virginia (FPCWV) today praised the addition of Attorney General Darrell McGraw’s signature to an important amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) brief filed Thursday. McGraw joins attorneys general from around the country in arguing against the recent decision by the University of California to dismiss a student ministry from its Hastings College of Law because the ministry required its members to affirm its core religious viewpoints.
“Under our Constitution, students in America have the right to freely and peacefully assemble. Christian students should never be penalized for simply abiding by their religious convictions,” said Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq., president and general counsel of the FPCWV, who lobbied the attorney general’s office for his signature.
According to Dys, colleges and universities could legally force Christian student ministries to ignore centuries of Biblical conviction for the sake of “tolerance” if the Supreme Court upholds the current decision. Likewise, institutions of higher education could mandate Democrat student groups to accept Republican members or feminist student organizations to appoint male chauvinist members.
In adding his signature on behalf of the State of West Virginia, Attorney General McGraw disclosed his personal connection to the national story. In a footnote, the brief notes:
“West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw wishes to disclose that his daughter, Elliotte Catherine McGraw, is a student at Hastings College of Law and President of the Hastings Democrats. The Hastings Democrats were recently notified by the school that in order to maintain the Club’s standing as a student organization, it was required to open its membership to all students, irrespective of party affiliation.”
The Martinez case was granted certiorari in December. It appeals the U.S. Appellate Court for the 9th Circuit’s March 2009 decision upholding a district court ruling against the Christian ministry at Hastings.
The Family Policy Council of West Virginia is a servant organization that advocates for policies that embrace the sanctity of human life, enrich marriage, and safeguard religious freedom.
# # #
Engage Family Minute – February 4
NEW Video: “Trust”
With over 1,500 views on YouTube, the videos released by the Family Policy Council of West Virginia and WV4Marriage.com over the last two weeks have made people stop and think about the importance of allowing West Virginians to vote on the definition of marriage.
In this week’s video, the ACLU of WV disparages the democratic process all while forgetting the author of our rights and freedoms. Click on the video above to watch the latest video from WV4Marriage.com.
Commentary: Charleston Gazette – “Voters Should Rule on Marriage”
My latest editorial from today’s Charleston Gazette:
Since the end of the 2009 session, lawmakers have been studying whether they should allow West Virginians to vote on the definition of marriage. Yet, the 2010 legislative session has begun, and our leaders have failed to advance a legitimate reason not to let the people vote on the definition of marriage.
This summer, legislators heard from a variety of experts on the topic at a standing-room-only hearing. At that hearing, former Delegate Carrie Webster indicated that it was essentially the job of the Legislature to protect West Virginians from themselves. She posed an interesting hypothetical question to me. “What if,” she said, “we took a poll next year that indicated 90 percent of West Virginians wanted to vote to reinstitute slavery. Should we let them?”
Setting aside the apples-and-oranges nature of such a question for the moment, and putting aside that the founders did not implement the voting process to be dependent upon which subject matters individual legislators morally approve – and the fact that, in reality, West Virginians would soundly reject slavery if put to a vote – there’s a more foundational question, which I could ask of Delegate Webster herself: “What if next year we took a poll in your district, and 90 percent of the people there want to vote for you. Should we let them?”
This is a good question because the very process that West Virginia voters use to put lawmakers in office is being denied to the same voters when it comes to deciding an issue with which many lawmakers are at odds with the will of the people.
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Part 4
By Nathan A. Cherry
Genesis 1:26-28
Personhood: Gender Equality Before God: The only way to properly understand the God-ordained roles of man and woman within marriage is to first understand the personhood of mankind. The only way to truly grasp the differences and uniqueness of man and woman is to first understand the equality of their existence and standing before God. Without an understanding of this equality it will be easy to harbor an improper view of the man-woman relationship.
First we must consider three glorious aspects to man’s personhood found in verse 26. Up to this point God has spoken everything into creation. He has said “let there be” and by mere words all things came into existence. But now God is rolling up His sleeves to get His hands dirty in creating man. A second glorious fact is that God made man in His own image. Man possesses a personal reflection of Gods righteous character. We possess a mental, emotional, spiritual, and moral resemblance of our Creator. Last is the fact that man was made the sole representative of God upon the earth; God told man to have dominion over all of creation.
Moving to verse 27 we can see the divine creation of man, or, in other words we came from God. We also see again that we bear a resemblance to the divine image of God. But very important in verse 27 is the fact that we were made male and female. God didn’t make a mistake when He created us male and female. Society tries to downplay the differences in the sexes while simultaneously advocating for their free sexuality. This is a perversion of the image of God in each of the unique sexes. We must understand that God made us different, unique, and yet equal in respect, worth, value, and standing before Him. This fact is reiterated in verse 28 when God pronounces a blessing upon both man and woman. He does not say that one is good and one is not, or that one is better than another. He blesses them both, inherent differences and all.
Personal Foul – Unnecessary Roughness On NOW and Pro-Aborts
By Nathan A. Cherry
Martinsburg, W.V. – What if I told you that a mother was counseled by doctors to abort her unborn child for medical reasons? What if I told you that this same mother was in a foreign country and had contracted an illness that doctors told her could cause birth-defects? What if I told you the mother believed so strongly in life that she completed the pregnancy and gave birth to her newborn son? What if I then told you that son would go on to become one of the greatest college quarterbacks in NCAA history? This is the true story of Tim Tebow and the decision his mother, Pam, made in 1987 as a missionary.
The Tebow’s along with Focus on the Family are set to air a 30 second pro-life commercial during the Super Bowl. Pro-abortion groups have been hounding the Tebow’s, Focus on the Family, and pressuring CBS to pull the spot from the Super Bowl lineup. To show support for Tim and his courage to stand for life a website, www.blockhardfortebow.com has been started where you can view Tim’s testimony and ESPN interview, as well as send Tim a note of support for his pro-life stand.
All that to say, below is an article by Susan B Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser which appeared on FOXNews.com. Ms. Dannenfelser combats the silly and ludicrous attacks by NOW and other pro-abortion groups over the pro-life message of the ad. Please take a moment to read the article and then click this link to see the original article at FOXNews.com or click this link to view an interview with Ms. Dannenfelser about the controversy.
Why Is NOW So Afraid of a Pro-Life, Pro-Family Ad?
By Marjorie Dannenfelser
What is the National Organization for Women afraid of? Apparently a touching story about a courageous woman who chooses life in the face of adversity is just too much to take. And when her football star son decides to share that story on Super Bowl Sunday, well, that goes too far. It’s “divisive.”
NOW and its affiliate organizations the Feminist Majority and Women’s Media Center are condemning the Super Bowl advertisement featuring Tim Tebow and his mother Pam, calling it an offensive “anti-choice” ad.
Read the rest of this entry »
Engage Family Minute – February 3
Afterthoughts: What I should have said . . .
If you’re anything like me, you always remember your strongest arguments after you are done arguing. That happens more often than I like when I get the chance to be on shows like Talkline, the state’s largest radio talk show. It’s in part due to nerves, in parts due to time crunches (you just can’t get everything you want to get into the show, on air), and in part due to strategic efforts to get folks to remember your main points.
So, with that said, here’s some thoughts from this morning’s interview with Hoppy Kercheval as he moderated what was a debate that fizzled with me and Margaret Chapman-Pomponio from WV Free:
