There were a lot of firsts in last night's Super Bowl 44. The New Orleans' Saints made their first showing and earned their first victory. Pepsi made no showing in the much-hyped advertising competition. And an organization that supports family values made its national debut with a commercial that generated more controversy than we've seen in a long time.
Whether you agree or disagree with Focus on the Family's position on a variety of issues, you couldn't argue the intelligence of their decision to run an ad the first year since CBS changed its guidelines that it hosted a Super Bowl. In 2008, CBS agreed to allow advertisers who are promoting a cause, rather than a product or service, to run an ad if it was "appropriate for air." Focus not only took advantage of the policy change but also the national interest in a young quarterback from the University of Florida who has made headlines not only for his athleticism but also for his values which include among other things avoiding pre-marital sex.
The National Organization of Women cried foul early on, saying Focus had no right to espouse their pro-life views on abortion during an otherwise non-politicized national event. They made all kinds of statements about the inappropriateness of the ad when no one, including them, had even seen it. They even went so far as to make their own ad featuring two other athletes and placed it on You Tube. (Apparently, NOW didn't have the same support as Focus who received funding for the ad from anonymous donors.) Many came out for and against the ad. But perhaps the best unexpected support came Sally Jenkins, a Washington Post columnist and publicly Pro-Choice supporter, who made many excellent points, chief of which was the fact that if men avoided pre-marital sex like Tim Tebow, many women wouldn't ever have to ever face the pro-life/pro-choice decision.
Despite all the hype, the spot said nothing about abortion, but instead took a very low key approach to every mother's dream of making sure her children are healthy. Who can argue with that? My advice to NOW and other organizations like them is to listen before they leap. And to focus more on building their case for the issues they support rather than tearing down organization's who take an opposite view. Above all, NOW should consider what a double-standard they are demonstrating by suggesting that Pro-Choice means Pro-Abortion. On the contrary, it means a woman has the right to choose between the options. To make that most critical decision, all women should have the benefit of the facts from both sides.
What did you think of the ad? What did you think of the news surrounding it?