Keep the Monsters Away
Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign up
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up today
Posted on 01/10/2012 3:14:04 PM PST by NYer
While the Super Bowl commercial has become a mainstream staple of the game, viewers in some markets will be shown something new, commercials featuring bloody aborted babies.
Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, is running for president. However, Terry is not running on the Republican ticket, but is running as a Democrat against Barack Obama.
Terry has already run political ads featuring graphic images of babies killed by abortion during the first and second trimester. The ads were part of a three day ad run in New Hampshire on WBIN. The ads consisted of four 30 second spots that ran in rotation that attacked Obama’s support of child killing by abortion.
Terry is also planning on purchasing similar ads in local markets during the Super Bowl.
While ads of this type have frequently been rejected by television agencies for their graphic content, Terry is using a loophole in federal election law that requires stations to run his ads.
FEC regulations require television stations to run ads by a political candidate within 45 days of an election. This means that primary states that fall within the 45 day window will have to run the graphic ads during the Super Bowl if he purchases the slots.
The campaign says they have ads ready to go in 40 markets, including Colorado. The first ad was purchased on Friday, January 6.
While Terry realizes he stands little chance of getting the Democratic nomination, he said he is running in order to give pro-life Catholics and evangelicals in the Democratic Party a choice during the primary season.
The difference between the candidates could not be more stark. Obama has 100 percent rating from militant pro-abortion group NARAL. While a state Senator in Illinois, Obama vetoed a bill that would require babies that survived an abortion be given medical treatment.
By contrast, while with Operation Rescue, Terry was arrested nearly 50 times and incarcerated nearly one full year for his defense of the unborn.
Ping!
I loath abortion, however I find these ads idiotic and they do not advance pro-life causes.
Nonsense. Will never happen. The NFL would never allow any such thing.
Cool trick. How?
It's always been the MSM and the GOP who have successfully divided the party on the non-issue of abortion which in reality, is beyond the scope of influence of any elected president.
That's 38 years in which the SCOTUS has never had the opportunity to overturn R Vs. W......It's not the fault of any president regardless of party affiliation.
I am sort of on the fence with this one. On the one hand, why hide and sugar coat what is going on every day in this country. Perhaps if some people see a baby vs a “glob of tissue”, some may change their mind. However, is this the right venue? Will this commercial actually harm the pro-life movement? Many people will get angry over it since it isn’t a funny beer commercial or a car insurance ad. Not sure on this one....
Actually, they do. As young girls growing up, we were led to believe the unborn were just “a blob of cells”, nothing more.
Show a gal a pic of an aborted fetus and the light goes on, for those whom have a conscience.
You’d be surprised how many girls find themselves a conscience after seeing those pics.
Why do you think they are SO against girls/women having sonograms prior to their abortions?
I will give you good odds this will not happen. As part of the Superbowl promotions, year after year, they suggest they will run controversial ads, but every single time they drop the ads before the game.
They figure the public relations of both offering than withdrawing the ads will get more people to watch the ads they do air, and those groups that have their ads withdrawn get publicity as well, and put their ads on other mediums, like YouTube, or Live Leak, if YouTube won’t allow them either.
Bottom line: its a publicity stunt.
I am a man and I couldn’t agree with you more.
Terry was arrested nearly 50 times and incarcerated nearly one full year for his defense of the unborn.
I’m one against abortion period...perhaps we need to build a bridge for those that don’t understand what abortion is...if they call it a baby outside the womb but a “glob of tissue” inside the womb then we need to explain to them that they were also a “glob of tissue” at one point. The difference is the aborted “glob of tissue” had no love...the “glob of tissue” that developed as planned had love...period and end of conversation!!!!!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
I respectfully disagree. THere’s much evidence to suggest that graphic images have caused numerous conversions to the pro-life cause
“Cool trick. How? “
Excuse me???
Ever since they’ve added insignificant and washed up rock-n-rollers stupid extravaganzas at half-time, I refuse to watch the Super Bowl. Just who decided that morons like Madonna, etc., had anything to do with football? It totally ruins the game flow, floods the field with useless people dragged out of the stands, fills the field with smoke that takes a quarter to get rid of, and is moronic to begin with. Can you imagine a rock-n-roll concert having a football game during intermission?
I’d rather watch the “Puppy Bowl” and then watch the highlights after the game is over . . . gonna’ see the big plays anyway, so why watch the game with its 1/2 intro of each player and everyone seated in the stands, the ridiculous religious coin toss, the smoke filled half time of almost a 1/2 hour or more, and then the last half.
Or maybe read a good book.
The pro life movement needs to learn to “win hearts”.......not “arguments”. This is the only way to change our culture.
How does a senator veto something?
It’s kinda like the unions in LA when they protest. They lie down in the middle of the busiest streets and cause terminal gridlock.
Everybody hates them because they get caught up in hours long traffic jam. Stupid.
Amen. They weren’t kidding when they said “a picture is worth a thousand words”.
So true.
How does a state Senator veto anything?
I know they want to shock Americans into realizing what happens in an abortion, but even many pro-life folks are turned off by these ads. They won’t be winning friends or influencing people with them.
You seriously consider abortion a “non-issue”? You are no conservative.
"NON-ISSUE"???
Pre-born babies are being killed. What do you rank ahead of that?
And Presidents can change the status of the legality of abortion by appointing anti-Roe Supreme Court Justices and by signing on to Congress taking abortion out of the purview of the courts.
Anything that puts the true horror of abortion in front of the faces of the apathetic beer-swillers gets a green light from me.
True. I didn’t catch the wording. It should read “voted against”, not vetoed.
Still, this guy is a blood-thirsty pro-abort monster that must be stopped
I agree. I always wondered why they carry signs like that. It hurts the cause more then it helps.. I am totally prolife and would be out every weekend protesting if we had an abortion clinic here in Pville.. But come on don’t hurt the cause in that way. IMHO
Abortion as a life or death issue is indeed important and I am staunchly opposed to it. But when used as a political tool, it is nothing more than a false wedge designed to divide the party. Since Roe vs. Wade, we have had 23 years of Republican presidents, all of whom have been opposed to abortion. In terms of the Supreme Court, it’s been considered Conservative for at least the past 35 years. Of the 5 Justices considered the most conservative since Franklin Roosevelt, 4 of them are currently seated.
If a president had the power to overturn R v. W, why hasn’t it been done by now?
If the SCOTUS has the power to overturn R v. W, why hasn’t it been done by now?
If both the President and the SCOTUS together had the power to overturn R v. W then why haven’t they done so by now?
The closest the Supreme Court has come to overturning R v. W was when they upheld the ban against partial birth abortion and that was only a 5 - 4 decision.
The sad truth is, it’s unlikely R v. W will ever be overturned in our lifetime, if ever. And to hold the pro-life issue as a primary litmus test over all the other obstacles facing the presidency in order to determine who one will vote for, the afore mentioned 35 years has already proven that to be a useless criteria……..
Abortion as a life or death issue is indeed important and I am staunchly opposed to it. But
"But" tends to mean that the assertion preceding it was not meant.
when used as a political tool, it is nothing more than a false wedge designed to divide the party.
I want to be divided from anyone who is for abortion. It is a division between good and evil. Nothing false about that.
Since Roe vs. Wade, we have had 23 years of Republican presidents, all of whom have been opposed to abortion.
Wrong. Ford was pro-abortion, like Nixon before him. Reagan willfully went against pro-lifers in appointing O'Connor, who was already known to be pro-abortion. Bush 1 was pro-abortion. Bush 2 was lukewarm, and only appointed Roberts and Alito after a massive backlash against his appointment of pro-abortion Harriet Meiers.
In terms of the Supreme Court, it’s been considered Conservative for at least the past 35 years.
Also wrong. It hasn't been anything of the kind, as evidenced by decisions like Casey in 1992.
Of the 5 Justices considered the most conservative since Franklin Roosevelt, 4 of them are currently seated.
Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would overturn Roe. Roberts might. Rehnquist and White both would have, as evidenced by their dissent from the original decision.
If the SCOTUS has the power to overturn R v. W, why hasn’t it been done by now?
That's a non sequitur, contending that "hasn't happened" = "can't happen". That's ridiculous.
The closest the Supreme Court has come to overturning R v. W was when they upheld the ban against partial birth abortion and that was only a 5 - 4 decision.
Wrong again. There was a 5-4 agreement to overturn Roe in 1992, but Kennedy sold out and sided with O'Connor.
The sad truth
Kindly stop pretending to care.
it’s unlikely R v. W will ever be overturned in our lifetime, if ever.
Wrong again. There are hundreds of millions of people in the USA and it only takes 5 who want to overturn Roe to be on the Supreme Court. 4 of those 5 may already be there.
And to hold the pro-life issue as a primary litmus test over all the other obstacles facing the presidency in order to determine who one will vote for
Protecting the lives of innocent little pre-born babies is primary.
This is the ad last year that everyone made such a fuss about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw7qX1TpdNQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Oh yeah, that’s gruesome. NOT! (;
PS - They said that ad was “graphic” too in their effort to get it off the air. The pro-death crowd is a bunch of liars.
For?
Are you serious? That’s the “gruesome, disturbing ad” that we are suppose to shield our children’s eyes from? Unbelievable!
I saw his name on the Dem ballot, but didn't think it was the same man...
Thank you.
I thought you might be interested in the pro-life ad Focus on the Family ran during Saturday night’s game -
https://focusonthefamily.webconnex.com/free-downloads?refcd=102307
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.