I think yours would be a much better approach, although the typical length of a Superbowl commercial would not permit all of that information to be contained in a single spot.
A problem with the graphic abortion pictures is that those who are strongly “pro-choice” can always tell themselves that it was never alive, that it was never more than a thing that resembles a baby. In fact, I once read an article quoting a nurse who started assisting with abortions, “At first, it was hard, seeing all the pre-babies. But then I got used to it.” Only seeing the babies dead, she was able to maintain the fiction that they were never alive to begin with.
Showing the actual live, moving babies in the womb makes it a little more difficult to maintain a state of denial that they are alive. In a college biology class back in the 80s, the teacher showed us a film in which cameras were somehow inserted into the womb, and there was actual footage of a living, moving baby at various stages of growth, starting at a few weeks, ending in the third trimester. One of the girls watching the film had tragedy written all over her face—I had to guess that she had had an abortion and was forced to face, for the first time, exactly what she had done to her child.
I can certainly see the wisdom of this. For what it's worth, the NFL and network will certainly place restrictions on how graphic any ad can be. However, the fact remains that these images SHOULD offend people, it IS NOT a trivial matter.
I was in high school in the early 80s when MADD started their campaign against drunk driving and much of it was aimed directly at teens, but they were also going into elementary schools. The images of drunk driving fatalities were gruesome, disturbing and tragic; BUT they also worked, people started wearing seat belts, rates of drunk driving dropped, courts started to take drunk driving seriously and fatalities dropped significantly.