Odd how quickly the interpretation of events changes. Take the Super Bowl Tebow ad. We started with this scenario:
Pro-choice advocates were shocked when CBS appeared to violate internal policy and accepted this spot -- reportedly at a price of at least $2.5 million -- produced and paid for by Focus on the Family, a conservative antiabortion, anti-gay group. Though CBS says it has altered its policy, the networks have consistently rejected advocacy ads on controversial topics. The United Church of Christ was turned down by CBS in 2004 when it wanted to air a Super Bowl ad that celebrated diversity and welcomed gay and lesbian Christians to the denomination. And last year NBC rejected a spot from an antiabortion group that tried to use President Obama's life story to convey its message. The rules of the game seem to have changed without warning.
This is the point when I posted an action alert linking to a petition for CBS to withdraw the ad. If the United Church of Christ couldn't do it, why can the Focus on (male-dominated) Family?
What happened next? CBS told that they had changed their policy. Only they didn't bother to tell anyone until after the Tebow ad was accepted. And now all the pro-choice organizations who called for the withdrawal of the ad have egg on their faces (pun unintended)! They are censors and worse! A NYT editorial:
The National Organization for Women, NARAL Pro-Choice America and other voices for protecting women's reproductive freedom have called on CBS to yank it. Their protest is puzzling and dismaying.
The reasons cited in the editorial may be puzzling and dismaying. But the initial campaign for yanking the ad was not, because it was based on the sudden (and secret) shift in CBS policy.
OK. Now that we all know that CBS changed its policy, what is the proper pro-choice response to the ad? Is it to point out that Tim Tebow's mother exercised her choice, a choice which the Focus on Family guys would not want women to have?