Tim probably doesn’t think so, and his mom probably doesn’t either. But contrary to what some of my friends on the left have been telling you, the controversial Super Bowl ad that CBS is allowing Focus on the Family to run is a pro-choice ad.

Pam Tebow chose not to have an abortion.

Now, there is the little problem with the Philippines, where Pam Tebow was a missionary, being an ultra-Roman Catholic country that has outlawed abortion with some pretty draconian laws against both practitioners AND a woman who might have one since the 1930s or so, meaning Momma Pam actually didn’t have a real choice in the matter. Since Philippine law has no exemption in case of rape, incest OR the life of the mother, Pam could either risk severe infection or death from an illegal abortion — or risk jail time if she were caught — or risk death if she carried Timmy to term. Is that a real choice? Not so much, actually.

And, of course, the ad is sponsored by Focus on the Family, which only supports an abortion when the mother’s life is in danger, and barely then.

And while the message of Tim’s ad seems to be “Don’t have an abortion, because that kid could grow up to be a star quarterback who wears Bible verses in his eyeblack and makes a pithy ’speech’ apologizing to fans for losing an early game and squandering his school’s chance for a undefeated season,” it’s really this: You can have all the choice you want, as long as it’s the one we want you to make. Oh, and you’re un-American and an asshole if you disagree. Free speech!

Yeah, about that free speech. Liberal groups have for years tried to buy ad space during the Super Bowl, from Planned Parenthood to Moveon.org. And they’ve all been rejected for being too “controversial.” CBS just thought that the Super Bowl shouldn’t be tainted with issues that make you think beyond 22 men bashing each others brains out on a football field. Oh, and beer and women with lots of cleavage.

Drinking and sexy girls. Yeah, that’s the way to promote American values, there, CBS. Good job.

Perhaps the most famous of those rejected ads was this one from the United Churches of Christ. CBS didn’t think twice about turning this down. The network told UCC — just five years ago — that it doesn’t “permit any ad that touches on and/or takes a position on one side of a current controversial issue of public importance” and further that it had “a longstanding policy of not accepting advocacy advertising.”

Needless to say, it was a surprise to learn that CBS was running the FoF ad. I mean, it did “touch on” and “take a position” on “a current controversial issue of public importance.” And what happened to that “longstanding policly of not accepting advocacy advertising?”

Well, it turns out that CBS changed its mind — and neglected to tell anyone, except, apparently, Focus on the Family.

We have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms. In fact, most media outlets have accepted advocacy ads for some time.

Seriously? “For some time?” Like, the last five years? CBS added, with no sense of itself at all, that the UCC ad would be allowed under their modern, 21st century ideas. Wow. My head is just spinning. Thanks, CBS!

Now, some are trying to claim that CBS’ rejection of a gay dating service ad is equivalent to the UCC rejection. It’s not. We’re talking here about advocacy. The ManCrunch ad didn’t advocate anything — it just advertised its services. That’s more akin to CBS rejecting, say, a Focus on the Family spot advertising itself for abortion counseling.

At least, I’d hope that to be the case.

On the other hand, CBS gets no style points for rejecting the ManCrunch ad. Think they’d reject eHarmony or Match.com? And besides, the ManCrunch ad is pretty funny. It also proved that some people are humor impaired. I saw several mainstream Web sites describing the ad — and no small number noted the “serious make-out session.” Huh? They think that was serious? And they didn’t get a clue from the end of the ad? Oy.

Yeah, those reports were all written by men. What of it?

Interestingly, Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon dislikes the ad for the same reason I like it — it’s just that she sees the fake makeout session as “cowardly.”

I did find this ad offensive, but only because it’s so painfully aware of how homophobic much of the intended audience is, and it tries too hard to please them by having the guys making out not actually make out at all, but instead fake kiss in a really obvious way.  Well not “offensive” (this is a word I’m trying to ban from my vocabulary, because I’m beginning to see how it encourages lazy, inexact thinking), but certainly cowardly.  And it ruins a genuinely funny joke that sends up the macho culture of football, but also portraying football fans as people capable of setting that all aside.  Heart-warming, really.  And by rejecting the ad, CBS implies that the homophobia that sports culture inculcates is right and good and even sacrosanct.

To each her own, I guess. But then, I’ve always considered Amanda a little more highbrow than I am. She’s usually polite, whereas I generally cuss like a sailor, if sailors actually do that anymore. Actually, I think it’s journalists now. Real journalists, not the ones who play one on TV.

AWOP contributing editor, politics
On Facebook