There has been a lot of controversy swirling around the Tim Tebow ad that is scheduled to air during the superbowl. The ad has not yet been released for public viewing and will not be available to the public until it's scheduled airing during the superbowl. It is said to be a 30 second clip that's tagline is "Celebrate Life, Celebrate Family" and will include a brief summary of Tim & Pam's story and how she was encouraged to abort, but went against medical advice and kept her child who is now a huge football star. There is an uproar coming from the pro-abortion lobbyist. Feminist, Gloria Allred has even gone as far as to say that the story of Tebow's birth is untrue others simply object because of their own personal viewpoint.

I believe that the real reason behind the controversy is not the message, but where the message is coming from. Focus on the Family, the organization funding the Tebow ad is a known christian organization. They are receiving huge criticism for their decision to promote this ad for the superbowl. But I think that if any other organization would have been the proponent behind it, we would not be hearing so much chatter about it. If Planned Parenthood themselves were the ones putting out this very ad or one identical we would say "they are just supporting one woman's choice" But when Focus on the Family defends the ad by saying "they are just supporting one woman's choice" people seem to discredit this choice and go even further by claiming it to be an "anti-choice" ad. It is clear now that choosing life is not considered a true choice in "pro-choice" opinion. If it was, they would be embracing this woman's choice to keep her baby, a mother who simply wants to tell the world how happy she is with the choice she made. I see nothing wrong with a mother being proud of her child and a child being proud of his mother. I also don't think this ad will be simply about life. Because of Tebow's success as a football player I think this ad will be about Life, Liberty and The Pursuit Of Happiness and I don't know what could be more American than that!

People have argued that who will this ad really impact? Claiming that women primarily do not watch football and those who do, how many will be pregnant and struggling with the decision? My response to that is this....if ONE woman chooses life because of the ad, that is two lives saved. The mother is saved from a lifetime of pain and regret and the child is saved from abortion. So if even one mother is impacted then that is a huge victory for Life. Each life is valuable, and even just one is worth saving! There is no price on life so those who argue that they spent too much money for this ad and could have used the money elsewhere....I want to ask "what is the cost of saving a life?" To me...life is PRICELESS. And I think any effort to save lives is admirable. How can we predict that this ad may not impact thousands of women and men? I think we should air it and allow people to make their own conclusions afterwards instead of censoring something that we all know will not contain nudity, adult language or adult content...there will be enough of those commercials during the superbowl as it is. I don't hear anyone trying to censor the many other ads that promote half naked women as sexual objects and other organizations' subliminal messages. We're ok with ads that devalue women but we're not ok with an ad that is pro-woman, pro-life, pro-family and pro-values? We need to re-evaluate ourselves as a society if this is true. I guess the real question to ask is "what harm will come from airing this ad?" I see no harm in it and until I hear a substantial reason for why it should not be aired I will support it.

The superbowl is February 7, 2010 at 6:00pm EST. I hope that many of you are not only tuned in to support football and your favorite team, but you're also tuned in to support Life.

President Obama recognized, in last night’s speech, that “the only reason we are here is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard.” But may we also add, to do what was right. We’re here because our mothers said “yes” to life. Because their government didn’t push them toward the hands of abortionists.

"Here’s what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people," Obama said. But he appeared to ignore the polling data that consistently shows the American people not only oppose the health care bill but oppose government funding of abortions in it. Simply renaming health care reform 'health insurance reform' will not solve Obama's political puzzle, or the underlying problems of the legislation. But this is typical of the president's approach to political obstacles -- change the language, not the substance, and people will drop their objections.

Mr. Obama said those in public office shouldn’t “avoid telling hard truths.” Most of us listening hold no office, but we can tell you this: No economic stimulus, no energy initiative or healthcare overhaul can ever replace the millions of lives this administration is seeking to kill.

President Obama also said, “…I promised I wouldn’t just do what was popular. I would do what was necessary.” So when most Americans are pro-life and some 65 percent of us want to reduce abortions, not encourage, fund and force them then we have to ask: how could that be necessary, Mr. President? We already know it sure isn’t popular.

The value of America is its people. Please, Mr. President, stop ending so many of their beginnings.

In actuality the only difference between this 12 week old baby and this 2 month old baby is their age. They are at different stages of human development but they are both undeniably living human beings. They are both biologically the same. Yet so often the baby on the left is not seen as a person. Personhood is so important for the pro-life movement. If we establish personhood for the unborn, we will not only make abortion illegal, but we will make it unthinkable.

When more than 300,000 people march in Washington, D.C., and the mainstream press is almost totally silent, bias is no longer an accusation but a fact. There was virtually no mainstream media coverage of the 2010 Walk For Life that took place to mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade where abortion was legalized. It beckons the question: "Why so silent?"

Live Action also commented on this issue saying: "This is no accidental oversight, but a pointed refusal to report the work we do and the witness we present for life… unless, of course, it is the violent action of a lunatic claiming he is “pro-life,” in which case it will be on the front page. This is done so that many Americans can go on thinking we are a small fringe group of beady-eyed zealots instead of a large, thriving, growing community of millions of intelligent people of all ages and faiths."

It’s obvious that the mainstream media refuses to report with any integrity on what we do so here is how we need to counteract this:

First, we spread the word ourselves. Blogs like this one, and other social networking sites (twitter, facebook, myspace etc.), are an excellent way to spread the word about Life what’s really happening.

Second, we let the media know that we’re aware of their bias and are committed to exposing it. Pro-life groups and individuals can send press releases to newspapers, radio and TV stations, and individual journalists, urging them to be the one to tell the real story.

Third, we continue to support organizations that are committed to the truth and protecting human life at all stages.

Those of us who remain active for pro-life do so with hope that the value of human life will one day be globally recognized and protected. As a pleasant side effect, perhaps those who are supposed to be impartial are forced to look back in shame on their blatant bias, so that this movement eventually saves not only the unborn and their families, but the integrity of the media as well.

There's an interesting development with pro-life sidewalk counselors who talk to women going into abortion mills and offer life-affirming alternatives to abortion. Often times their efforts are impeded by escorts or more accurately termed: "deathscorts" These are pro-abortion individuals who surround women arriving at the abortion mill so that pro-life sidewalk counselors can’t let them know they have alternatives to abortion. The deathscorts wear bright orange vests to identify themselves. Well, at an abortion mill in Louisville, Kentucky, pro-life sidewalk counselors are wearing the same color vests. But they’re clearly marked as “Life Escort.” This may give them a precious few seconds to let the woman know there are other choices available besides abortion. In other words, they’re being truly pro-choice.

I have been told I am "anti-choice" by so many who consider themselves "pro-choice". To say that I am anti-choice is not only ambiguous, it's dishonest. My opposition to human abortion is not an opposition to choices, but an opposition to killing human life.

By definition, someone who is “anti-choice” would be opposed to ALL choices whether they be about feticide, stealing, or something as inconsequential as listening to public radio. If one opposes a man hitting his wife, is that person "anti-choice"? Of course not. It is an an opposition to violence, not an opposition to choices. I have heard time and time again the phrase "you want to take away women's choices". FALSE. I want to replace the choice of abortion with life-affirming choices. I'm not trying to take away choice, I'm trying to give hope to women and their unborn children not try to take anything away from them.

Even the term “pro-choice” is misleading. It isn’t that those who are “pro-choice” support all choices (surely they don’t support domestic violence); it is that they support the choice to abort a living human being. Which is why I believe that pro-abortion is more accurate because when you say "I support a woman's choice to have an abortion", you're really just adding a few extra words into the sentence "I support abortion". Opposing that choice isn’t anti-choice; it is rather anti-abortion or pro-human life rights. Now that is precise, logical, and scientifically accurate.

The core issue is not about choice any more than murder, slavery, and stealing are about choice. It is about what we do with living unborn human babies biologically developing inside and dependent on another human. Significant questions that need to be asked and answered are: Do these babies have rights and if so, what are they? Does the mother have rights and what are they? What do we do when these rights conflict? Do some rights take precedent over others?

My belief is that the right to life should supersede all other rights because without life no other rights would matter or exist. I believe that ALL human life is inherently valuable. That is why I am pro-life.

Walk For Life West Coast was held yesterday in San Fransico, CA. More than 30,000 pro-life advocates participated in the Walk For Life rally to show their support for Life. This first video is footage of the pro-life community peacefully walking, some with signs, but many just quietly walking in a public act against abortion. The second video is of the small pro-abortion group shouting and chanting, some even banging on instruments. Basically, just causing commotion and a lot of noise. What I found interesting was that the pro-lifers didn't have to shout or try to drown out the pro-aborts. Their actions spoke louder than words. The more than 30,000 men, women and children peacefully marched as the opponents seemed to desperately shout in a failed attempt to drown out the message from the day. Which is that when we come together peacefully in great numbers our actions will speak louder than words. Our message is love. We are not violent, loud, overbearing people. We are people who love life and are working to promote a culture of life and protect human beings at all stages. What a great turn out! Thank you to all who were there in body and spirit! Thank you for taking a public stand for Life.