SOUDER: How a state senate bill and a Super Bowl ad expose the truth

-A A +A
By Chuck Souder

As we were heading out the door for a meeting at church one recent Sunday evening, I overheard our 10-year-old daughter telling her 9-year-old brother (in her best parental tone), “Chase, put the football back!”

In no uncertain certain terms, she wanted to make it clear to her brother that he shouldn’t bring his football along to the meeting. In case you didn’t know it, younger brothers do not like to be bossed around by their older sisters, so I knew an argument was about to ensue.

I quickly stepped in and told my daughter not to be so bossy. She replied (without the slightest hint of a smile), “I’m not being bossy; I’m just telling him what to do!”

When I gently pointed out to her that, in fact, telling her brother what to do was the very definition of being bossy, she realized that she was, indeed, guilty as charged.

Fortunately, we were all able to laugh about her self-contradictory statement, and good humor was restored to the family unit. 

A couple of news items in the last few days reminded me that it isn’t just my daughter who doesn’t always seem to understand the meanings of the words she speaks.

The first was the news coverage of Kentucky Senate Bill 38, which requires doctors to show a woman an ultrasound image of her baby and explain how it is developing before performing an abortion.

The second was the dust-up over a supposedly controversial ad featuring Florida football great Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam, that is to be shown during the Super Bowl.

The Courier-Journal called requiring a woman to have an ultrasound before killing her baby “a sleazy tactic” and, in what I’m sure they considered to be a stinging rebuke, said that SB 38 was“meant to discourage women from having abortions, no two ways about it.”

Well, duh. Of course that is the bill’s intent. But I thought the battle cry among “pro-choicers” was that they wanted abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare.” Maybe they really mean legal and as numerous as possible. 

The Tebow ad, according to the group who produced it,shares “a personal story centered on the theme of ‘Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.’''

If you don’t know the Tebows’ story, it is a fascinating one. Pam gave birth to Tim despite advice from her doctor to abort because of illness during her pregnancy. Tim grew from a small, sickly child into a Heisman Trophy-winning college quarterback. Why is that offensive?

I believe it is for exactly the same reasons that pro-abortion groups so strongly oppose SB38. As columnist Star Parker writes, “Pro-abortionists know that our existing legalized abortion regime can only continue as long as we keep the human face off abortion. It's why ultrasound has revolutionized this world. When young women who have doubts about taking their pregnancy to term see the live child within them, they overwhelming decide to give birth. You don't have to preach. They see that this is life and they know what to do. The Tebow story will put this human face on abortion for the 100 million or so who will watch the Super Bowl. Nothing could be scarier for the culture of death.”

The protests about both SB 38 and the Tebow ad expose the protesters as “pro-abortion” and not simply “pro-choice.” The New York-based Women’s Media Center, in its bid to censor the Tebow ad, called it an “attack on choice.”

But as columnist Matt Barber asks, "In what possible way is it an ‘attack on choice' for a woman to share the tale of how – when given two clearly defined options – she ‘chose' life over abortion? That's choice defined.”

Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, said she respected the choices made by women such as Pam Tebow but condemned the planned ad as "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning."

"That's not being respectful of other people's lives," O'Neill said. "It is offensive to hold one way out as being a superior way over everybody else's."

And that is the real issue, isn’t it? Any discussion like this necessarily brings up the possibility that abortion could actually be “wrong.”

Consider this question: Do you know any politician who says they think abortion is a good thing?

Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) summed up every pro-choice politician’s argument this way: “Too many people in America believe that if you are pro-choice that means pro-abortion. It doesn't. I don't want abortion. Abortion should be the rarest thing in the world. I am actually personally opposed to abortion. But I don't believe that I have a right to take what is an article of faith to me and legislate it to other people.”

Now think about that for a moment. If an unborn baby is not alive or not human, why would anyone be against abortion?  It would simply be just another elective surgery.

But if an unborn baby is a living human, how could anyone be for abortion? The only reason that abortion would be wrong is if it were the taking of an innocent human life…namely murder.

(So what pro-choice politicians are saying is that, though they understand that abortion is murder, they can’t impose their moral opposition to murder on others. How absurd!)

Back in 1973, when Roe v Wade was tragically decided, it was based in large part on the idea that science couldn’t prove when life began. Now, however, with the advancement in ultrasound and our understanding of genes, there is no longer any question scientifically – life begins at conception.

Legal abortion is on the wrong side of morality, science and history; the tide of public opinion is turning and those who stand to lose a lot of money know it and are running scared.

I don’t mean to be bossy. I’m just telling you how it is.


Chuck Souder is on staff at Shelby Christian Church. He can be reached at csouder@shelbychristian.org.