Posted on 01/10/2012 3:14:04 PM PST by NYer
While the Super Bowl commercial has become a mainstream staple of the game, viewers in some markets will be shown something new, commercials featuring bloody aborted babies.
Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, is running for president. However, Terry is not running on the Republican ticket, but is running as a Democrat against Barack Obama.
Terry has already run political ads featuring graphic images of babies killed by abortion during the first and second trimester. The ads were part of a three day ad run in New Hampshire on WBIN. The ads consisted of four 30 second spots that ran in rotation that attacked Obama’s support of child killing by abortion.
Terry is also planning on purchasing similar ads in local markets during the Super Bowl.
While ads of this type have frequently been rejected by television agencies for their graphic content, Terry is using a loophole in federal election law that requires stations to run his ads.
FEC regulations require television stations to run ads by a political candidate within 45 days of an election. This means that primary states that fall within the 45 day window will have to run the graphic ads during the Super Bowl if he purchases the slots.
The campaign says they have ads ready to go in 40 markets, including Colorado. The first ad was purchased on Friday, January 6.
While Terry realizes he stands little chance of getting the Democratic nomination, he said he is running in order to give pro-life Catholics and evangelicals in the Democratic Party a choice during the primary season.
The difference between the candidates could not be more stark. Obama has 100 percent rating from militant pro-abortion group NARAL. While a state Senator in Illinois, Obama vetoed a bill that would require babies that survived an abortion be given medical treatment.
By contrast, while with Operation Rescue, Terry was arrested nearly 50 times and incarcerated nearly one full year for his defense of the unborn.
How does a senator veto something?
It’s kinda like the unions in LA when they protest. They lie down in the middle of the busiest streets and cause terminal gridlock.
Everybody hates them because they get caught up in hours long traffic jam. Stupid.
Amen. They weren’t kidding when they said “a picture is worth a thousand words”.
So true.
How does a state Senator veto anything?
I know they want to shock Americans into realizing what happens in an abortion, but even many pro-life folks are turned off by these ads. They won’t be winning friends or influencing people with them.
You seriously consider abortion a “non-issue”? You are no conservative.
"NON-ISSUE"???
Pre-born babies are being killed. What do you rank ahead of that?
And Presidents can change the status of the legality of abortion by appointing anti-Roe Supreme Court Justices and by signing on to Congress taking abortion out of the purview of the courts.
Anything that puts the true horror of abortion in front of the faces of the apathetic beer-swillers gets a green light from me.
True. I didn’t catch the wording. It should read “voted against”, not vetoed.
Still, this guy is a blood-thirsty pro-abort monster that must be stopped
I agree. I always wondered why they carry signs like that. It hurts the cause more then it helps.. I am totally prolife and would be out every weekend protesting if we had an abortion clinic here in Pville.. But come on don’t hurt the cause in that way. IMHO
Abortion as a life or death issue is indeed important and I am staunchly opposed to it. But when used as a political tool, it is nothing more than a false wedge designed to divide the party. Since Roe vs. Wade, we have had 23 years of Republican presidents, all of whom have been opposed to abortion. In terms of the Supreme Court, it’s been considered Conservative for at least the past 35 years. Of the 5 Justices considered the most conservative since Franklin Roosevelt, 4 of them are currently seated.
If a president had the power to overturn R v. W, why hasn’t it been done by now?
If the SCOTUS has the power to overturn R v. W, why hasn’t it been done by now?
If both the President and the SCOTUS together had the power to overturn R v. W then why haven’t they done so by now?
The closest the Supreme Court has come to overturning R v. W was when they upheld the ban against partial birth abortion and that was only a 5 - 4 decision.
The sad truth is, it’s unlikely R v. W will ever be overturned in our lifetime, if ever. And to hold the pro-life issue as a primary litmus test over all the other obstacles facing the presidency in order to determine who one will vote for, the afore mentioned 35 years has already proven that to be a useless criteria……..
Abortion as a life or death issue is indeed important and I am staunchly opposed to it. But
"But" tends to mean that the assertion preceding it was not meant.
when used as a political tool, it is nothing more than a false wedge designed to divide the party.
I want to be divided from anyone who is for abortion. It is a division between good and evil. Nothing false about that.
Since Roe vs. Wade, we have had 23 years of Republican presidents, all of whom have been opposed to abortion.
Wrong. Ford was pro-abortion, like Nixon before him. Reagan willfully went against pro-lifers in appointing O'Connor, who was already known to be pro-abortion. Bush 1 was pro-abortion. Bush 2 was lukewarm, and only appointed Roberts and Alito after a massive backlash against his appointment of pro-abortion Harriet Meiers.
In terms of the Supreme Court, it’s been considered Conservative for at least the past 35 years.
Also wrong. It hasn't been anything of the kind, as evidenced by decisions like Casey in 1992.
Of the 5 Justices considered the most conservative since Franklin Roosevelt, 4 of them are currently seated.
Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would overturn Roe. Roberts might. Rehnquist and White both would have, as evidenced by their dissent from the original decision.
If the SCOTUS has the power to overturn R v. W, why hasn’t it been done by now?
That's a non sequitur, contending that "hasn't happened" = "can't happen". That's ridiculous.
The closest the Supreme Court has come to overturning R v. W was when they upheld the ban against partial birth abortion and that was only a 5 - 4 decision.
Wrong again. There was a 5-4 agreement to overturn Roe in 1992, but Kennedy sold out and sided with O'Connor.
The sad truth
Kindly stop pretending to care.
it’s unlikely R v. W will ever be overturned in our lifetime, if ever.
Wrong again. There are hundreds of millions of people in the USA and it only takes 5 who want to overturn Roe to be on the Supreme Court. 4 of those 5 may already be there.
And to hold the pro-life issue as a primary litmus test over all the other obstacles facing the presidency in order to determine who one will vote for
Protecting the lives of innocent little pre-born babies is primary.
This is the ad last year that everyone made such a fuss about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw7qX1TpdNQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Oh yeah, that’s gruesome. NOT! (;
PS - They said that ad was “graphic” too in their effort to get it off the air. The pro-death crowd is a bunch of liars.
For?
Are you serious? That’s the “gruesome, disturbing ad” that we are suppose to shield our children’s eyes from? Unbelievable!
I saw his name on the Dem ballot, but didn't think it was the same man...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.