zerbisias on super bowl ad double standard, nnaf on better use for your money

If you read only one piece on this year's Super Bowl advertising hypocrisy, make it Antonia Zerbisias.

I read this on Facebook, copied with permission:
Pro-choice people have better use for their money!

By now most of you have probably heard about the anti-choice ad CBS plans to run during the Super Bowl. Multiple media sources have reported that the segment will cost sponsors Focus on the Family $2.5 million.

Here at NYAAF, we have been wondering: what kind of non-profit has an extra $2.5 million lying around to spread misinformation to sports fans? How, we wonder, was such an expense justified to their individual supporters and their board?

While extra cash lying around has never been our problem, neither has irresponsible spending. Our pledge to our supporters remains true: %100 of your tax-deductible donations go directly to helping women obtain abortions they need but cannot afford. Our board is %100 volunteer and our personal donations as board members cover all overhead costs.

In light of the high profile madness stirring around what will air on TV next weekend, we thought we'd reach out to you now and ask you to join us in a fundraising campaign. Because we know PRO-CHOICE PEOPLE HAVE BETTER USE FOR THEIR MONEY. Instead of $2.5 million on a Super Bowl ad, consider donating $25 or $250 to help break down barriers in women's access to abortion.

Help us take this campaign viral! Make a donation today and make post it to your wall or change your status to say: "$2.5 million on a Super Bowl ad? Pro-choice people have better use for their money!"

I'm about to donate myself.

National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

not so fast

Not everyone thinks the Conservative government is a lock. Canada's opposition Conservative Party, which is set to bring down the minority Liberal government later this week, was hit by a new opinion poll on Monday that showed it was trailing in the country's most vote-rich region. The Leger Marketing poll for the Sun chain of newspapers put support for the Liberals in the powerful central province of Ontario at 43 percent compared with 31 percent for the Conservatives. Ontario, a Liberal stronghold at the federal level for the past 12 years, accounts for 106 of the 308 seats in House of Commons, and no party can hope to form a government without doing well there. . . . Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals have been badly hurt by a corruption scandal and Conservative leader Stephen Harper says the government must be defeated as soon as possible. The Leger figures, however, suggest there is no guarantee Harper can end 12 years of Liberal rule. Thanks, ALPF! I must say, I&#
Read more

dipstick

So there won't be an election yet. Talk about a squeaker . Feel free to tell us how you feel about this, unless it's all been said already, then feel free not to. ALPF mustered his courage and sent more links, so I have some good commentary to post. I found this Macleans story on the Conservative party's reaction to Stronach's decision - and public reaction to that reaction - very interesting. Canadians seem almost universally turned off by the name-calling and sexist slurs. On the other hand, when a certain governor made his "girly men" pronouncement, his constituency howled with glee. (Which is not to say the rest of us weren't appalled.) The Macleans article also notes that not all the sexism came from politicians: Some of the most sexist characterizations of Stronach didn't come from her political adversaries, but from media. Montreal's La Presse newspaper ran a cartoon of Martin leaning out his car window to solicit a street-walking Stronach
Read more