One of the spokespersons for the pro-abortion industry, Debbie McKinney (I'm not sure which organization she represents), saw these ads and said, "These ads are emotionally upsetting to me. I had difficulty with the content." In fact, she found it so upsetting that she didn't even want to see them. She said the ads were biased without saying so, and were unfair.

What are these ads? One pictures gruesome footage of aborted babies with skin burned from saline abortions. Or body parts strewn about because the children have been dismembered inside the mother's womb. This distasteful ad has been displayed across T.V. screens of America.

Let me give you a description of the ads that are so upsetting to Debbie McKinney that she doesn't want to see them. As described in this article, one of the ads shows a little plaid-skirted girl bounding down the stairs of a private school. Another girl dressed as a cat for Halloween plays on the front porch of a suburban home. Then the ad says, "All of these children have one thing in common. All of them were unplanned pregnancies. Pregnancies that could have ended in abortion. But their parents toughed it out." Then the tag line for both ads is "Life--what a beautiful choice."

Apparently these ads are continuing to run on the Turner Network. The so-called "pro-choice" groups say that the ads are dangerously misleading because they're a subtle attack on abortion while they promote adoption as the solution to unwanted pregnancies.

Isn't it ironic that Turner is airing these ads? And that Turner Broadcasting is the recipient of attacks from the pro-abortion side of the spectrum?

These ads are paid for by the Pennsylvania-based Arthur DeMoss Foundation and they are pro-adoption ads, definitely on the pro-life side of the spectrum. One need not view these from the pro-life side of the spectrum, though, and this is what's curious about these ads and the response of the pro-abortion industry to these ads.

Planned Parenthood is crying "foul." One of the reasons is because Planned Parenthood had originally planned to run some ads on Turner's networks and Turner refused last April to run these so-called "pro-choice" spots unless they had a disclaimer stating that these views were not the network's views. They also wanted the sponsor I.D. at the front and back of the ads. Because of these restrictions which Planned Parenthood later called a gag order--even an idiot can see through that rhetoric--Planned Parenthood basically dropped the campaign.

The DeMoss spots don't run the disclaimer, though it's really clear who is sponsoring these ads. Planned Parenthood's acting president, David Andrews, says, "Why should we pay good money to have our ads go on the air as if it's somehow questionable. DeMoss is not being gagged at all." That kind of reasoning gags me. I call it a rhetoric rip-off. It's a classic example.

As it turned out, CNN rejected some of the ads because of the content. In one of the ads, the mother of Becky Bell--Remember her? The Indianapolis teenager who died in 1990 allegedly because of a botched abortion (though there is a lot of controversy about the circumstances) which she got because she didn't want to tell her parents that she was pregnant since Indiana has a parental consent law. The whole point is that the parental consent law, according to Planned Parenthood, killed Becky Bell. There was going to be a dramatization of this event with Becky Bell's mom. The spokesperson for CNN said they didn't think that Planned Parenthood could accurately verify that Bell had died because of the parental consent law.

There was another phone booth spot where a woman who had gotten an illegal abortion apparently collapses because she's losing blood as she tries to make an emergency phone call. Hayworth says that the phone booth spot was too graphic for the air.

There are content problems with the ads that Planned Parenthood offered, yet they consider that a gag order. Hayworth denies that Planned Parenthood was asked to run a special disclaimer. Planned Parenthood is bugged about these anti-abortion ads when they can't have their own pro-abortion ads. The fact is, they could have their pro-choice ads if the content was appropriate and accurate. They aren't being gagged at all.

The thing that confounds me is how they can object to these ads at all. Some of you may have seen them. If you're watching cable T.V. keep your eyes open for them. The thing that stands out about these ads is that they're not anti-abortion. In fact, there's only one mention of abortion in this whole thing and it's not negative against abortion; it's actually quite positive about the choice issue. These ads simply state, in a gracious and tasteful manner, that there are alternatives to abortion. That's why it says at the end of the advertisement, "Life--a beautiful choice." This is a pro-choice ad in the truest sense of the word. I question how anyone genuinely pro-choice, like Planned Parenthood says they are, could possibly object to these ads.

These people, Planned Parenthood, are not pro-choice. That's why they object to it. They are pro-abortion. These spots take no shots at abortion. There's only one mention of abortion. They don't suggest that abortion is killing children. They don't include any gruesome photos, as the prospective Planned Parenthood ads did. There are no misleading facts, as the prospective Planned Parenthood ads had. The ads simply state that if you're pregnant you have options. The options may be tough, there may be a cost involved, but there's a beautiful pay-off if you're willing to pay the price. It emphasizes the joy of life, the joy of giving, the joy of making a sacrifice, albeit for nine months, for the sake of the joy of a couple who could not give birth themselves. They emphasize the joy of giving.

These spots are no more subtly anti-abortion than any spot showing a mother keeping her child is anti-abortion. It's another alternative. You could say that it's anti-abortion in the sense that if people give their children up for adoption then there's no need for abortion, but that's not anti-abortion, it's just an option which one should champion if one were really and genuinely pro-choice.

What strikes me as unusual is that if Planned Parenthood were truly pro-choice they would be the one making this kind of an ad and a host of others that offer different options to abortion. It's not surprising to learn that Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in this country. They bring in millions of dollars every year by abortion. If you have ads that promote adoption then, when people choose adoption rather than abortion, that cuts into their pocketbooks and I think that bugs them. I want to ask you, do you think there could be a conflict of interests here?

I'm not even arguing, at this point, for one side or the other. I'm not arguing for life vs. abortion. I'm just offended by the rhetoric rip-off which doesn't allow you to make a genuine choice. It's misleading.

So my suggestion is: let's be done with the injured looks, the pouts, the empty and misleading references to gag orders and let's call a spade a spade, and a pro-abort a pro-abort. If you're for abortion don't be ashamed of it. Just say "I'm in favor of abortion." But don't come across with some sanctimonious language about choice when you're offended when somebody emphasizes alternative choices. This is another illustration of pathetic propaganda and rhetoric rip-off.

At least that's the way I see it.