"If that is to change other women who don’t fit that categorization will need to address that. Or do their own thing. The question one must always ask is whether it’s more sustainable to join these organizations en masse and change them from within, taking on leadership roles or separate while competing for the same resources?"

In my opinion, it takes both. Someone needs to be there with the power players, and others need to have the latitude and flexibility of a smaller organization to do their own thing. So it's not an either-or situation. But what needs to be there is the ability for the groups to communicate on fundamental issues. I think they may agree, but I don't think the groups communicate (and I think this is more the fault of the mainstream groups.)

With regard to President Obama being the Anti-Christ, anyone who reads their Bible knows that it says that Anti-Christ will rise WITHIN THE CHURCH by those who wish to twist the word of God for their own gain. The Bible also specifically warns women not to be "gullible" to the lies that will come from those in the church. Anybody paying attention?

As for the Super Bowl, I personally do not watch. I simply refuse to support CBS or the criminal element of these sports organizations. That's my personal choice. I have no interest in someone selling me Viagra and high-fat foods while parading brainless males and barely-dressed women as the moral standards of society.

When it comes to Focus and MOST of the "Christian" organizations, there is NO CONCERN for the African-American family, history or future. They may fake fights on abortions, out-of-wedlock pregnancy and other "moral" issues, but that is just for appearances. If they sincerely cared about abortion, they would start in their churches. The church has the same or higher percentage of abortions as the unchurched. Teen pregnancy, sexual activity and STDs are higher in many "Christian" touting regions. These organizations need to look at their skeletons, whether it be child molestation or domestic violence (also high in the Church).

These organizations operate under the guise of religion for a tax break. They have no godly mission to help the lost and hurting. It you looked at the example of the works of Christ while on earth and the works of these organizations, you would see STRIKING DIFFERENCES.

These organizations may attack the ACUL or Planned Parenthood, but, once again, it is all for show. Planned Parenthood moved into poor areas AFTER those areas were abandoned by routine health opportunities afforded in other neighborhoods. Even having a baby and following a safe harbor laws (leaving it at a firestation or hospital, etc.) is hard in those neighborhoods because those institutions have also disappeared from poor neighborhoods. These organizations are not "pro-life". If they were, hundreds of thousands of children would not be sitting in foster care while they bank millions each Sunday. What these folks love to do is take away options, and that leads to more death and destruction.

If someone wants to run an honest "pro-life" ad, they need to cancel the Super Bowl and stream the faces of all the children who are abandoned, homeless and all those who have died in infancy because NO ONE wanted them. When they finish showing those 2 million plus faces and all those who need a home are safely placed, then I'll listen to their "pro-life" message. Until then, I AM TUNING THEM ALL OUT!

Most importantly – they make sure their follower know and completely understand why the followers benefit from the group's viewpoint. They use very easy answers and rubrics to get these points across.

But the pro choice groups don't do that — they really don't get the difference between a true argument and a winning one. FOTF wants to win, and they made an ad that generated a metric ton of attention towards them. The beauty of it is even deeper than that: the money for the ad was donated for the ad, specifically. The rebuttals from PP and NOW weren't separately funded (to my knowledge.) Do you see? Make your antagonist drain their resources when they fight you.

It is about control, but the supporters of FOTF want that control. They want for you what they want for themselves. This isn't hypocritical at all. But it's profoundly misguided, because what they want requires a level of government control that they really don't support. And this is where the feminist groups should have hit them: exposing how what they think they want is not really what they want at all.

I'm not impressed with this ad: I think Joyner looks extremely unpolished, and the rebuttal misses the point entirely. The Tebow ad sold a lifestyle: how trust in the value of even the smallest chance of life yielded an enormous result. That ad works, and I am staunchly, 100% pro-choice.

This ad didn't subvert that premise, and it didn't focus on why the ability for the woman to not continue a pregnancy is important. Or why it's necessary for the state to be removed from this decision.

So that lack of explaining why gets filled in by the FOTF groups: because they're ignorant, or fallen, or godless, or incapable of controlling themselves.

This works every. single. time.

Sometimes I wonder if this is the other problem with White privilege when it comes to mainstream feminism: the assumption that people will support and protect them, just because it's them. It's like noone really thinks through what's actually happening, and they don't do a good job of making their points.

This ad doesn't work for me at all, even though I agree with the viewpoints. I read FOTF the same way I read Stormfront. And I can guarantee the second doesn't work to shake the logic of a FOTF supporter or an antichoicer. And there's a huge difference between the economic and political clout of that demographic and the young, poor demographic that uses the bulk of reproductive rights and abortion services.

The pro-choice people need to learn how to make the issue relevant to their opponents. Or we are going to see more of what we are currently seeing: the steady erosion of availability and access to abortion, without using the legal system to undo RvW.

Currently, it's not relevant to them. They're not getting abortions. Most people don't get abortions, strictly speaking. They can speak out against unstable families and children out of wedlock, but they're not having them. They don't advocate divorce, or even protracted singleness. They're dead serious. They do have people that fall out of step, but they're considered the aberration. The BC is considering that the norm…you see where I'm going here? They're not doing what the BC is doing, not at the same rate, and not with the same sanction. So their actions will generally result in intrusion, because they have no real stake in ensuring their policies don't hurt anyone (meaning, they won't be hurt if the BC gets hurt, so there's no check in place to ensure efficacy.)

It's so beyond dangerous to have a powerful group feel like they've got to come in and fix things for you. Not with, but for.