UPDATED ACTION LINKS: Coalition of Women’s Groups Calls for Action on CBS Advertisement

Jodi Jacobson

A coalition of women's groups is calling on CBS to immediately pull an anti-choice advertisement sponsored by Focus on the Family now set to air during Super Bowl XLIV. 

A coalition of women’s groups is calling on CBS to immediately pull an anti-choice advertisement sponsored by Focus on the Family now set to air during Super Bowl XLIV.  Members of the coalition have sent a letter to CBS protesting the ad, launched a media outreach campaign, and are encouraging supporters to join their efforts through the use of numerous online advocacy strategies (links provided below).

The ad, which features Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother Pam, is, according to Focus on the Family, intended to "celebrate life and celebrate families." 

Yes…a certain kind of family and a certain kind of life…that of the Christian fundamentalist.  Focus on the Family is anti-choice (against contraception, against comprehensive sex education, and against a
woman’s right to choose to end an unintended pregnancy), and against
marriage equality, among other things.  It is expected that the ad for the Super Bowl will
advocate these positions, whether implicitly or explicitly. It appears that Focus on the Family is also gambling $2.5 million in the hopes the ad will drive donors to its website to replenish its rapidly dwindling coffers.

Tim Tebow is well-known for his Christian fundamentalist religious fervor, most-often displayed for football audiences via the biblical passages he wears in his eye black and by his frequent public discussions on the same. Pam Tebow made the decision not to terminate her pregnancy and to assume the risks involved in continuing it when, on a mission to the Philippines while pregnant with Tim and with a serious infection, she was advised by her physician to consider doing so. 

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

Pro-choice and women’s rights groups object to the ad for a range of reasons, not least of which is the sudden reversal by CBS–which has rejected numerous ads by progressive organizations–of its own stated rules banning "advocacy" ads.

"CBS has a well-documented history
of prohibiting advocacy ads it deems controversial, rejecting ads from
organizations such as PETA, MoveOn.org, United Church of Christ, and even ones
that carry only an “implicit” endorsement for a side in a public debate," states a press statement jointly released by the coalition.

Last
year, NBC made the prudent decision to not air anti-choice messages during the
Super Bowl. CBS executives have indicated in the past that they would not air
Super Bowl ads where “substantial elements of the community (are) in opposition
to one another.”

Moreover, notes the release, "Focus on the Family is an
organization well-known for opposing the equality of Americans based on gender,
sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and reproductive freedom."

This ad uses
one story to subtly dictate morality to the American public, and encourages
women to disregard medical advice, potentially putting their lives at risk. Abortion
is a controversial issue and anti-abortion vitriol has resulted in escalated
violence against reproductive health service providers and their patients.

“An ad that uses sports to divide
rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the
year – an event designed to bring Americans together regardless of background,
faith, ideology or political affiliation,” says Jehmu Greene, President of the
Women’s Media Center.

The ad, notes the coalition press release, "goes against the
approximately 70 percent majority American view that reproductive decisions
should be left up to a woman and her physician; against the decision by the
U.S. Supreme Court that such decisions are protected by a constitutionally
guaranteed right to privacy; and against the health needs of the 1 in 3
American women who will need an abortion at sometime in her life."

A letter signed by members of the coalition and sent to CBS executives, included these and other points.

"As united organizations dedicated to reproductive rights, tolerance,
and social justice," the letter states, "we urge you to immediately cancel this ad and refuse any
other advertisement promoting Focus on the Family’s agenda."

Focus on the Family
has waged war on non-traditional families, tried its hand at race baiting
during the 2008 election, and is now attempting to use the Super Bowl to
further ramp up the vitriolic rhetoric surrounding reproductive rights. By
offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an
anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself
with a political stance that will alienate viewers and discourage consumers
from supporting its shows and advertisers. The decision to air this ad would be
ethically, economically and politically disastrous for CBS. The content of this
ad endangers women’s health, uses sports to divide rather than to unite, and
promotes an organization that opposes the equality of Americans based on
gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and reproductive freedom. Focus
on the Family’s ad is surrealistic in its argument that a woman who chooses not
to have a child may be depriving the Super Bowl of a football player. It uses
one family’s story to dictate morality to the American public, and encourages
young women to disregard medical advice, putting their lives at risk.

Though women
comprise only 9 percent of CBS’s board, the letter notes, "they are a key constituency for the CBS
network and 40 percent of Super Bowl viewers."

If you contradict your policy and air
this ad, you will be throwing these women under the bus. American values of
privacy and freedom should be respected, not undermined during the Super Bowl.
The last thing Americans need is CBS or its advertisers telling us how and when
to have a family. CBS must take action now, by cancelling the airing of Focus
on the Family’s ad.

Signatories to the letter and press release as of this writing included: Abortion Access Project, ACCESS/Women’s Health Rights Coalition, Women,
Action & the Media, Advocates for Youth, Alternet, By Any Media Necessary, California
Council of Churches IMPACT, CAMI project, Choice USA, Civil Liberties and
Public Policy (CLPP)/Hampshire College, Equality Now, Feminist Majority
Foundation (FMF), Feminist Press, HollabackNYC, Ibis Reproductive Health, Law Students for Reproductive
Justice, MAMAPALOOZA!, Media Equity Collaborative, Medical Students for Choice!,
Ms. Foundation, New Prospect Family Praise and Worship Center, National
Organization for Women (NOW), NOW-NYC, OpEd Project, Physicians for
Reproductive Choice and Health, Religious Institute, Rewire, Sisterhood
is Global, Inc, The White House Project, Third Wave Foundation, Women, Action
& the Media (WAM!), Women In Media & News, and Women’s Information Network
(WIN).
 

 

Those interested can take action through the following petition campaigns:

Women’s Media Campaign

Change.org and United Church of Christ

Care2

Feminist Majority Foundation

We will continue to update these actions here. 

Analysis Politics

Experts: Trump’s Proposal on Child Care Is Not a ‘Solution That Deals With the Problem’

Ally Boguhn

“A simple tax deduction is not going to deal with the larger affordability problem in child care for low- and moderate-income individuals," Hunter Blair, a tax and budget analyst at the Economic Policy Institute told Rewire.

In a recent speech, GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump suggested he now supports policies to made child care more affordable, a policy position more regularly associated with the Democratic Party. The costs of child care, which have almost doubled in the last 25 years, are a growing burden on low- and middle-income families, and quality options are often scarce.

“No one will gain more from these proposals than low- and middle-income Americans,” claimed Trump in a speech outlining his economic platform before the Detroit Economic Club on Monday. He continued, “My plan will also help reduce the cost of childcare by allowing parents to fully deduct the average cost of childcare spending from their taxes.” But economic experts question whether Trump’s proposed solution would truly help alleviate the financial burdens faced by low- and middleincome earners.

Details of most of Trump’s plan are still unclear, but seemingly rest on addressing child care costs by allowing families to make a tax deduction based on the “average cost” of care. He failed to clarify further how this might work, simply asserting that his proposal would “reduce cost in child care” and offer “much-needed relief to American families,” vowing to tell the public more with time. “I will unveil my plan on this in the coming weeks that I have been working on with my daughter Ivanka … and an incredible team of experts,” promised Trump.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

An adviser to the Trump campaign noted during an interview with the Associated Press Monday that the candidate had yet to nail down the details of his proposal, such as what the income caps would be, but said that the deductions would only amount to the average cost of child care in the state a taxpayer resided in:

Stephen Moore, a conservative economist advising Trump, said the candidate is still working out specifics and hasn’t yet settled on the details of the plan. But he said households reporting between $30,000 and $100,000, or perhaps $150,000 a year in income, would qualify for the deduction.

“I don’t think that Britney Spears needs a child care credit,” Moore said. “What we want to do is to help financially stressed middle-class families have some relief from child-care expenses.”

The deduction would also likely apply to expensive care like live-in nannies. But exemptions would be limited to the average cost of child care in a taxpayer’s state, so parents wouldn’t be able to claim the full cost of such a high-price child care option.

Experts immediately pointed out that while the details of Trump’s plan are sparse, his promise to make average child care costs fully tax deductible wouldn’t do much for the people who need access to affordable child care most.

Trump’s plan “would actually be pretty poorly targeted for middle-class and low-income families,” Hunter Blair, a tax and budget analyst at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), told Rewire on Monday.

That’s because his tax breaks would presumably not benefit those who don’t make enough money to owe the federal government income taxes—about 44 percent of households, according to Blair. “They won’t get any benefit from this.”

As the Associated Press further explained, for those who don’t owe taxes to the government, “No matter how much they reduce their income for tax purposes by deducting expenses, they still owe nothing.”

Many people still may not benefit from such a deduction because they file standard instead of itemized deductions—meaning they accept a fixed amount instead of listing out each qualifying deduction. “Most [lower-income households] don’t choose to file a tax return with itemized deductions,” Helen Blank, director of child care and early learning at the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), told Rewire Tuesday. That means the deduction proposed by Trump “favors higher income families because it’s related to your tax bracket, so the higher your tax bracket the more you benefit from [it],” added Blank.

A 2014 analysis conducted by the Congressional Research Service confirms this. According to its study, just 32 percent of tax filers itemized their deductions instead of claiming the standard deduction in 2011. While 94 to 98 percent of those with incomes above $200,000 chose to itemize their deductions, just 6 percent of tax filers with an adjusted gross income below $20,000 per year did so.

“Trump’s plan is also not really a solution that deals with the problem,” said Blair. “A simple tax deduction is not going to deal with the larger affordability problem in child care for low- and moderate-income individuals.”

Those costs are increasingly an issue for many in the United States. A report released last year by Child Care Aware® of America, which advocates for “high quality, affordable child care,” found that child care for an infant can cost up to an average $17,062 annually, while care for a 4-year-old can cost up to an average of $12,781.

“The cost of child care is especially difficult for families living at or below the federal poverty level,” the organization explained in a press release announcing those findings. “For these families, full-time, center-based care for an infant ranges from 24 percent of family income in Mississippi, to 85 percent of family income in Massachusetts. For single parents the costs can be overwhelming—in every state annual costs of center-based infant care averaged over 40 percent of the state median income for single mothers.”

“Child care now costs more than college in most states in our nation, and it is an actual true national emergency,” Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, CEO and executive director of MomsRising, told Rewire in a Tuesday interview. “Donald Trump’s new proposed child care tax deduction plan falls far short of a solution because it’s great for the wealthy but it doesn’t fix the child care crisis for the majority of parents in America.”

Rowe-Finkbeiner, whose organization advocates for family economic security, said that in addition to the tax deduction being inaccessible to those who do not itemize their taxes and those with low incomes who may not pay federal income taxes, Trump’s proposal could also force those least able to afford it “to pay up-front child care costs beyond their family budget.”

“We have a crisis … and Donald Trump’s proposal doesn’t improve access, doesn’t improve quality, doesn’t lift child care workers, and only improves affordability for the wealthy,” she continued.

Trump’s campaign, however, further claimed in a statement to CNN Tuesday that “the plan also allows parents to exclude child care expenses from half of their payroll taxes—increasing their paycheck income each week.”

“The working poor do face payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, so a payroll tax break could help them out,” reported CNN. “But experts say it would be hard to administer.”

Meanwhile, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton released her own child care agenda in May, promising to use the federal government to cap child care costs at 10 percent of a family’s income. 

A cap like this, Blank said, “would provide more help to low- and middle-income families.” She continued, “For example, if you had a family with two children earning $70,000, if you capped child care at 10 percent they could probably save … $10,000 a year.”

Clinton’s plan includes a promise to implement a program to address the low wages many who work in the child care industry face, which she calls the “Respect And Increased Salaries for Early Childhood Educators” program, or the RAISE Initiative. The program would raise pay and provide training for child-care workers.

Such policies could make a major difference to child-care workers—the overwhelming majority of which are women and workers of color—who often make poverty-level wages. A 2015 study by the EPI found that the median wage for these workers is just $10.31 an hour, and few receive employer benefits. Those poor conditions make it difficult to attract and retain workers, and improve the quality of care for children around the country. 

Addressing the low wages of workers in the field may be expensive, but according to Rowe-Finkbeiner, it is an investment worth making. “Real investments in child care bring for an average child an eight-to-one return on investment,” she explained. “And that’s because when we invest in quality access and affordability, but particularly a focus on quality … which means paying child-care workers fairly and giving child-care workers professional development opportunities …. When that happens, then we have lower later grade repetition, we have less future interactions with the criminal justice system, and we also have a lower need for government programs in the future for those children and families.

Affordable child care has also been a component of other aspects of Clinton’s campaign platform. The “Military Families Agenda,” for example, released by the Clinton campaign in June to support military personnel and their families, also included a child care component. The former secretary of state’s plan proposed offering these services “both on- and off-base, including options for drop-in services, part-time child care, and the provision of extended-hours care, especially at Child Development Centers, while streamlining the process for re-registering children following a permanent change of station (PCS).” 

“Service members should be able to focus on critical jobs without worrying about the availability and cost of childcare,” said Clinton’s proposal.

Though it may be tempting to laud the simple fact that both major party candidates have proposed a child care plan at all, to Rowe-Finkbeiner, having both nominees take up the cause is a “no-brainer.”

“Any candidate who wants to win needs to take up family economic security policies, including child care,” she said. “Democrats and Republicans alike know that there is a child care crisis in America. Having a baby right now costs over $200,000 to raise from zero to age 18, not including college …. Parents of all political persuasions are talking about this.”

Coming up with the right way to address those issues, however, may take some work.

“We need a bold plan because child care is so important, because it helps families work, and it helps them support their children,” the NWLC’s Blank said. “We don’t have a safety net for families to fall back on anymore. It’s really critical to help families earn the income their children need and child care gives children a strong start.” She pointed to the need for programs that offer families aid “on a regular basis, not at the end of the year, because families don’t have the extra cash to pay for child care during the year,” as well as updates to the current child care tax credits offered by the government.

“There is absolutely a solution, but the comprehensive package needs to look at making sure that children have high-quality child care and early education, and that there’s also access to that high-quality care,” Rowe-Finkbeiner told Rewire. 

“It’s a complicated problem, but it’s not out of our grasp to fix,” she said. “It’s going to take an investment in order to make sure that our littlest learners can thrive and that parents can go to work.”

Roundups Politics

Campaign Week in Review: Kaine Calls for Congress to End Recess to Combat Zika

Ally Boguhn

Meanwhile, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump punted when asked about his own plan to combat Zika if he was in office today.

This week on the campaign trail, both Democrats and Republicans at the top of the ticket weighed in on combatting Zika, and the Donald Trump campaign released a list of economic advisors that failed to include a single woman.

Kaine Calls for Congress to End Recess to Combat Zika

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential running mate, said that “Congress should not be in recess when Zika is advancing,” during a speech in Daytona Beach, Florida, on Tuesday.

The Virginia senator reportedly went on to urge Congress to “pass a $1.1 billion bill to combat Zika without what he called the ‘poison pill’ of anti-abortion language added by House Republicans,” according to the Orlando Sentinel.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

Kaine had previously voiced support for ensuring that Zika funding could go to Planned Parenthood—something that the version of the Zika bill blocked by Democrats would have prevented. He was one of more than 40 Senate Democrats to add his name to a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) this week urging “both the Senate and the House back into session to pass a real and serious response to the burgeoning Zika crisis.”

Republicans criticized Kaine for not voting through that bill, accusing him of playing politics with the vote. “With new cases of the Zika virus being reported in Florida every day it is becoming clear that with his party-line vote to block crucial Zika funding Tim Kaine put his loyalty to the Democrat Party over the health of Sunshine State residents,” said Republican National Committee spokesperson Natalie Strom in a statement to the Miami Herald. “He owes the hardworking people of Florida an explanation for his playing politics at their expense.”

Meanwhile, Republican presidential nominee Trump punted when asked by West Palm Beach’s CBS 12 about what his own plan to combat Zika would be if he was in office today.

“You have a great governor who’s doing a fantastic job, Rick Scott, on the Zika,” said Trump. “And it’s a problem. It’s a big problem. But I watch and I see. And I see what they’re doing with the spraying and everything else.” 

“And I think he’s doing a fantastic job, and he’s letting everyone know exactly what the problem is and how to get rid of it. He’s going to have it under control, he probably already does,” added Trump.

When the reporter pressed Trump to discuss whether a special session should be held by Congress to review a bill to help combat Zika, Trump again said he would leave it up to the Florida governor. “I would say that it’s up to Rick Scott. It depends on what he’s looking to do because he really seems to have it under control in Florida,” said Trump.

No Women Made Trump’s List of Economic Advisors

Trump’s campaign released a list of economic advisors Friday who had one noticeable trait in common: they were all men.

“I am pleased that we have such a formidable group of experienced and talented individuals that will work with me to implement real solutions for the economic issues facing our country,” said Trump in a press release announcing the list. “I am going to be the greatest jobs President our country has ever seen. We will do more for the hardworking people of our country and Make America Great Again.” 

According to the release, “Additional members of the Advisory Council will be added at later dates.” Many in the media have noted that in addition to the lack of women on the council, there are also very few actual economists.

The gender disparity in Trump’s current list of economic advisors mirrors a similar lack of representation of women discussing the topic in the media. According to a recent study conducted by media watchdog Media Matters for America, in the second quarter of 2016 women appeared as guests in less than 25 percent of analyzed evening and prime-time television discussions focused on the economy.

Though there is a gender gap in economics, 32.9 percent of those earning doctorates in the field are women, according to a 2014 report from the American Economic Association’s Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession. 

As the Washington Post’s Jim Tankersley and Jose A. DelReal reported, in contrast, Clinton’s “economic advisers include several longtime Democratic policy hands … and several women, including Ann O’Leary, Maya Harris, Neera Tanden, Heather Boushey and Laura D’Andrea Tyson.”

The lack of women on Trump’s list, however, isn’t surprising given that the Republican nominee was also unable to name a single woman he would consider appointing to his cabinet if elected, other than his daughter, when asked about it this week.

“Well, we have so many different ones to choose,” said Trump when asked which women he would name to his cabinet. “I can tell you everybody would say, ‘Put Ivanka in, put Ivanka in,’ you know that, right? She’s very popular, she’s done very well.”

“But there really are so many that are really talented people,” he continued without offering any serious candidates.

What Else We’re Reading

Though both House Speaker Ryan and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) have both already offered Trump their endorsements, the Republican nominee said that he is “not quite there yet” on endorsing them.  

During a CNN town hall event on Tuesday, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson admitted that his head has “been in the sand” when it comes to law enforcement “discriminating” against people of color.

Politico’s Gabriel Debenedetti reported that Kaine “is expected to play a major behind-the-scenes role on the money circuit, in addition to his public campaigning.”

Roll Call’s Simone Pathé asked whether Rep. Scott DesJarlais’ (R-TN) “abortion hypocrisy” will haunt his primary race.

The State of Texas has agreed to modify its voter identification law ahead of the November election.

The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler fact-checkedDonald Trump’s revisionist history of mocking a disabled reporter.”

credo_rewire_vote_3

Vote for Rewire and Help Us Earn Money

Rewire is in the running for a CREDO Mobile grant. More votes for Rewire means more CREDO grant money to support our work. Please take a few seconds to help us out!

VOTE!

Thank you for supporting our work!