I’ve seen many good pro-life ads, but a new one by American Life League may just be the best ever. Entitled “Planned Parenthood’s Bunnies,” it not only promotes defunding the abortion behemoth, it shows the reality of abortion in an imaginative yet nongraphic way. What do you think?
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Save the Bunnies!
My only critique: rather than play a quiet buzz, they should turn on the vaccum cleaner. Because that’s what the abortion machine sounds like, does it not?
Dude, PETA won’t like that very much, will they?
A black bunny. Go figure that one out.
Wow that ones pretty good. I feel like a lot of visual aids like these are needed since a lot of people don’t realize what goes on behind abortion.
It’s a very powerful ad. I can’t bring myself to watch it more than once. I think that’s a good sign.
I’m not sure if I should laugh or be shocked or what. But that’s definitely a fantastic ad. Concise, powerful, easy to connect with. Definitely a winner, marketing-wise.
carder – you’re genius.
I think that provides the inspiration for a few follow-up ads.
Apparently outrage is one way to get through to them.
Yeah, I was about to say, “It’s ironic that the bunny is black.”
You should read Satan’s Blog. It’s not what you think; it’s satire in the spirit of CS Lewis’ Screwtape Letters. Satan blogs on abortion often, most recently at http://wp.me/p14HPl-zF and http://wp.me/p14HPl-uK
First, the “pimps”.
Then the House.
Then Phill.
Now the “bunnies”.
An unhappy time for PP, I think.
I was afraid to watch the conclusion of it when they reached for the “on” button on the blender.
The only thing that would have made it better would have been showing the face of the person holding the bunny…and it should have been a Cecile Rchard’s look -alike.
The black bunny was especially effective.
Outstanding ad! Praise God, let the truth be told!
The bunny was not really torn apart.
Planned Parenthood’s “babies” not so lucky.
Satan’s Blog here again :) Here’s another post you will like, entitled “Lights Out: A Modern Bedtime Story.” http://wp.me/p14HPl-AT
I dunno … I can easily see pro-choicers screaming about how manipulative the commercial is. But if they don’t get it after this, they’re never gonna get it. Anyway, I’ve linked back to this from one of my blogs: http://impracticalcatholic.blogspot.com/2011/02/from-subtlety-is-not-your-strong-suit.html
Delenda est Partu Meditato!
P.S.: Since we’re going over “posts you might like”: http://tonylayne.blogspot.com/2011/02/sticking-fork-in-virginias-abortion.html
Off Topic: Fr Pavone has gotten involved in Saving Baby Joseph. Go to LifeSiteNews to find out more. Pray & help to save this precious baby!
Well I can see some of the pro-aborts wanting to take this literally and saying we’re ridiculous for implying that PP kills babies in blenders, you know?
Yes, elle. Baby Joseph has a page on Facebook.
I find it interesting that they blanked out what happens to the bunny. After all, America will not reject “bunny blending” until America sees “bunny blending”.
I wish the live baby at the end was darker in color (not white) – we need to reach everyone. And at the end, there should be a written disclaimer (like they do in movies) that no animal was hurt or abused during the making of this commercial.
Maybe they also could show the cannula and the resulting catch jar of a real suction machine.
Also – what came to mind was the blending of the fish in the blender by Saturday Night live a while back.
All in all – I thought the ad was good. It makes people think…
Keep those ads coming.
I wish the live baby at the end was darker in color (not white) – we need to reach everyone.
Since when are pro-lifers politically correct? :) Seriously, I think people are smart enough to know that a baby is a baby, no matter what shade of skin.
PETA may not like it, and they’d be dumb to comment on it. To do so would reveal their unprincipled and idiotic ideology … that imaginary killing of a bunny is more outrageous than real killing of a baby in the womb.
I think the ad stated it perfectly. People need to see what actually is taking place. And I’m really hoping there is some type of law that already exists that makes it illegal to use taxpayers money to facilitate murder. If there isn’t there should be.
Great ad. Aimed at lukewarm pro-lifers who need encouragement right now to give congress a message… PP’s defunding should not be bargained away.
***
One addition I think would make the ad even more powerful: When the baby is laying on the table just before the cut… the doctors gloved hands come in from off screen and begin to pick the baby up.
Bunny blending.
Well, hey, if Sarah Palin can take out a caribou, everything’s on the table, I guess.
That’s just ridiculous. Abortion doctors don’t put babies in blenders. Nor do they deal with actual babies. And rabbits don’t come into it at all as far as I can tell.
You can’t say that putting a rabbit into a blender is bad, therefore something you think is bad, is bad. There’s no logical progression between the two things at all.
I hope Jess doesn’t see this ad or she will have nightmares B<}
You’re right IH. Abortionists don’t put babies in blenders, they suck them out piece by piece.
A more accurate ad would show a vacuum ripping off the bunnies limbs one by one.
This is mild compared to the realities of abortion.
joyfromillinois says: February 26, 2011 at 2:56 pm
“Also – what came to mind was the blending of the fish in the blender by Saturday Night live a while back.”
===========================================================
Ah yes Joy,
I too had a flash back to Dan Akroyd and the ’Bassomatic’ slicing and dicing an actual dead fish to a puré in 1.2 seconds.
Also brings to mind the old days [before 1950] when a pregnancy test included using a live rabbit.
If the test came back positive for pregnancy then the colloquial expression was ‘the rabbit died’.
I’m sure the PETA folks are relieved the rabbit no longer has to die.
Pre-natal children….. not so much.
Thanks for the links, devilblogger and Tony Layne.
I love this ad.
It has been reported that Saddam Hussein would slowy lower his political opponents into an industrial plastic shredder…. feet first to prolong their sufferring and screaming.
It’s a Two-fer. Both planned unparenthood and PETA will be screeching.
Cool
Jill,
I’ve been meaning to e-mail you a suggestion for the Weekend Question: “What Pro-Life ad would you like to see?”
Pauvre lapin! Il est mort comme les petits bebes dans les mères!
For those who don’t understand, that translates into, “I am an insignificant stupid person from the Bible Belt and so very, very declasse.”
I confess, ALL has SecularProLife.org’s old video beat. Great job!
Has PETA ever actually come out as being pro-abortion? If not, I don’t see why we’re poking fun at it. I don’t agree with its animal rights agenda (I’m more the “animal welfare” type), but I can’t fault them for being single-issue.
A quick search of the PETA website doesn’t yield any response to the ALL ad. A blog post titled “Help Stop the Bunny Butcher” turned out to be about rabbit fur in a certain fashion line. Also perhaps relevant: a photo gallery of babies who eat a vegan diet, and pro-life Justin Bieber promoting pet adoption from shelters.
@Kelsey: After the “sea kittens” business (and the human-breast-milk ice cream thing–almost forgot about that one), PETA has become something of a soft target. But you are right that unless/until they actually get involved, there’s not a whole lot of point in bringing them up.
PETA is backwards. They believe if you’re anti-abortion, then you ought to be pro-PETA because animals are life, too. (They claim to be neutral on abortion.)
PETA’s more apparent offense: they exploit women.
I wish they’d reassured us at the end, something like “No bunnies were harmed in the making of this PSA…which is more than we can say for…”
Alice: “After the ‘sea kittens’ business (and the human-breast-milk ice cream thing–almost forgot about that one)…”
Well, unless it’s soy or something like that, isn’t all milk breast milk?
@bmmg: True, but when it comes from cows (and maybe goats as well, but I’ve never tried that), it’s much easier to stomach (ha ha). I mean, would you eat ice cream made from human milk? o_O
I didn’t love it. I don’t know why exactly. I think maybe b/c the baby at the end leaves it so open to the “most abortions are done in the first trimester, anti-choicers are so dishonest” criticism. I also agree that it would have been more powerful to incorporate the actual instruments of death rather than the unrelated blender. I’m still thinking through it though.
For me, the most powerful pro-life ad I’ve ever seen was this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql_7jnp–UE (warning graphic).
Better with a puppy for PETA
I don’t post here often (although I don’t think this is my first time). I didn’t find this ad horribly effective because I don’t think the average non pro life person will understand the blender/suction abortion relation. It seems like more of a preaching to the choir ad then anything else (which makes the shock value seem unnecessary). Like someone else mentioned, might get some soft core pro-lifers a little more motivated. The ad I have seen that I thought was the most successful (couldn’t find a link to it unfortunately) started with a couple deep in a ‘typical’ abortion discussion around their kitchen table. ‘We can’t afford it’, ‘it’s not the right time’, ‘we can always try again in a few years’, stuff like that until they finally decide. I seem to recall it didn’t use the word ‘abortion’, but it really didn’t have to. Then the husband gets up and walks to the other room while the wife goes to stand forlornly over the kitchen sink. You hear this loud shotgun blast, the husband comes back in and hugs the wife with a saddened ‘it’s over’ and the camera pans to a picture of the couple holding an older baby/young toddler. It was extremely powerful and nearly moved me to tears. It was so incredibly shocking, because it’s so clear the couple is talking about abortion, then it’s suddenly this 2 year old and it just made it so crystal clear that, if the arugment can’t be used for a toddler, it doesn’t make any more sense for a preborn infant. I wish i’d kept the link to the video. Anyone else see that one?
@Jespren – I remember that ad! I saw it years ago, and have tried unsuccessfully to track it down. It was excellent!
I’m not real thrilled with the bunny ad, either; it’s effective in a way, shocking, but the connections are not smooth/easy ones to make. Why a bunny? And abortionists do not put babies in a machine to kill them. So the only real connection or point is that a violent death (of an animal that is supposed to represent a preborn human) is happening. There are too many misrepresentations in it for me. They needed more real ones. I prefer the ad mentioned above where a gloved hand holds an aborted one after you read “All Those Against Abortion Please Raise Your Hand.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql_7jnp–UE) This is clear, real and unarguable!
It certainly is not! Have you heard Ronald Reagan’s pro-life speech?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WTiK9Dd9z0&hd=1
Alice: “I mean, would you eat ice cream made from human milk?”
No. But I don’t eat ice cream made from cow’s milk, EYE-ther.
incurable hippie says:
February 26, 2011 at 4:19 pm
That’s just ridiculous. Abortion doctors don’t put babies in blenders. Nor do they deal with actual babies. And rabbits don’t come into it at all as far as I can tell.
You can’t say that putting a rabbit into a blender is bad, therefore something you think is bad, is bad. There’s no logical progression between the two things at all.
________________________________
See? I told you.
Marauder,
I understood every word! Glad to see my French is still in the deep recesses of my brain.
While I’m not terribly impressed with the add I am very disappointed in some of the comments referring to pro-abortionists. Lets all remember that there are varying shades of gray to all opinions and just because someone is ‘Pro-choice’ does not necessarily mean they are pro-abortion. I consider myself pro-choice mainly because I do believe there are some circumstances where an abortion is an acceptable option (such as if the mother’s life were in danger, or in cases of incest/rape). Nothing in this world is completely black and white. Please consider differing opinions when you throw insulting labels on the table.
Hans – great suggestion, thanks! Will use it!
Hi Rochelle,
Can one argue they are pro-choice on wife abuse but not pro wife abuse? Whatever the semantics, the result is the same for the battered woman.
What is so wrong with abortion that no one wants to say they are pro-abortion?
State laws allowed for abortion when the mother’s life was at risk and I know of no one who would argue that this should have been any different. Some state laws even allowed for rape, incest, and fetal defect. All combined these accounted for a tiny percentage of abortions performed. The vast majority are performed for convenience, i.e. there is no risk to the woman she just does not want, for whatever reason, to be pregnant.
I understand that polls have found the majority of Americans support abortion for the limited circumstances you mention, though correct me if I am wrong.
Jespren, I agree with you. Reading all the kudos for this commercial I thought “Man, I’m going to be the party pooper here.” I don’t see why this commercial is so great. Most pro-aborts will ridicule how CRAZY we pro-lifers are, grasping at straws, because afterall, they don’t put babies in blenders! We’ll get hung up on that one point like a merry go round…. round and round we’ll go ad nauseum. So imo the commercial is not very effective.
The commercial you described Jespren sounds chilling but great! THATS what we need to keep in people’s minds. You wouldn’t get rid of your born children because of finances, relationship troubles, the child’s health, so why do we use those reasons to justify getting rid of our unborn children?
On a scale of 1-10,
Bunny ad – 6
Reagan ad – 9.5
“Raise Hand” – 10
The scores approximate my emotional response to the ads. Reagan hit all the right points, very comprehensive.
“All Those Against Abortion Please Raise Your Hand” is just so powerful and it includes the call for us to mourn.
Tomorrow’s day of mourning is huge. Let us join our African American brothers and sisters in mourning the loss of our children, the heartache of grieving mothers and fathers and the calloused condition of so many hearts indifferent to the crisis. Let us cry out to God that He would move by His Mighty Hand and change the heart of our Nation.
If you are pro-choice, you are pro-abortion because that’s what the choice is: to terminate the life of a developing child. No exceptions for rape or incest: are those children less worthy of their own lives? Terminating the child’s life is not a therapy for rape. It does not undo the rape.
Treating an ectopic pregnancy is not an elective abortion.
No one has the right to terminate a child’s life; the child is developing and has his or her OWN right to live.
Pro-life. 100%. No exceptions.
And for all you Christians out there reading:
What’s the devil’s favorite color?
Gray.
Pamela, what’s so sad about I. Hippie’s pro-abortion “defense”: “Abortion doctors don’t put babies in blenders. Nor do they deal with actual babies.” Hippie is severely handicapped. Lots of abortion advocates and families are killing developing children that are less than perfect. For example, almost 90% of children who receive a pre-natal diagnosis for Down’s Syndrome are murdered before they take their first breath. But I guess some people think they aren’t babies anyway. If the abortionist keep killing at their current rate, they’ll eventually get back all those convenient parking spaces.
One can’t fully deny the conscience.
Linda,
Can you clarify what you mean?
Pamela, what’s so sad about I. Hippie’s pro-abortion “defense”: “Abortion doctors don’t put babies in blenders. Nor do they deal with actual babies.”
Hi ninek,
That was a comment by “incurable hippie” . My guess is that he/she is not our usual commenter “hippie“.
(As I’m editing, I just noticed you did put an “I.” in front of “hippie”. I missed that – maybe others did too.)
This is very interesting especially in light of this article today:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8349898/Abortion-is-safer-than-having-a-baby-doctors-say.html
So sad. Very good ad from ALL
It would have been a great ad for the Super Bowl.
Kelsey, at 7:06pm: Not sure if PETA as an organization promotes abortion rights, but some years back Dennis Prager interviewed Ingrid Nookirk, the head of PETA. I’m not sure if Nookirk is still the head of the group, but Prager did ask her if she was for abortion. I seem to remember her never really answering the question, or dodging the question. You might be able to find this interview on his website archives. This is the group that has compared the slaughter of a billion chickens to that of the murders of the Jews during the Holocaust. SCARY.
I do not particularly like the ad, as I used to have a rabbit, who was the sweetest animal in the world. She died of old age several years ago, and I miss her like crazy. I get the idea of the commercial, but instead of evoking feelings of hate for abortion, it evoked hate for animal abuse. It also could have been that the blender does not coincide in my mind with abortion.
Maurader, I understood what you said – I took French in high school and junior college.
Jespren, I remember that commercial you mentioned. I saw it when I was a kid, and I didn’t get it, so it was rather traumatizing for me. Yes, I come from a pro-life family (we’re Catholic), but my parents never talked about abortion, and we never did anything to help the pro-life cause, save for once in a while making donations to the Culture of Life Family Services (the CPC endorsed by our diocese). The only times I ever heard arguments against abortion were at church and when I went to Catholic school. Those lessons were never really anything but, “Abortion is evil,” “Life begins at the moment of conception,” “Abortion is murder of an unborn baby,” and, “Abortion is a mortal sin, so if you have an abortion, aid in abortion, or in any way support abortion, you are going to Hell,” (the deacon at the church who was most active in the pro-life community was very fire and brimstone). Therefore, I did not know the arguments for abortion, and did not understand that particular commercial.
I don’t know what commercial would be most effective, though. I think that the commercial, “Everyone against abortion raise your hand,” is rather effective. It’s obvious that it’s an aborted baby’s hand, and it’s not as graphic as some people suggest it is – most shows are more graphic than that now. Therefore, it does the job of getting the message across without being too violent or evoking the wrong imagery.
Janet, sorry I shortened incurable to I. I thought this might be a different hippie so I clicked on the name/link and read some of her blog.
I love the bunny commercial but I don’t think any pro-life/anti-abortion commercial could please the so-called pro-choice crowd. You can’t be vague and cute nor can you be graphic. But we don’t need to convince them. We only need to convince enough pro-life people to get more active. The Robert Bergers, cc’s, and Joans of the internet may take their pro-abortion views right to the last moment of their lives. And that won’t matter in the long run, because we don’t need their agreement to overturn Roe v Wade.
Bread is not made only of yeast, it needs just enough yeast to raise the whole loaf.
Rochelle,
You’ll have to forgive me, my stupid computer won’t let me paste one of your comments in this comment. So I’m going to do my best to quote you word for word: “Nothing in this world is black and white.”
So you don’t believe there’s any absolute right or absolute wrong? Are you religious? Most religions believe there are absolute wrongs and absolute rights (some things ARE shades of gray, but not everything). (That’s why I ask about you being religious).
Another thing to address are the issues you brought up:
The problem with the whole “life of a mother” and “incest and rape” argument is well for one, people might define “life of a mother” differently.
For instance…”life of the mother” could mean to one girl that her going to school is threatened therefore she couldn’t provide for her kid. Or perhaps someone might think their life is in danger, but it turns out it wasn’t true. (My OB/GYN said I lost a lot giving birth, but later he back tracked and said it wasn’t as much as he thought–and others said it LOOKED like a lot of blood). For all I knew I was going to need a blood transfusion or whatever…the way the doc talked it sounded way worse than it was in actuality). My point is, it can mean a lot of things and it may not mean that the baby truly has to die to save the mother’s life and some mothers are willing to give their lives for their children’s sake. (Check out St. Gianna).
The other problem is two wrongs don’t make a right. Like rape/incest plus abortion doesn’t make things right. You can’t expect the problems associated with rape and incest to go away just because the woman has an abortion. That doesn’t take care of the emotional/spiritual/psychological/mental situations/problems/etc. associated with rape and incest.
If we’re going to address rape and incest let’s address the problems: Rape and incest. The pregnancy isn’t the main issue, the rape and the incest are. That is, the problems existed BEFORE the pregnancy did. You can’t blame the conceived human being for the fact that somebody raped the woman or that the woman and man engaged in incest. That’s turning the conceived pre-born human being into an scape goat rather than addressing the inherent problem that existed before said pre-born human being was even conceived.
We have to address the problems that exist BEFORE the pregnancy even came about. If someone is raped, they need help with dealing with the fact they were raped. Incest probably (I don’t know a lot about the mental/psychological/emotional issues surrounding incest so I’m saying “probably”) stems from a myriad of issues/problems that need to be addressed to help those involved.
We have to get to the root of the problems instead of saying “Oh, the pregnancy is the problem!” No, the pregnancy is a result, not the problem(s). The problem(s) existed before the pregnancy did.