Chicago Tribune runs alternate ad showing fetal image after deeming first ad too controversial
Click all images to enlarge…
Caleb Parke at Live Action News reported last week that three major newspapers rejected an ad submitted by Heroic Media, which showed a life size image of a preborn baby between the ages of 20-24 weeks.
The Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today all rejected the 1/2-page ad because the image made it “too controversial.”
This morning Heroic Media’s executive director Joe Young informed me that the Chicago Tribune agreed to run an alternative ad today, displayed above, which shows an ultrasound image of a 20-wk-old baby, obviously en utero. Meanwhile, the LA Times and USA Today rejected the second ad as well.
“The second image takes up a lot more of the ad space than the original,” Joe noted, “a beautiful head and chest shot of a baby as opposed to one in hand.”
Several newspapers did agree to run the original ad, below, last week and this week. They included The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Austin Statesman, Dallas Morning News, and Houston Chronicle.
“I pointed out to the newspapers rejecting our ad that they have carried stories about the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act, the topic of the ad,” Joe said. “But they said the images ‘made the conversation too controversial.’ I was shocked that putting a face on a 20-wk-old baby now made it controversial.”
(I am reminded of an ad rejected by my local paper in 2006.)
I have no problem with the second image, although I agree with the censoring newspapers that the original image carries more impact. It somehow better conveys how sinister it would be to tear a baby that age apart. But that’s reality. It’s certainly not gory.
But far be it from newspapers to carry factual, controversial information – on abortion.

I strongly object to the use of the word “it” in both ads. You would think pro-life people would know better. The word “it” plays all too easily into the pro-abort’s view that “it” is not a person. I’m only aware of two uses of “it” to describe a living person: the book by Dave Pelzer, “A Child Called ‘It'”; and the quote from the movie “Silence of the Lambs”, “ ’It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again’ “.
Please use “he” or “she”, or similar pronouns. Labeling the unborn child as masculine makes it obvious that we’re talking about an actual person, but labeling the child as female may be more effective as it points to the hypocrisy of pro-aborts who claim to support “women”.
I actually like the second ad better. The first one they will just say is one of our fake fetal dolls and it isn’t a true representation of a 20 week fetus blah blah blah. To be truthful, the baby looks fake and that is why I don’t like it. You can’t give people who are pro-abortion an inch because they’ll walk all over it.
You can’t give people who are pro-abortion an inch because they’ll walk all over it.
Exactly right. And I think the mouth being agape connotes death more than not being able to speak. They don’t want to be slapped in the face with the life and death reality. We have to lead them to the realization by themselves.
Unfortunately we have to treat the pro-choice crowd like children to get them concerned about children.
Conservative logic: the old media newspapers are dying, nobody reads them anymore because they’re all left-wing propaganda, but we want to run our ads in them anyway and we’ll be very unhappy if they are rejected by the same publications we hope to see go out of business soon.
Good for the Chicago Tribune! I actually like the second ad better. Congrats, Heroic Media!
Isn’t the first ad that was rejected that of a fetal model??
Anyone? Anyone?
Never mind. I found it.
That is a fetal model of a baby at 12 weeks.
http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=695&category_id=11&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=199&lang=en
I like the 2nd ad.
That fetal model was based on photographs of my son at 12 weeks 5 days.
Here is the original site: http://www.donnaleeoriginals.com/onetinylife/menu.htm
Sorry, I need to correct that. The woman who made the model used photographs of aborted 12 week babies and only later found the photo of my son (which she put on her site). There are some obvious differences between the model and the photo but given what she had to work with, it’s not surprising.
Mat. Anna.
How precious!!
Thank you! I like the picture of him in my hand better, but the one she posted is clearer.
I miscarried my 2nd child into my hand at 10 weeks. I wish I had had the presence of mind to photograph him.
There is no denying the humanity of the preborn.
Chris,
I totally agree.
Prolifers should use he/she not IT.
I also wanted to express that while I appreciate the ad, referring to another human being as an “it” is not appropriate. Especially if you are trying to speak up for the life of him or her.
Wow. The photograph is amazing. What a beautiful little baby!! Amazing how formed and mature they look at 12 weeks –already look like little newborns, just so tiny.
Sydney, thank you. (: I think he was beautiful too. I will never forget my amazement as I held him in my hand and looked at him. So perfect…
In the Chicago Tribune ad, the paper superimposed the word “Advertisement” over the image. I looked at all the other ads in the same section of the paper and I did not see the word “Advertisement” imposed over them. Another form of “viewpoint” discrimination.
the second ad is also of a child in-utero?
“But they said the images ‘made the conversation too controversial.’ I was shocked that putting a face on a 20-wk-old baby now made it controversial.”
That tends to be why Jack and I get the venom and vitriol we do. His face, and Maggie’s face…seeing faces attached to abortion makes people MAD. They prefer dead bucket babies, because they don’t argue as much when you tell them they should be dead.