Salon Writer Laments That There are no Abortion Ads

After all, as Salon writer Danielle Campoamor noted, abortion isn’t a “social issue.” It’s a “medical procedure.”

You see advertisements for other services involving medical procedures, and advertisements for things like drugs that treat erectile dysfunction. In advertisements of other products and services, voluptuous women are often used to entice viewers to buy.

But not an abortion ad to be seen anywhere.

In fact, according to Campoamor, one clinic attempted to purchase ad space on a bus and train line, and they were rejected:

Carafem, a health clinic specializing in abortion by providing women with a safe, comfortable and supportive environment, recently tried to advertise its health services and unique approach to abortion on the Metro Transit Authority (MTA) buses and trains.

It was denied.

The organization’s ads, according to Outfront Media (which handles advertising for MTA), were deemed inappropriate because they mentioned the word “abortion,” therefore violating MTA’s policy of not letting issue-based advertising on its system. In an email to Carafem — shared with me by the organization — Outfront Media’s rep states, “Unfortunately, it looks like any copy submitted by Carafem will not be approved by Metro.”

Since when is a medical procedure a social issue?

So, we can use women’s bodies in a sensual way to sell a product or service, but we can’t advertise a “life-saving” “medical procedure” for women? Campoamor wrote:

I’m flipping through channels on a quiet Wednesday evening. My child is sleeping and my partner is reading and I am searching for a way to shut off my brain and turn on my lazy. Of course, in my search for good old-fashioned trash television, I’m viewing a series of seemingly unending ads.

I see an ad for cheeseburgers. A woman’s breasts are being used to sell a double-stacked mound of beef, dripping with condiments and garnished with over-fried sides.

I see three separate ads on three separate channels for products used to treat erectile dysfunction. A couple sitting in bathtubs, holding hands. A man and a woman smile at one another, not-so-subtle implications flying all over the place.

I see an ad for breast augmentation at a local surgical clinic. I can make my body that much more desirable if I only give them a call and shell out a few thousand dollars.

There’s an ad for depression medication and an ad for the newest line of mascara and another two ads for hair dye.

And while I am attempting to relax and turn my brain off, instead it shifts into overdrive. Why is it that I never see an ad for abortion services? It’s a useful and even lifesaving medical procedure. One in three women will seek out abortion services in their lifetime and it is, after all, completely legal. Women’s bodies are constantly being used to advertise a wide variety of products, and medical procedures — both necessary and elective — are consistently being highlighted in 30-second spots in between my favorite shows.

So why is it that a medical procedure that so many women will undergo and that we all have the right to know about is one we whisper about among friends or to a stranger on the other end of a telephone? Why are we willing to use women’s bodies in ads, but rarely see ads that would benefit women’s bodies?

For the record, I do hate it when businesses use sensuality to sell their products and services, which most of the time have absolutely nothing to do with the woman modeling the product. My grandpa would joke when he saw an advertisement with women models, “Does the woman come with it?”

I wish companies wouldn’t do that, but they are businesses after all. They do what yields them the most business and profit. Sex sells.

Along the same lines, the public transportation system and their advertising agency will allow only what will project the most positive image in the eyes of the public. If they’re taxpayer-funded, they’re obviously going to want to stay above board on what’s advertised in their buses and trains.

However, it comes as a surprise that they didn’t want to advertise something having to do with abortion. I would have figured that would be a politically correct enough issue for which to advertise. Who knows. Maybe this area has too much of a pro-life demographic, or perhaps there were too many pro-life groups wanting to advertise as well, and they decided it would be best to keep the pro-life/abortion issues out completely.

But since when is killing an unborn baby a “life-saving medical procedure” anyway?”

Harvesting someone’s organs can also be a life-saving medical procedure. Unless you have to kill the “donor” first. Then, it’s murder, regardless of how much of a medical procedure it is, and regardless of the fact that the harvested organs may have been used to save someone else’s life.

When Kermit Gosnell would sever a baby’s spinal cord, that was a “medical procedure.” The fact that a person uses specialized surgical tools and medical terms doesn’t somehow legitimize his actions. A “medical procedure” that intentionally kills an innocent and defenseless unborn child is as much murder as it would be if the doctor had used a gun.

Besides that, since when is abortion something we have to “whisper” about with our close friends? Does abortion really need to be advertised in order for people to know about it? Really? Just in the past several months, Planned Parenthood’s gotten quite a bit of free publicity and advertisement for their “services.” Is Campoamor actually suggesting that there are many women who don’t know about abortion?

Far more than likely, women aren’t going to know about abortion alternatives. Abortion is common knowledge. Everyone knows about abortion. Even if a woman becomes pregnant, and she doesn’t know where to get an abortion, all she has to do is go to the interwebs and do a simple search. “Abortion clinics in Seattle.”

What’s not advertised and what pregnant women are not going to know about are other services that don’t involve killing the unborn child inside her.