Editing Focus on the Family (section)

==Political positions and activities==
Focus on the Family's [[501(c)(3)]] status prevents them from advocating any individual political candidate,<ref name="FS-2006-17">{{cite web| url=https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html| title=Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations| publisher=[[Internal Revenue Service]]| date=February 2006| access-date=February 5, 2011| quote=Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.&nbsp;... Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition [includes and] extends beyond candidate endorsements.| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110305221157/http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html| archive-date=March 5, 2011| url-status=live}}</ref> though it has permitted them to spend up to a certain amount on other political activities such as lobbying and voter education.<ref name=":3" /> Focus on the Family has an affiliated group, [[Family Policy Alliance]], though the two groups are legally separate. As a [[501(c)(4)]] social welfare group, Family Policy Alliance has fewer political lobbying restrictions. FOTF's revenue in 2012 was US$90.5&nbsp;million, and that of Family Policy Alliance (formerly CitizenLink) was US$8&nbsp;million.<ref>[http://media.focusonthefamily.com/fotf/pdf/about-us/financial-reports/2013-990.pdf Focus on the Family Form 990 tax filing] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141030090634/http://media.focusonthefamily.com/fotf/pdf/about-us/financial-reports/2013-990.pdf |date=October 30, 2014}}. Retrieved October 29, 2014.</ref><ref>[http://media.citizenlink.com/2012_(FY13)_CL_Form990_CitizenLink_PublicDisclosure.pdf CitizenLink Form 990 tax filing] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141029183325/http://media.citizenlink.com/2012_(FY13)_CL_Form990_CitizenLink_PublicDisclosure.pdf |date=October 29, 2014}}. Retrieved October 29, 2014.</ref> By 2023, Family Policy Alliance and its network of local state councils were generating over $40&nbsp;million of revenue.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Rabey |first=Steve |date=2023-05-30 |title=Focus on the Family affiliate is the unifying force behind campaign to restrict transgender rights |url=https://baptistnews.com/article/focus-on-the-family-affiliate-is-the-unifying-force-behind-campaign-to-restrict-transgender-rights/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230530114054/https://baptistnews.com/article/focus-on-the-family-affiliate-is-the-unifying-force-behind-campaign-to-restrict-transgender-rights/ |archive-date=2023-05-30 |access-date=2023-08-24 |website=Baptist News Global |language=en-US |quote=Going against the consensus of medical professionals who work with the transgender community, FPA’s model legislation, written with the help of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, declares gender transition procedures for minors harmful and prohibits them.}}</ref>

Focus on the Family, through its partnership with Family Policy Alliance, strongly advocates for legislation against [[transgender rights]], including crafted policies which oppose the consensus of medical experts who work with the transgender community.<ref name=":2" />

Focus on the Family maintains a strong [[pro-life|stand against abortion]], and provides grant funding and medical training to assist [[crisis pregnancy center]]s (CPCs; also known as pregnancy resource centers) in obtaining ultrasound machines. According to the organization, this funding, which has allowed CPCs to provide pregnant women with live sonogram images of the developing fetus, has led directly to the birth of over 1500 babies who would have otherwise been aborted.<ref>[http://www.heartlink.org/OUP/index.cfm Sanctity of Human Life] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071012082916/http://www.heartlink.org/OUP/index.cfm |date=October 12, 2007}}. Heartlink.org. Retrieved May 21, 2012.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/us/church-groups-turn-to-sonogram-to-turn-women-from-abortions.html|title=Church Groups Turn to Sonogram to Turn Women From Abortions|first=Neela|last=Banerjee|date=February 2, 2005|work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=October 24, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171001122416/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/us/church-groups-turn-to-sonogram-to-turn-women-from-abortions.html|archive-date=October 1, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> The organization has been staunchly opposed to public funding for elective abortions.

[[File:Focus on the Family Bookstore (Colorado Springs).jpg|thumb|FOTF's bookstore at their headquarters contains a variety of material on Christian living, Bibles, etc.]]

Focus on the Family has been a prominent supporter of the pseudoscience<ref name="Boudry 2010">{{Cite journal| doi = 10.1086/656904| pmid = 21243965| title = Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience| journal = The Quarterly Review of Biology| volume = 85| issue = 4| pages = 473–82| year = 2010| last1 = Boudry| first1 = M.| last2 = Blancke| first2 = S.| last3 = Braeckman| first3 = J.| url = https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/952482/file/6828579.pdf| hdl = 1854/LU-952482| s2cid = 27218269| access-date = October 28, 2017| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170809035126/https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/952482/file/6828579.pdf| archive-date = August 9, 2017| url-status = live| hdl-access = free}} available from [https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/952482 Irreducible incoherence and intelligent design: a look into the conceptual toolbox of a pseudoscience] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150626115148/https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/952482 |date=June 26, 2015}}, Universiteit Gent, [https://archive.today/20150713091506/https://biblio.ugent.be/input/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=952482&fileOId=1088809 pdf]</ref> of [[intelligent design]], publishing pro-intelligent design articles in its ''Citizen'' magazine and selling intelligent design videos on its website.<ref>[http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10084 Inferior Design] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060618154306/http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10084 |date=June 18, 2006}} Chris Mooney. The American Prospect Online, September 2005</ref><ref>[http://ncse.com/webfm_send/328 Expert Witness Report] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100331092137/http://ncse.com/webfm_send/328 |date=March 31, 2010}} [[Barbara Forrest]]. [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]. (PDF file)</ref> Focus on the Family co-published the intelligent design videotape ''[[Unlocking the Mystery of Life]]'' with the [[Discovery Institute]], hub of the [[intelligent design movement]].<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2116&program=CSC%20-%20Video%20and%20Curriculum%20-%20Multimedia Unlocking the Mystery of Life] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060927065402/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2116&program=CSC%20-%20Video%20and%20Curriculum%20-%20Multimedia |date=September 27, 2006}} Stephen C. Meyer and W. Peter Allen. [[Center for Science and Culture]] July 15, 2004</ref>

In New Zealand, Focus on the Family supported a [[Citizens Initiated Referendum]] on the repeal of [[Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007|section 59]] of the [[Crimes Act 1961]], which placed limits on the physical disciplining of children.<ref>{{cite news
|last = Focus on the Family
|title = Lobby group offers help through smacking mess
|publisher = [[Scoop (news website)|Scoop]]
|date = May 17, 2007
|url = http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00294.htm
|access-date = June 30, 2008
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20081029101110/http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00294.htm
|archive-date = October 29, 2008
|url-status = dead
}}</ref>

[[Focus on the Family Singapore]] came under criticism in October 2014 over allegations of sexism and promoting gender stereotypes during their workshops on managing relationships for junior college students. The workshop received a complaint from both a [[Hwa Chong Junior College]] student, as well as negative feedback from the college management as being 'ineffective' and stopped before the end of the year.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Lee|first1=Pearl|title=Hwa Chong: Workshop staff 'ineffective'|url=http://mypaper.sg/top-stories/hwa-chong-workshop-staff-ineffective-20141010|access-date=September 2, 2015|agency=My Paper|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150814154950/http://mypaper.sg/top-stories/hwa-chong-workshop-staff-ineffective-20141010|archive-date=August 14, 2015}}</ref>

Following the [[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization|2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision]] to overturn ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', Focus on the Family published an article on its ''Daily Citizen'' site urging [[Christian right|conservative Christians]] to engage in a "cultural civil war" against "radical abortion laws" implemented in left-leaning states.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Batura |first=Paul |date=2022-06-23 |title=Are We Already in a [Cold] Civil War? |url=https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/are-we-already-in-a-cold-civil-war/ |access-date=2022-10-06 |website=Daily Citizen |language=en-US}}</ref> This added to speculation that political violence similar to the [[January 6 United States Capitol attack|January 6th attacks]] could be accepted or encouraged on the grounds of opposing abortion rights.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Fearnow |first=Benjamin |date=2021-03-16 |title=Pastor Rick Joyner Urges American Christians to Prepare for Civil War |url=https://www.newsweek.com/pastor-rick-joyner-urges-american-christians-prepare-civil-war-1576570 |access-date=2022-10-06 |website=Newsweek |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Is America As Divided As Ever And Are Christians Making It Worse? |url=https://religionunplugged.com/news/2022/1/26/is-america-really-threatened-by-civil-war-what-is-religions-role-in-these-tensions |access-date=2022-10-06 |website=Religion Unplugged |date=January 27, 2022 |language=en-US}}</ref>

===2008 presidential campaign===
In the [[2008 United States presidential election]], Focus on the Family shifted from supporting [[Mike Huckabee]], to not supporting any candidate, to accepting the Republican ticket once [[Sarah Palin]] was added. Prior to the election, a television and letter campaign was launched predicting terrorist attacks in four U.S. cities and equating the U.S. with [[Nazi Germany]]. This publicity was condemned by the [[Anti-Defamation League]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/28/sitroom.02.html |work=CNN |title=CNN.com Video |access-date=August 24, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160828202628/http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/28/sitroom.02.html |archive-date=August 28, 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> Within a month before the general election, Focus on the Family began distributing a 16-page letter titled ''Letter from 2012 in Obama's America'', which describes an imagined American future in which "many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal [[Supreme Court of the United States]] and a majority of Democrats in both the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] and the [[United States Senate|Senate]]."<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Gorski|first1=Eric|last2=Zoll|first2=Rachel|date=October 28, 2008|title=Christian right intensifies attacks on Obama {{!}} Newsweek News {{!}} Newsweek.com|url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/165599|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081028113955/http://www.newsweek.com/id/165599|archive-date=October 28, 2008|access-date=October 8, 2020|website=Newsweek}}</ref> According to ''[[USA Today]]'', the letter "is part of an escalation in rhetoric from Christian right activists" trying to paint Democratic Party presidential nominee Senator [[Barack Obama]] in a negative light.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-10-27-christian-right-obama_N.htm | work=[[USA Today]] | title=Christian right's mailings depict disastrous future under Obama | date=October 28, 2008 | access-date=May 2, 2010 | first1=Eric | last1=Gorski | first2=Rachel | last2=Zoll | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604035021/http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-10-27-christian-right-obama_N.htm | archive-date=June 4, 2011 | url-status=live}}</ref>

Focus on the Family Action supported Senator [[Saxby Chambliss]] (R-Ga.) in his successful December 2, 2008, runoff election win. The organization, according to the ''[[Colorado Independent]]'', donated $35,310 in radio ads to the Chambliss runoff campaign effort. As the ''Independent'' reports, the Focus-sponsored ads were aired in about a dozen Georgia markets. The commercials were produced in the weeks after Focus laid off 202 employees, some 20 percent of its workforce, because of the national economic crisis.<ref>[http://coloradoindependent.com/16649/chambliss-got-help-from-focus-on-the-family-as-well-as-musgrave Chambliss got help from Focus on the Family, as well as Musgrave] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120915093613/http://coloradoindependent.com/16649/chambliss-got-help-from-focus-on-the-family-as-well-as-musgrave |date=September 15, 2012}}. Coloradoindependent.com (December 3, 2008). Retrieved May 21, 2012.</ref>

===Opposition to LGBTQ rights===

One of Focus on the Family's notable political stances is its strong opposition to [[same-sex marriage]], [[civil union]]s, and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>{{cite news |last=Nieves |first=Evelyn |date=August 17, 2003 |title=Family Values Groups Gear Up for Battle Over Gay Marriage |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4132-2003Aug16.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160919170122/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4132-2003Aug16.html |archive-date=September 19, 2016 |access-date=August 28, 2017 |newspaper=Washington Post |quote=Focus on the Family, which Dobson&nbsp;... began 25 years ago to strengthen and promote the traditional family unit using conservative Christian interpretations of scripture.}}</ref>

The organization has referred to the [[LGBT movements|LGBT rights movement]] as a "particularly evil lie of Satan".<ref name=":0" />

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson drew criticism for using the group to oppose homosexual members in the [[United States Military]]. Similarly, Dobson and the organization supported a 1992 amendment to the Colorado constitution which stopped laws that allowed for protections from LGBTQ discrimination.<ref name=":3" />

Dobson spoke at the 2004 rally against gay marriage called Mayday for Marriage. The event marked the first time that Dobson publicly endorsed a presidential candidate, [[George W. Bush]]. During the event he denounced the Supreme Court rulings in favor of gay rights, and he urged rally participants to vote so that the battle against gay rights could be won in the Senate.<ref name="KirkPatrick">{{cite news|last=KirkPatrick|first=David D.|title=The 2004 Campaign: Same-Sex Marriage; Rally Against Gay Marriage Draws Thousands to Capital|newspaper=The New York Times|date=October 16, 2004|page=12|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/16/national/16gays.html|access-date=January 25, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150528051651/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/16/national/16gays.html|archive-date=May 28, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref>

In an interview with ''[[Christianity Today]]'', Dobson also explained that he was not in favor of [[civil unions]]. He stated that generally agreed civil unions were merely same-sex marriage under a different name. He claimed his main priority in opposing the same-sex marriage movement was first and foremost to define marriage on the federal level as being exclusive between a man and a woman, and that afterward he wished to combat the passage of civil unions on a state-by-state basis.<ref name="Rutledge">{{cite journal|last=Rutledge|first=Kathleen K.|title=Dobson on the Gay Marriage Battle|journal=[[Christianity Today]]|volume=49|issue=1|date=January 2005|page=60|url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/january/21.60.html|access-date=January 25, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100203232105/http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/january/21.60.html|archive-date=February 3, 2010|url-status=live}}</ref>

Civil rights advocacy groups identify Focus on the Family as a major opponent of [[gay rights]]. The [[Southern Poverty Law Center]], a civil rights and hate group monitoring organization,<ref>{{cite web |title=Southern Poverty Law Center: LGBT Rights |url=http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/lgbt-rights |access-date=November 4, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111029030621/http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/lgbt-rights |archive-date=October 29, 2011 |url-status=dead}}</ref> described Focus on the Family as one of a "dozen major groups [which] help drive the religious right's anti-gay crusade".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/spring/a-mighty-army?page=0,0|title=A Dozen Major Groups Help Drive the Religious Right's Anti-Gay Crusade|access-date=April 7, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100406061624/http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/spring/a-mighty-army?page=0,0|archive-date=April 6, 2010|url-status=dead}}. Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved May 21, 2012.</ref> The SPLC does not list Focus on the Family as a [[hate group]], however, since it opposes homosexuality "on strictly Biblical grounds".<ref>{{cite web|title=Southern Poverty Law Center: Frequently asked questions about hate groups|url=https://www.splcenter.org/20171004/frequently-asked-questions-about-hate-groups|access-date=February 22, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180223051545/https://www.splcenter.org/20171004/frequently-asked-questions-about-hate-groups|archive-date=February 23, 2018|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Focus on the Family was a member of [[ProtectMarriage.com]], a coalition formed to sponsor California [[Proposition 8]], a ballot initiative to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples, which passed in 2008,<ref>{{cite news|title=Coalition seeks male-female marriage definition / New ballot push for constitutional amendment|first=John M. |last=Hubbell|work=San Francisco Chronicle|date=April 28, 2005|page=B.3}}</ref> but was subsequently struck down as being unconstitutional by a federal court in ''[[Perry v. Schwarzenegger]]''.

===Misrepresentation of research===
Social scientists have criticized Focus on the Family for misrepresenting their research in order to bolster its own perspective.<ref name=Steinbeck>{{cite web | url=http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/07/20/u-s-senator-catches-anti-gay-testifier-misrepresenting-study/#more-7295 | title=U.S. Senator Catches Anti-Gay Testifier Misrepresenting Study | publisher=[[Southern Poverty Law Center]] | date=July 20, 2011 | access-date=November 12, 2013 | author=Steinbeck, Robert | quote=t was the latest in a relentless campaign of misrepresentations, half-truths and outright lies in recent years that have defined anti-gay Christian right organizations intent on opposing equal rights and common dignity for LGBT people. | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131112211204/http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/07/20/u-s-senator-catches-anti-gay-testifier-misrepresenting-study/#more-7295 | archive-date=November 12, 2013 | url-status=dead}}</ref> Researcher [[Judith Stacey]], whose work was used by Focus on the Family to claim that gays and lesbians do not make good parents, said that the claim was "a direct misrepresentation of the research".<ref name=wp/> She elaborated, "Whenever you hear Focus on the Family, legislators or lawyers say, 'Studies prove that children do better in families with a mother and a father,' they are referring to studies which compare two-parent heterosexual households to single-parent households. The studies they are talking about do not cite research on families headed by gay and lesbian couples."<ref>{{Cite news |work=Church & State |date=September 2006 |title=Dobson's FOF Distorts Research, Says NYU Sociology Professor |url=https://www.au.org/church-state/september-2006-church-state/people-events/dobson%E2%80%99s-fof-distorts-research-says-nyu |access-date=November 12, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131112165608/https://www.au.org/church-state/september-2006-church-state/people-events/dobson%E2%80%99s-fof-distorts-research-says-nyu |archive-date=November 12, 2013 |url-status=dead}}</ref> FOTF claimed that Stacey's allegation was without merit and that their position is that the best interests of children are served when there is a father and a mother. "We haven't said anything about sexual orientation", said Glenn Stanton.<ref name=wp>{{cite news | title=Gay Rights Group: Dobson Manipulated Data | first=Steven K. | last=Paulson | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701530.html | newspaper=Washington Post | date=August 17, 2006 | access-date=May 21, 2008 | quote=A Focus on the Family official denied the allegation&nbsp;... Focus on the Family spokesman Glenn Stanton cited other research including an article co-authored by Mary Parke, a policy analyst at the Center for Law and Social Policy, that shows that children need a mother and a father, regardless of the parents' sexual orientation. 'We haven't said anything about sexual orientation,' he said. | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171203144213/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701530.html | archive-date=December 3, 2017 | url-status=live}}</ref>

James Dobson cited the research of [[Kyle Pruett]] and [[Carol Gilligan]] in a ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' magazine guest article in the service of a claim that two women cannot raise a child; upon finding out that her work had been used in this way, Gilligan wrote a letter to Dobson asking him to apologize and to cease and desist from citing her work, describing herself as "mortified to learn that you had distorted my work&nbsp;... Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with&nbsp;... there is nothing in my research that would lead you to draw the stated conclusions you did in the ''Time'' article."<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ci=108&ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=16911 |work=Edge Boston |date=December 15, 2006 |title=James Dobson Slammed for Distorting Facts on Gay Families in Time Magazine |access-date=September 11, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120130231527/http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ci=108&ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=16911 |archive-date=January 30, 2012 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>Truth Wins Out: [http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressrelease/2006/12/37/ James Dobson Slammed By Professor For Distorting Her Research In Time Magazine Article On Mary Cheney's Pregnancy.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115140123/http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressrelease/2006/12/37/ |date=January 15, 2013}} "[A] letter to Dobson, obtained exclusively by Truth Wins Out", December 14, 2006.</ref><ref name=OLeary>{{cite news | url=http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:AWNB:NHRB&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=11AA3D8CECB1E500&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated5&req_dat=0FB3382EE6AD1E46 | title=Yale expert says group misused his words | newspaper=[[New Haven Register]] | date=February 12, 2007 | access-date=November 12, 2013 | author=O' Leary, Mary E. | archive-date=December 18, 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201218145123/https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news%2F11AA3D8CECB1E500&f=basic | url-status=live}}</ref> Pruett wrote a similar letter, in which he said that Dobson "cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions", and asked that FOTF not cite him again without permission.<ref name="minnindy">{{cite web|last=Birkey|first=Andy|title=Minnesota researcher claims Focus on the Family misrepresented his work|url=http://minnesotaindependent.com/3800/minnesota-researcher-claims-focus-on-the-family-misrepresented-his-work|work=The Minnesota Independent|publisher=The American Independent News Network|access-date=September 9, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110919070451/http://minnesotaindependent.com/3800/minnesota-researcher-claims-focus-on-the-family-misrepresented-his-work|archive-date=September 19, 2011|url-status=dead}}</ref>

After Elizabeth Saewyc's research on teen suicide was used by Focus on the Family to promote [[conversion therapy]] she said that "the research has been hijacked for somebody's political purposes or ideological purposes and that's worrisome", and that research in fact linked the suicide rate among LGBT teens to harassment, discrimination, and closeting.<ref>{{Cite news |agency=Canada Press |title=B.C. researcher says American group distorting her research on teen suicide |date=June 19, 2006 |first=Beth |last=Gorham}}</ref> Other scientists who have criticized Focus on the Family for misrepresenting their findings include [[Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist)|Robert Spitzer]],<ref name="SFBayTimes"/> Gary Remafedi,<ref name="minnindy"/> and Angela Phillips.<ref name="SFBayTimes">{{Cite news |url=http://www.sfbaytimes.com/article_p.php?article_id=5924 |last=Besen |first=Wayne |work=[[San Francisco Bay Times]] |title=Science Strikes Back |date=December 28, 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131110165323/http://www.sfbaytimes.com/article_p.php?article_id=5924 |archive-date=November 10, 2013}}</ref>

===Football advertisements===
In 2010, Focus on the Family bought ad time during [[Super Bowl XLIV]] to air a commercial featuring [[Heisman Trophy]] winning [[Florida Gators football|Florida Gators]] [[quarterback]] [[Tim Tebow]] and his mother, Pam. In the ad, Pam described Tim as a "miracle baby" who "almost didn't make it into this world", and further elaborated that "with all our family's been through, we have to be tough" (after which Pam was promptly tackled by Tim). The ad directed viewers to the organization's website.<ref name="latimes-tebowhype">{{cite news|title=Tebow ad falls short of the hype|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-feb-08-la-na-tebow-abortion8-2010feb08-story.html|work=Los Angeles Times|access-date=January 19, 2014|first=Robin|last=Abcarian|date=February 8, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140221051659/http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/08/nation/la-na-tebow-abortion8-2010feb08|archive-date=February 21, 2014|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="slate-tebowad"/>

Women's rights groups asked CBS not to air the then-unseen ad, arguing that it was divisive. [[Planned Parenthood]] released a video response of its own featuring fellow NFL player [[Sean James]].<ref name="nyorker-tebowdefense">{{cite magazine|last=Davidson|first=Amy|title=The Tebow Defense|url=https://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2010/02/the-tebow-defense.html|magazine=The New Yorker|access-date=January 19, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131007044752/http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2010/02/the-tebow-defense.html|archive-date=October 7, 2013|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="usatoday-pptebow">{{cite news|title=Planned Parenthood responds to Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad|url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2010-02-03-planned-parenthood-tim-tebow_N.htm|work=USA Today|access-date=January 19, 2014|first=Michael|last=McCarthy|date=February 4, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140202114303/http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2010-02-03-planned-parenthood-tim-tebow_N.htm|archive-date=February 2, 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> The claim that Tebow's family chose not to perform an abortion was also widely criticized; critics felt that the claim was implausible because it would be unlikely for doctors to recommend the procedure because abortion is illegal in the Philippines, where Tebow was born.<ref name="slate-tebowad">{{Cite news |url=http://www.salon.com/2010/01/28/super_bowl_ad/ |work=Salon |title=The truth behind Tebow's tale |first=Tracy |last=Clark-Flory |date=January 28, 2010 |access-date=January 16, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120322161100/http://www.salon.com/2010/01/28/super_bowl_ad/ |archive-date=March 22, 2012 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |work=Huffington Post |title=Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad May Be Based on Falsehood, Lawyer Claims |date=March 31, 2010 |url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/tim-tebow-super-bowl-ad-m_n_442808.html |first=Whitney |last=Snyder |access-date=January 16, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111228205810/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/tim-tebow-super-bowl-ad-m_n_442808.html |archive-date=December 28, 2011 |url-status=live}}</ref> CBS's decision to run the ad was also criticized for deviating from its past policy to reject advocacy-type ads during the Super Bowl, including ads by left-leaning groups such as [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals|PETA]], [[MoveOn.org]] and the [[United Church of Christ]] (which wanted to run an ad that was pro-[[same-sex marriage]]). However, CBS stated that "we have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms on the issue."<ref name="latimes-cbsad">{{cite news|title=CBS defends decision to run politically sensitive Tim Tebow ad during Super Bowl|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-jan-27-la-fi-ct-cbs27-2010jan27-story.html|work=Los Angeles Times|access-date=January 19, 2014|first=Meg|last=James|date=January 27, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110913195632/http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/27/business/la-fi-ct-cbs27-2010jan27|archive-date=September 13, 2011|url-status=live}}</ref>

Focus on the Family produced another commercial which ran during the second quarter of the January 14, 2012 [[Denver Broncos]]-[[New England Patriots]] AFC Divisional Playoff broadcast on CBS,<ref>Electra Draper, "The Denver Post", January 14, 2012, "{{cite web |url=http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19745058 |title=Focus on the Family unveils John 3:16 ad during Broncos game - the Denver Post |access-date=January 24, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120118024018/http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19745058 |archive-date=January 18, 2012}}", January 24, 2012</ref> featuring children reciting the Bible verse John 3:16.<ref>Focus on the Family, "John 3:16", January 14, 2012, "[https://focusonthefamily.webconnex.com/free-downloads?refcd=102307] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120116020505/https://focusonthefamily.webconnex.com/free-downloads?refcd=102307|date=January 16, 2012}}", January 24, 2012</ref> The ad did not generate nearly the amount of controversy that surrounded the Super Bowl commercial. It did gain some national media attention, and president Jim Daly stated in a press release that its purpose was to "help everyone understand some numbers are more important than the ones on the scoreboard."<ref>Cathy Grossman, ''USA Today'', [http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2012/01/focus-on-family-has-another-tebow-related-commercial/1 "Focus on Family has another Tebow-related commercial"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120118100331/http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2012/01/focus-on-family-has-another-tebow-related-commercial/1 |date=January 18, 2012}} January 24, 2012</ref>