". . . Physicians and midwives who perform abortions in the Philippines face six years in prison, and may have their licenses suspended or revoked, and that women who receive abortions - no matter the reason - may be punished with imprisonment for two to six years. . ."
Pam Tebow was being treated for amoebic dysentery while carrying Tim and while serving as a missionary in the region. The disease is highly contagious, easily passed through food and water, and is extremely common in remote, developing parts of the world. If a doctor knew of Pam's situation, knew of the disease's side effects and the impact it could have on her, it is not out of the question by any means that such a recommendation could have been made.
The constant jumping in front of any television camera who would have them by NOW and other progressive "women's rights" groups espousing such impossibility is laughable if it didn't mar the character of an impeccable family in the process.
Pam's son has grown up to be one of the most sought after college football players in history. And for the past several summers has served others far less fortunate than him in a number of charitable causes and missions.
Susan Estrich, former campaign director for the failed Dukakis presidential bid, also weighed in .
"The suggestion that abortion is in any way connected to the value or the potential talents of the baby-to-be is so offensive that it is hard to believe Focus on the Family doesn't see the distorted underside of their own advertisement."
Estrich rightly argues in the same column that not every child will grow up to win the Heisman trophy.
That's right Susan, some may cure cancer, develop nuclear fusion, or become President. Some may even just grow up and spawn productive industry, or raise a quiet, but God-fearing family all on their own.
Estrich's comments on this issue always have to be understood from her particular bias. She has spoken openly of both being raped, and choosing the act of abortion. Her advocacy is always on behalf of the victims of rape and incest. This is to be understood, and I for one have a lot of sympathy with her position.
But if Estrich, NOW, Allred, and the Center for Reproductive Rights were to allow the laws to be changed so that we kept legal abortions available in the cases of the life of the mother, and in rape and incest cases, but make them unlawful under all other instances, would they support such a change?
Most likely not.
How do I know?
They won't even support the right of "one woman's choice," to tell a watching world what a blessing her own son has been to her life.