After nearly a month of media frenzy over an ad that none of them have seen, the "pro-choice" community has resorted to lies, distortions, and insanity, in its arguments to prevent Focus on the Family, CBS, and Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow from airing a touching ad highlighting, among other things, a mother's choice.
As an adopted son, adoptive father, and man who has lost two children through miscarriage I'm well beyond steamed by the dishonest, misrepresentative, and outlandish assumptions being made by NOW, the Center for Reproductive Rights, feminist attorneys, and a former Presidential campaign director. The attacks they have leveled at an ad they have not seen are telling in the full scope of their overall desire, but first let's deal with the facts.
In a letter to CBS the Center for Reproductive Rights begs the network to pull the ad based on the status of legalized abortion in the Philippines at the time of Pam Tebow's pregnancy. Tim's mother had been diagnosed with amoebic dysentery, and had been advised to terminate the life of her unborn son. The letter asserts that because abortion had been outlawed in 1870 that it is unlikely that a doctor would've advised her as such.
"Given this context, it raises questions about whether physicians in the Philippines would have urged a married pregnant woman to illegally terminate her pregnancy in 1987."
What the letter conveniently overlooks is that according to the Guttmacher Institute, anything but a pro-life research group, the regularity of abortion in the Philippines is a well documented fact averaging some 20-25 pregnancies out of every 1000 near the time of Tebow's experience. And as recently as 2000, though abortion is still not legal, Guttmacher reported abortions numbering 473,400, with some 79,000 seeking post-abortion care in 1,658 hospitals. That 473,000 number equals roughly 27 out of every 1000 pregnancies.
Modern Feminist and celebrity attorney Gloria Allred repeated the slander against the Tebows' situation , telling RadarOnline.com that doctors would not have offered her such advice.
". . . 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.