Pam Tebow, Pro Choice

On Super Bowl Sunday, CBS has decided to air a commercial produced by the pro-life group, Focus on Family, featuring Pam Tebow, mother of Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow.

Working as a missionary with her family in the Phillipines in the mid-1980’s, Mrs. Tebow fell into a coma after contracting amoebic dysentery. The strong drug regimen used to treat her was present in her body after waking from the coma. Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Tebow became pregnant.

After examination, her doctors diagnosed that because of the drugs used to combat her dysentery, her fetus had been damaged. Additionally, her placenta had detached from her uterine wall, which deprives the fetus oxygen and nutrients during pregnancy. They expected her child to be stillborn.

Her doctors concluded that she abort her child to avoid the complication that would threaten her own life.

Pam Tebow was left with a difficult decision: abort her pregnancy and avoid a possible life-threatening scenario for herself, or carry the child to term only to have him stillborn.

Mrs. Tebow chose the latter and placed her trust in her faith. Her baby was born alive, and contrary to Joy Behar’s musings, Tim went on to be an exceptional young man.

Many advocacy ads are not accepted by the networks at certain times because of the possibility of divisiveness. No network wants to wade into subject that evokes such passionate debate. Many dissenters, such as the National Organization of Women (NOW), say that this ad has no place in football. I would tend to disagree. Tim Tebow is nationally known for one thing: being one of the best collegiate football players ever. Yet opponents still voice their opposition.

Nancy Northup, president for the Center for Reproductive Rights pressed CBS to drop the ad, citing that abortion has been illegal in the Phillipines since 1870. Her contention was that the Phillipine physician would be advocating an illegal procedure and therefore would not have counseled her to do so. Without hearing from Mrs. Tebow, could it not be possible that the physician knew that she and her family were from the United States and would return home to have the procedure?

Ms. Northup letter appeared in her column in The Huffington Post yesterday and as of this writing, there are 23 comments. It’s a pretty fair split between for and against the airing of the commercial, but unlike most HuffPo pieces, there are men AND women who are asking ‘what’s the big deal?’

On Friday’s HuffPo, legal gadfly Gloria Allred said that if the commercial did not state that abortions were illegal in the Phillipines while Mrs. Tebow was being treated there, she would file complaints with the FCC and FTC. Once again, I haven’t heard mention where the proposed abortion would be performed, should Mrs. Tebow agreed. The opponents are so blinded by rage that they fail to wait for any details whatsoever.

Should advocacy ads be run?

Take the United Way commercials – a staple in professional football for decades. What is their main purpose? To give hope to the disadvantaged. Football players have been advocating for the underprivileged and disabled since the 1970’s and help them achieve dreams they thought impossible.

This past October, many pro teams went ‘pink’ for breast cancer awareness. That’s right – some of the most macho men among us were adorned in pink to show their solidarity in their sisters’ fight. Their mission: further awareness of breast cancer and give hope to those afflicted and their families.

Is it any different for Pam Tebow to tell her story of doubt, faith and triumph to give hope to those who are in a position of choosing life or an alternative?

After 40 years of the modern feminist movement, NOW, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and other pro-choice groups have succeeded in one positive way – being young and pregnant no longer carries the stigma it once did. In a world of parents without children, many would love to adopt a child born into a difficult situation. Often, everyone wins.

There is no shortage of Super Bowl ads designed to shock and, in some cases, objectify women. And for what? To sell sports shows, pizza and domain names. I don’t seem to remember the protests by NOW. (In fact, more MEN were ticked off that Danica Partick was not ‘man’ enough to race Indy cars.)

I also notice that the Left continues its open season on Christianity as they try to frame the Tebows as religious zealots. Rare are the attacks by the Left on religions and cultures that subjugate women. Christianity has been granted a dubious exemption.

We last saw the national spectacle by these groups in the 2008 presidential campaign as they attacked Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin for her decision to give birth knowingly to a son with Down Syndrome.

I don’t get it…isn’t this all about a women’s right to choose? They chose.

Adding insult to injury is the opposition’s way of intimidating all women and telling them “you owe us”. It’s clear to see that during a difficult time, the more options presented, the better. NOW, NARAL, et al do not want any pro-life groups at their table of power.

There is no crystal ball that all would-be mothers can gaze into and see what the future holds. This advocacy ad is designed to give hope to those who believe they have none. This country elected a man who cruised into the White House on a road paved with hope. Is Mrs. Tebow’s road no different?

Pam Tebow made a choice. It was a difficult one, but she stood by it. And twenty-two years later, you know the result. Her son has inspired by many by his talent, leadership and determination on the football field.

Now, it’s mom’s time to offer a story of inspiration.

-

Michael Fidanza is an editor at Parcbench and the host of The Armchair Energist Show which can be seen weekdays on Livestream.com and heard on RFC Radio.