Whoa nelly.
As Joe Jervis points out, we’ve been hearing the propaganda for weeks now about how Tim Tebow’s mother was confronted with a difficult pregnancy, encouraged to have an abortion, and made the heroic and courageous choice to carry the pregnancy to term, so that her son Tim would one day sport Bible verses in his eyeblack and have a really hard time at NFL tryouts. As you all know, the propaganda has become even fiercer as Focus on the Family has spent $2.5 million on an anti-choice ad to be aired during the Super Bowl featuring Tebow’s story.
Yeah, well, Gloria Allred begs to differ:
In her exclusive interview with RadarOnline.com Allred slams the ad and CBS’s decision to air it, pointing out factual inconsistencies with Pam’s story. One glaring one is the fact that the act of abortion is totally illegal in the majority Catholic country of the Philippines – under all circumstances including rape and incest, and even without a provision in the circumstance that the mother’s life is in danger. The law has been in effect since 1930.
Allred says she believes it an impossible scenario to believe that [Filipino] doctors would [have] ever suggested abortion as a viable option for Tebow in the first place. And when you learn that 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, it’s easy to see why.
Oh boy! You see, Ms. Tebow is being hailed as a hero for “choosing life.” Let’s get something out of the way before we move on. When Focus on the Family and other anti-choice groups raise women like Sarah Palin, like Pam Tebow, onto pedestals for “choosing life,” they are ceding the pro-choice argument, that women should be the ones to decide what to do with their bodies. They don’t realize it, and it’s not pointed out nearly enough, but they’re arguing by pro-choice parameters. In the dreams of anti-choice conservatives, in a fantasy-land where Roe v. Wade has been overturned, no woman is a hero for making that choice, because under draconian abortion bans, the only choice women have is to abide by the law or to seek reproductive health care through other, possibly unsafe means.* As an American living in the Philippines, Pam Tebow found herself in the same situation. There are no exceptions to Filipino abortion law. According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, abortion in the Philippines is
unsafe, potentially deadly and highly stigmatized. Every year, more than 500,000 women in the country try to terminate their pregnancies. In 2008 alone, criminal abortions resulted in the deaths of at least 1000 women and 90,000 more suffered complications.
So, that was the “choice” Pam Tebow had to make. Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check expands on this:
During a bible study class, Pam Tebow related that “during that pregnancy, a Philippine doctor suggested that she abort the fetus because the strong medications she was being treated with for amoebic dysentery, which she had contacted early in the pregnancy, could cause serious disabilities to the fetus.”
Suggested that she abort the pregnancy? Or laid out the various risks that were possible, leaving her to her own judgment and choices? Made a definitive judgment that the fetus would unquestionably be harmed? Or described the risks of the medication necessary to treat the dysentery, including possible risks to the fetus? All of these are very different scenarios than the ones earlier suggested.
(…)
So…was Tebow’s doctor ignorant of the law and policy of his or her own country? Or, was the doctor willing to skirt the law for a relatively wealthy (in the context of the extreme poverty in the Philippines) white woman from the United States? Or did the doctor, again, merely lay out the range of options should it be found that the possible risks of a medication or the possible side effects of the medication should she opt to take it?
Pam Tebow is making a name for herself, and presumably a lot of money, as an anti-choice activist. But considering what’s coming to light, simply by analyzing a few names, dates and places in her account, I think it may be fair to say that for her to portray herself as some sort of “hero” is a joke. In fact, Pam Tebow’s own account, when bolstered by the necessary background information, is actually a fairly strong defense for the justice contained in Roe v. Wade. If she had been in the United States, she could have made the very same choice to go through with a risky pregnancy, having weighed her options, and having analyzed the pros and cons of her specific situation. But yet she and Focus on the Family are advocates for taking those rights away from other women!
And if I may be quite frank: women deal with difficult pregnancies all the time. By all accounts, Pam Tebow’s pregnancy was not off the charts when it comes to danger or risk. Women every day deal with more painful, more difficult choices in pregnancy, than what she went through. I don’t mean to negate her experience, but on this day, as the guilty-on-all-counts verdict came down against American terrorist Scott Roeder for his assassination of Dr. George Tiller, who before his death was the foremost American specialist in treating women in ghastly situations that none of us would wish on our worst enemies, it’s important to realize what these anti-choice advocates wish to take away. The testimonials of Tiller’s patients, so many of whose experiences are the true definition of going to hell and back, bear out the reality of what Pam Tebow and Focus on the Family seek to take away from American women. Those testimonials are tough reading. I recommend them, with boxes of tissue handy. And then ask yourself how grotesque it is that a woman like Ms. Tebow is steamrolling all over those very real experiences on her newfound crusade, enabled by the coattails of her teary-eyed football-playing son and the insipid demagogues at Focus on the Family.
Jodi Jacobson concludes her piece with these words:
Each woman is unique; each situation is unique; each woman acting as a moral agent on behalf of herself, and her family, with her medical advisors or whomever she chooses to engage has the right and the need to exercise these choices in the moment in her life such choices are relevant and based on her own “celebration of life.”
And on this the vast majority of Americans agree.
Pam Tebow is no “hero.” She’s simply a woman who may or may not have made a difficult choice. Regardless, things turned out well. And she may be lying. Questions!
For her part, Gloria Allred is threatening to sue CBS if they run the misleading ad:
Allred warns, “If this ad airs and fails to disclose that abortions were illegal at the time Ms. Tebow made her “choice”, then I intend to file a formal complaint of misleading advertising with those federal commissions.”
On a final note Allred says that she hopes that if any of the women that watch the ad are in the position of evaluating their own pregnancy options, that they “get all the facts before you make a decision. Don’t let any other person influence you. You are going to live with the consequences of that choice for the rest of your life. Make sure it’s your choice and you feel confident you can live with that choice for the rest of your life.”
We’ll be watching closely to see what CBS does, now that this new information is seeing sunlight.
*Including those women who end up having to choose to terminate a wanted pregnancy due to threats to their health or their very lives. And we do know, through years of research, that abortion bans don’t reduce abortion rates anyway. They simply make abortion more dangerous, healthcare worse, etc.










Is it really true that NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, “demanded” that CBS refuse to run the Focus on the Family ad?
You say you are for choice but you really want to suppress any speech that advocates the choice of life so really, you are not pro-choice at all for you only allow one choice to be valued.
Bob, I think it would have been fair for CBS to run the FOTF ad if the network had restored the ad time that it denied to the United Church of Christ and to other non-Christian-Right organizations.
Instead, CBS pandered to people who would rather throw away $5 million on self-promotion than make a real difference in the lives of the born and unborn.
Priya —
No, not all religions are cults. Not all religions practice groupthink, not all religions are authoritarian, exploitative, and dangerous.
I disagree. Every religion that exists fits at least a couple of the definitions of a cult:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult
“49.Punisher, You’re either a liar or extremely deluded. “Pro-life” is entirely misogynist. They wish that the a woman is force to relinquish her bodily-autonomy.”
Nope, not lying or extremely deluded. You’re just a bigot against those who disagree with you, that’s all.
And, no, we do not all hold to all abortions must be banned. Many of us hold to exceptions for rape and incest. And most of us, including me, hold to for the life of the mother.
But if you want to play that card of yours, based on your own bigotry, I guess that makes you someone who hates men if you want to have laws to restrain them from having bodily autonomy. Like when laws say men must be held responsible for their child if they don’t want the children they help bring into the world on grounds if the women can opt out, the men should also. Or laws that say men cannot kill, rape, assault, etc., another human being. Yes, laws do restrain their bodily autonomy there.
Of course, maybe you might like to say that people who wrote laws against pregnant women must really hate women.
Keep fooling yourself with your hate-filled rant that the motives of pro-lifers are out to get women.
Bob,
Most of the pro-choicers who talk about choice should be allowed, as obsfucation as to what that choice really is (murdering unborn) are the same ones who deny women (and men), who don’t believe in abortion, right NOT to pay for abortions of others. They have no problem demanding we pay for THEIR ABORTIONS with our tax dollars. Many of them have no problem restricting our rights to bear arms. Many of them have no problem not giving women (and men) parents any choice on what kind of values their children are taught when it comes to sex education.
And obviously, if they can, they will muzzle our free speech.
You are sooooo right. Pro-choice for them only means one thing- right to have abortions. They don’t care for other people’s choices or rights, and they sure don’t care if their demands for choice infringes on rights of others.
Evan,
Nice try, but if Republicans are so pro-life, why when they had power, they did absolutely nothing on the issue like the last 30 years? They talk a good game, but they don’t follow through. They want our votes and loyalty basically for nothing.
And pro-lifers, sorry, are not monolithic.
As Evan said pro-choicers also oppose abortions when they’re forced on women so spare us your feigned superiority — pro-”lifers” are about FORCING women to behave as pro-”lifer’” want whereas pro-choicers are about women having the right to control their own bodies.”
Yet, pro-choicers have no problem saying men does not have a choice whether they can be fathers or not, if the woman chooses for or against the life of the unborn. It is not just the rights of the unborn that’s violated, but those of would be fathers who want to keep the babies, even if means by themselves.
And pro-lifers do not believe the issue is the woman’s body, but the body of ANOTHER within the woman. Nice misrepreentation there. The majority of abortions all over the world is done ON HUMANS. Even when done VOLUNTARILY, the majority aborted are FEMALES. If anything by dehumanizing the unborn, your side is as bad as any anti-woman folks you want to demonize as such. Or worse.
So if we have laws against murder, rape, incest, etc., etc., it must mean by your logic those who pass these laws to restrict such choices are into forcing folks to behave as those who pass those lawa want them to, rather than allow them to have bodily autonomy to do as they please.
Sorry, that’s where your logic ends up if applied consistently.
Bottom line- is wanna have sex? Assume the risks. That goes for BOTH male and female. Not just the woman.
With rights come responsibilities.
“If abortion concerns you so much perhaps you should invest in planned parenthood and safe sex.”
PP was founded for one purpose- eugenics, especially to keep the black population down. Why would I want to invest an organization founded for RACIST PURPOSES?
And safe sex? No sex is hundred safe from causing pregnancy.
Abstinence when practiced is 100 percent gurantee against pregnancies.
Funny thing you folks should accuse us of being anti-science, when science validates those who are the unborn are real persons and human beings.
That very fact totally dismantle the argument that pro-lifers want to tell women what to do with their own bodies. No, they are saying do not violate the bodily autonomies of OTHERS.
I guess Susan B. Anthony and the earliest feminists must really despise women, by you folks logic, since they had no problem calling it abomination, awful, infanticide, child murder, etc.
The funny arguments you all raised tend to be red herrings. Or did you forget there exists feminists for life, libertarians for life, atheists and agnostics for life, Democrats for life, and gays/lesbians for life?
Naw. You just want to throw arguments out there to put the pro-lifers in the worst possible light and pretend such other groups don’t exist to make your points.
Susan B. Anthony was a lesbian.
But you have to realize…Feminists for life and atheists for life, etc., work with pro-choice groups and don’t hate women like “pro-laaaaaahfers” do. They’re different. They support contraception. They support real sex education, not that abstinence-only BS.
Etc.
Anyway, I’m done talking about abortion with you little cowardly MRA trolls or whoever you are.
As usual, when you can’t make your points, you make things up. Falsely claim pro-lifers hate women as your talking point without offering proof other than they oppose right to abortion which they see as murder in cases other than extreme ones like mother’s life in danger.
And how can pro-life feminist groups work with pro-choicer groups when pro-choicers tell them consistently they are not feminists for their stance on abortion? How can pro-life atheists/agnostics work with pro-choicers when they oppose right to choose abortion with or without extreme exceptions, on grounds abortion IS murder? You are being absurd.
Let’s look at the feminist for life, atheist for life, etc., sites you so claim are on your side on the issue of abortion and you so claim work with pro-choicers:
The atheista/agnotic for life statement on the issue of abortion:
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
Accordingly, I have created this web site as a virtual rallying point and clearinghouse for all atheists, agnostics, and other “godless” people who call themselves “pro-life.”
Though I am a Republican and a conservative (both social and economic), I intend for this site to be nonpartisan and nondiscriminatory. AAPL is for all nontheists regardless of political affiliation, political alignment, age, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, etc.; the more diversity, all the better. Even so, there are three requirements (explained in further detail on the Membership Form page) for AAPL membership; one must:
1) be an avowed atheist, agnostic, or other nontheist
2) oppose abortion and desire its abolition (with or without exceptions)
3) support nonviolence as the sole legitimate means of achieving the goals of the
pro-life movement
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/wallace2.html
As I contemplate the Declaration of Independence on the anniversary of its signing, I am chastened by the tragic fact that too many Americans are denied their “unalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Ironically, these same rights are used as an argument for alienating these oppressed and persecuted Americans from their rights as human beings. These Americans are the more than one million preborn children violently killed annually by abortion.
We cherish the freedom to order our lives in the most personally satisfying way. Abortion denies preborn Americans this right to the pursuit of happiness.
We cherish the freedom which empowers us to take advantage of our myriad opportunities. Abortion denies preborn Americans this right to liberty.
We cherish the life for which freedom is so vitally important. Abortion denies preborn Americans this right to life.
The day will come when we as a people will live out the true and full meaning of our dearest creed: All human beings are equal under the law. We will no longer deny the humanity and the human rights of preborn children. Freedom will cease being corrupted into the right of a mother to slaughter her innocent and helpless child within the sanctum of her body. The inhuman and barbarous genocide that is abortion as birth control will end. On that day, all Americans will be free at last.
And this atheist/agnostic for life article documents the treatment that feminists for life got from pro-choice feminists, putting the lie that they are working together:
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/trageser1.html
While many were shocked at the American Civil Liberties Union’s support of police abuse of anti-abortion protestors, numerous efforts by other supposedly liberal/leftist organizations to squelch dissent went mostly unnoticed:
At a “Take Back the Night” anti-crime rally in Rochester, N.Y., this past October, the National Organization for Women told the local chapter of the FFL that it could not be a co-sponsor because of FFL’s opposition to abortion. FFL marched anyway, 60 women strong.
This past year, the Minnesota Peace and Justice Coalition, in a closed meeting, expelled JustLife Minnesota, a local chapter of the Seamless Garment Network (which opposes all violence, including the death penalty, war, poverty and euthanasia). This despite vehement protest from several other Coalition member organizations and the Coalition’s own statement of purpose, which includes a pledge to “challenge each other on issues of inclusivity … and subjects controversial within the peace and justice community.”
Perhaps the most egregious example of an establishment organization censoring dissent was the recent case of the liberal/left publication the Utne Reader refusing to run an ad from the FFL. The advertisement, which quoted early feminist opposition to abortion by leaders such as Matilda Gage, was refused on the grounds that “… henceforth advertising must reflect editorial views.” (This followed a dishonest and failed attempt to claim FFL had quoted Gage out of context.)
In all the above cases, and dozens more like them detailed in FFL’s (now defunct) quarterly magazine, SisterLife, the common tactic of the establishment Left is to claim that anti-abortion leftists are not true leftists. In other words, they are excommunicated as heretics.
What should be truly disturbing to all of us is this dogmatic approach shared by most members of the establishment Left: One is a liberal or leftist based (at least partly) on one’s position on abortion.
A truly intellectual approach would, of course, be the obverse: As a leftist, how does my value system prepare me to deal with the question of abortion?
Without such a non-dogmatic approach, we are susceptible to sociological schizophrenia, condemning the violence of rape, domestic violence, militarism and capital punishment on one hand while denying the violent nature of abortion on the other.
The anti-abortion Left offers a vision in which one may oppose the violence inherent to abortion and also support issues of gender justice and other progressive causes, and in which one opposes abortion not in spite of one’s leftist value system, but as a result of it.
From this leftist viewpoint, opposition to abortion is not an aberration, but a natural, organic and logical outgrowth of one’s leftist whole. In other words, we oppose abortion for the same reasons we oppose violence against women, gays and lesbians, or ethnic minorities. Our anti-abortionism is the only response possible with our dedication to and demand for social justice.
In the end, it is the establishment Left which is resorting to the tactics of extremism: applying dogmatic loyalty tests, employing exclusivity by branding all dissidents as disloyal or heretical, and using intimidation tactics to silence the opposition.
It is difficult to find anything much progressive about that.
And this article from same website calls YOUR SIDE of the debate on abortion fascists:
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/trageser4.html
What is shameful is that many progressives believe as I do — that abortion is simply another manifestation of social inequality and America’s inclination to solve all problems with violence — yet don’t speak out. With the Politically Correct movement acting as all fascists do and bullying anyone who dares to question or challenge, too many progressives have allowed themselves to be silenced out of fear.
An unwanted pregnancy? No different than an unwanted CD player — simply get rid of it and go on to the next commodity.
When abortion opponents warned 25 years ago that Roe vs. Wade would result in a steady erosion of societal value for human life, they were scoffed at. Today we have Jack Kevorkian killing off people whose primary illness is depression and driving around L.A. with their organs in an ice chest, hawking them to the first taker.
This is progressive?
It is fascism, born of the same American shallowness that gave us child labor and chattel slavery. Twenty-five years after we legalized killing our own unborn offspring, we now have the government imposing the death penalty on children and the retarded, doctors proposing that we withhold food from handicapped infants, and parents suing hospitals for NOT aborting their children.
Where’s Josef Mengele when you need him?
Out here in California, the two most “liberal” candidates for higher office (Barbara Boxer and Gray Davis) in 1998 both ran on a consistent death ethic: they support the death penalty, abortion and welfare reform.
This is progressive?
To be sure, there are remnants of the old-style Left still out there fighting for the little person. Maya Angelou and Nat Hentoff, for instance. Phillip and Daniel Berrigan. Martin Sheen. Eunice and Sargent Shriver.
But the vast majority of those claiming to be leftist are far too busy marketing their politics of materialism to the white middle class to be bothered with defending the voiceless.
And here is a whole series of Q and A on Feminist for Life site:
http://www.feministsforlife.org/taf/2005/PWA2005.pdf
Their stance are precisely the very pro-life stance you deem as “hate.” Heck, they allow even less exceptions for abolition of abortion then even many mainstream pro-lifers allow, like cases of rape and incest!
“Feminists for life and atheists for life, etc., work with pro-choice groups and don’t hate women like “pro-laaaaaahfers” do. They’re different. They support contraception. They support real sex education, not that abstinence-only BS.”
You are the one with the BS. Feminists for Life on issues of contraception and abstinence don’t have a stance, since they have members on both sides of those issues:
http://www.feministsforlife.org/FAQ/index.htm#contraception
What is your position on birth control?
Feminists for Life advocates practical resources and support to address the unmet needs of pregnant women and parents. Preconception issues are outside FFL’ mission. Feminists for Life members and supporters hold a broad spectrum of opinions regarding preconception issues, and FFL welcomes anyone committed to working alongside us in our shared mission.
Another atheistic/agnostic pro-life site, which in clear terms are totally at odds with your side of the debate:
http://secularprolife.org/
Welcome to SecularProLife.org. The pro-life movement is expanding beyond the cathedral walls and we want you to be a part of history. If you are pro-life because abortion violates the Constitutional right to life, science shows that human life begins at conception, abortion hurts women, or for any other non-religious reason: make yourself at home! Here you will meet like-minded atheists, theists, and agnostics who are eager to save lives and fight the media portrayal of pro-lifers as “religious extremists.”
Punisher,
The vast majority of your comments on this page have been strawman arguments — unsubstantiated and false characterizations of the views of people who disagree with you. You have also repeatedly and falsely portrayed this issue as if there were only two sides to the issue.
Since you’re not capable of discussing what other commenters are actually saying, and since you seem to be talking right past the various other sides, I’m closing this discussion.