The controversy surrounding the pro-life ad featuring Tim Tebow likely needs no introduction.
Last week, a spokesman for the United Church of Christ railed against the decision of CBS to air the anti-abortion Tebow ad. Arguing that the decision amounted to religious viewpoint discrimination, the UCC noted that CBS refused to air their commercial back in 2004, a commercial which featured bouncers in front of a church building turning away a gay couple.
Read the UCC statement here.
The controversy has taken a new twist as numerous media outlets, organizations, and personalities are now questioning the “truth behind Tebow’s tale.” From Salon:
While pregnant working as a missionary in the Philippines, [Pam Tebow] fell ill with amoebic dysentery and was treated with robust antibiotics, which she says doctors told her had caused fetal damage, but she refused their advice that she have an abortion for her own safety. Luckily, she gave birth to a healthy baby boy — and to a perfect anti-abortion tale.
Only, one detail has so far been excluded from Tebow’s public tellings of the story: abortion was, and still is, illegal in the Philippines. There isn’t even a single exception allowed for cases where the mother’s life is in danger.
In a letter asking CBS to determine whether the Tebows claims meet CBS’s own standards with regard to accuracy, Matthew Margo of the Center for Reproductive Rights writes:
…Abortion was criminalized in the Philippines in 1870. It has been illegal ever since. Filipino law does not contain a single exception to its abortion ban – not even to save the life of the pregnant woman or to protect her health. Indeed, in 1987 – the year in question in the advertisement – the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines succeeded in making the Philippines constitution the first ever to recognize a government obligation to protect “the life of the unborn from conception.”
Physicians and midwives who perform abortions in the Philippines face six years in prison, and may have their licenses suspended or revoked. Women who receive abortions – no matter the reason – may be punished with imprisonment for two to six years. Abortion is so deeply stigmatized in the Philippines that women who seek care for complications from unsafe, illegal abortions are routinely punished by healthcare workers, who threaten to report them to the police, harass them verbally and physically, and delay care.
…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.
Now, enter high-profile California attorney Gloria Allred.
Allred has written a letter to CBS asking if the corporation will “still insist on running this anti-choice commercial if it turns out to be misleading advertising?”
Does this commercial for mandatory motherhood contain corroboration that Pam’s doctor suggested that she commit the crime of having an illegal abortion in the Philippines? If the ad omits the fact that abortion was illegal at that time and place isn’t the ad in fact misleading? Also if the ad omits to state that Pam could have been sent to prison for 2-6 years for having an illegal abortion there, isn’t that misleading? Was her choice to give birth an alternative chosen because it was more practical and less risky, (given the illegality of the abortion procedure) or was her choice simply a matter of faith? Also who were the doctors who would have performed her abortion or who advised her to have one since they could have lost their license to practice medicine or been sent to prison for performing an abortion?
Allred asks some pretty decent questions that deserve answers.
When Pam Tebow “chose life,” what kind of “choice” did she really have?
I have no problem with pro-life ads. I have no problem with the UCC ad either. Better, in my opinion, than the countless beer and sex ads that CBS regularly airs. However, when pro-life and pro-choice organizations address this culturally divisive subject, I think honesty should be a priority.
Related posts:
- Democrats Pass Bill To Reduce Abortion Led by pro-life Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH) and a pro-choice...
- The Abortion Myth of the Religious Right Randall Balmer discusses the popular Abortion Myth created and propagated...
- Democrats, Morality, & Anti-Terrorism Yes, Democrats are now the official party of Morality and...
- Barack Obama and the Pro-Abortion Myth Christianity Today has posted an interview with Democratic Presidential Candidate...
- Anti-Catholicism and Harry Knox A number of scholars in recent years have declared that...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
This is silly - the obvious answer is that Pam Tebow could have easily come to the US for an abortion. I haven’t heard said one way of the other whether it was a Filipino doctor or an American ex-pat.
For all we know, Mrs. Tebow’s script could say, “My doctor recommended I go to the US to have an abortion.”
Obvious answer? If its so obvious, why did Pam Tebow herself leave that rather important tidbit out of her public testimony featured on Tebow’s fan website? The clear implication from her own testimony is that she was advised by a Phillippines doctor to have an abortion in the Phillippines…
any names of doctors?
of course not, its a FABLE!
Punisher,
I deleted your comments for two reasons: 1) You copy and pasted a full-length article that presumably you did not author and did so without the author’s permission 2) you implied that those who may have reason to believe that Allred has a valid point or two are “abortionists”
My blog. I set the rules.
The information you provided certainly complicates the matter. However, I’m not persuaded. On one hand is this statement:
“A decision of the Supreme Court also impliedly recognized abortion to save the mother’s life.3 The United Nations recognizes that abortion in the Philippines is permitted only in instances in which the pregnant woman’s life is endangered”
And then we have this statement:
“The Philippine law on abortion is among the most restrictive in the world, as it contains no express provision for any kind of exemption from criminal liability…This silence of the law on any exception, even if to save the mother’s life, however, may have a chilling effect to medical practitioners and thus imperil women’s lives.
Nonetheless, despite the restrictive legal regime, abortion is widely resorted to by women faced with unplanned pregnancies and while they are arrested by police and maltreated by medical practitioners, women, however, rarely get prosecuted.”
In my opinion, the most pertinent question that Allred asks is whether CBS itself has verified the accuracy of the commercial. Also, in light of the fact that abortion was illegal (and as the article you linked to notes, there is no express exemption for abortion under any circumstance), can we say the commercial is misleading and less than honest?
No, in light of the fact what you deleted also says the Philippines Supreme Court allows for abortion in the case of mother’s life in danger and that it is recognized by the UN that this country allowed abortion in those circumstances. So it is those who accuse Mrs. Tebow of lying who are not being honest.
You deleted the source, and only state the part that says no express exemption, but ignore the rest that right to abortion in case of mother’s life in danger is recognized as such. So no, we cannot say the commercial is misleading and less than honest.
Those who attack Mrs. Tebow cannot say the same.
Yes, you set the rules. Convenient to hide the evidence that does not support your pet theories.
You wrote: and as the article you linked to notes, there is no express exemption for abortion under any circumstance
You left out the last half of the sentence so to impugn the odd as dishonest: “under the general criminal law principles of necessity as set forth in article 11(4) of the Code, an abortion may be legally performed to save the pregnant woman’s life.”
The fact remains: Allred lied in saying no exception whatsoever for abortion in the Philippines.
Here is the link for other readers:
http://www.asap-asia.org/country-profile-philippines.html
The portion that Punisher cites in its full-context is below:
“The Philippine law on abortion is among the most restrictive in the world, as it contains no express provision for any kind of exemption from criminal liability. Nevertheless, although the Penal Code does not list specific exceptions to the general prohibition on abortion, under the general criminal law principles of necessity as set forth in article 11(4) of the Code, an abortion may be legally performed to save the pregnant woman’s life.2 A decision of the Supreme Court also impliedly recognized abortion to save the mother’s life.3 The United Nations recognizes that abortion in the Philippines is permitted only in instances in which the pregnant woman’s life is endangered.4
This silence of the law on any exception, even if to save the mother’s life, however, may have a chilling effect to medical practitioners and thus imperil women’s lives.
Nonetheless, despite the restrictive legal regime, abortion is widely resorted to by women faced with unplanned pregnancies and while they are arrested by police and maltreated by medical practitioners, women, however, rarely get prosecuted.”
The above paragraph hardly answers Allred’s questions. Again, abortion (see above) is illegal in the Phillipines. Women are routinely arrested even if they are not regularly prosecuted.
The questions that I highlighted in the previous comment and the questions posed by Allred are still quite valid.
From the link cited:
” :
To save the life of the woman
:
No express provision in the law, although MAY be implied from the principle of necessity in criminal law.”
The document linked to clearly indicates that the laws concerning abortion are murky at best.
The beer ads are misleading too.
Makes you wonder if Kobe’s sneakers are really on fire and if Payton and Eli Manning ever toured the ESPN studios with their parents.
Which is the surest bet at being as good as advertised: a beer, a car, a credit card, a website, or being born instead of aborted?
Oh Timmy. He is just trying to do the best with the talent God has given him and people won’t let it go. I wish people would step back and look at the issues instead of the people involved in them.
It is just so sad that many use lies to further their agendas, as with the abortion issue. Compassion and charity are thrown out the window for the sake of a cause that for so many is so difficult and painful.
If indeed Allred’s claims are inaccurate, and in fact Mrs. Tebow was presented with a choice to make, then crucial to this discussion is that she had a CHOICE. Imagine that. Ironically, the sponsors of this pro-birth “ad” insist that women shouldn’t have a choice. Groups like Focus On The Family would have us believe that all women in that situaion are just like Mrs. Tebow–individual needs and circumstances never matter–so therefore offering a choice shouldn’t matter. I’m glad it worked out for the Tebow family–but let’s at least acknowledge that Mrs. Tebow apparently had the option of following her conscience and considering the beliefs and circumstances for herself and her family.
Apparently Baylor hasn’t gotten the memo yet about Sarah Posner in religiondispatches.org or the Bapstist Michelle Cottle in New Republic.
Bdidd, when are you gonna blog about Denzel Washington and Common word so we can see how it played in Waco?
Got a good report about Waco in Tony Cartledge Blog on SBWIM’s Marshall Shubal preaching Sunday if anybody wants to check it out
After seeing the commercial last night, this seems like a lot of smoke but no fire.