Celebration of Family, Life, and the First Amendment

Tim Tebow is an All-Star quarterback and Heisman Trophy winner at
the University of Florida. He is well known for his leading his Florida
Gator team to a national championship in 2008, as well as a couple of
Southeast Conference titles and four bowl games. Now he is also known
for his religious views and his view on the subject of abortion. He is the
focal point of an ad that is scheduled to air during the Super Bowl when
the NFL's seasonal classic is to be played on Sunday February 7, the ad
already drawing protest and rage from various left-wing groups which
include NOW (National Organization for Women).

The reason for the brouhaha? Tebow's birth was a dangerously difficult
one, so much so that his mother Pam Tebow was risking death to carry
the pregnancy to term. She was advised by her doctor to have an abortion
but refused, holding to her Christian faith (she and her husband, Bob, were
Christian missionaries in the Phillippines at the time) that views abortion
as a morally abhorrant. She safely gave birth to the now-famous college
football star. Tim Tebow recognizes that he has been fortunate in that his
mother chose to give him an opportunity at life, at the distinct possibility
of ending life for herself. So, he made a commercial celebrating life, and
the virtues of family. And even before it had a chance to air, the following
had transpired:

*Gloria Allred, a fairly famous lawyer and feminist, and wife of an owner of
a chain of abortion clinics, had written a fiery letter to Leslie Moonves,
President and CEO of CBS (the network which will present the Super Bowl)
threatening to sue to stop the ad from airing. Allred wrote "If this ad airs
and fails to disclose that abortions were illegal at the time Ms. Tebow (oh,
it steams hard-core feminists no end for married women to have "Mrs."
before their names, so when refering to one they feel compelled to correct
the offending term with the substitution of their politically-correct creation
"Ms."!) made her 'choice', then I intend to file a formal complaint of mislead-
ing advertising with the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal
Trade Commission."

*Terry O'Neill, President of NOW, also took a shot at the ad, citing I'm sure
her concern for the women who would be deprived of a fundamental human
right to have abortions. I have not found any quotes from O'Neill on the matter
but knowing her organization I know that this is their standard rhetoric for
whenever someone from the pro-life side of the abortion issue speaks their
piece.

*A spokeswoman for the Women's Media Circle stated concerns that the ad
would be "divisive", and would therefore be dividing Americans at a time
when Americans should "come together", given the problems that the country
is facing.

And furthermore, these people and their respective groups are wondering why
CBS has altered their policy regarding advocacy commercials, as they had pre-
viously shied away from airing them. But CBS now states that they have no such
problems now with airing such commercials as long as they adhere to CBS'
standards for what they consider to be, well, not over-the-top (i.e. advocating
violence, defaming anyone, etc.). And in this sickly economy, why shouldn't CBS
find new ways to enhance revenue from their operations, including broadening
their scope of sponsorship?

Besides, why should a person, or a group of people, be prohibited from express-
ing their point of view publically, and at one of the most public of public events,
the Super Bowl? A pro-choice person or group could do what a christian-based
advocacy group is doing with Tim Tebow, producing an advocacy commercial
for their cause. If the ad meets the criteria established by the network (as stated
by CBS), they can, and should, be able to get it on the air. What are the femi-
nists afraid of? The Constitution's First Amendment guarantees that right to
both sides of the issue, and to us all.

Allred alluded in her letter to Moonves that the Phillippines has long had a
strict prohibition on abortions and that it may still have had same when the
Tebows were there in the 1980s, when Tim Tebow was born there. Doctors
and midwives would be fined andimprisoned for performing, or even recom-
mending, abortions. But Mrs. Tebow was advised by her doctor to abort her
child in order to save her life. Perhaps the Phillippine's law was made more
lenient by then. Or maybe Phillippine law applied only to women who were
citizens of the country and not foreigners. I myself do not know, but I can
safely say that it is highly likely that Pam Tebow still would have made the
choice that she made in giving birth to her son, given her strong faith and
its informing of her living her life.

And I can also say that such a choice, and the making of it, sends
the hard-core feminist Left into fits of apoplexy.


MEM