Stage 2 of the Tebow Drama: Women's group speaks out against a woman's choice
Categories: Women's Health,Feminism and The Feminist Movement
“Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time” states Sally Jenkins, a pro-choice woman, of The Washington Post. In the face of resourceful feminists who spent the last two weeks declaring the exact opposite, Jenkins' article, “Tebow’s Super Bowl ad isn’t intolerant; its critics are,” does the unthinkable: defend Pam Tebow’s right to chose and Timmy’s right to publicly share his mother’s choice.
By now we are all familiar with the details of the “Tebow- CBS- Modern Feminists Are Crazy” debate which captured our attention last week when NOW and the Women’s Media Center mounted a full frontal attack against the yet-to-be-viewed 30-second Super Bowl ad. But as Jenkins points out,
NOW is not only wrong to attack Tebow’s ad but their actions are also offensive. How has NOW become the de-facto voice of women? NOW is supposed to speak for all women, but it is completely out of touch with what women actually want. Women want freedom to express their life choices. Pam Tebow fully exercised her choice, and we should celebrate her story. America is thrilled with the birth of her record-breaking, scripture wearing, gator chompin son and so should groups who allegedly "speak for women".
NOW should take a cue from the public support for Tebow: other issues warrant more controversy than a 30-second ad celebrating family. Last I checked, women are still starving, female entrepreneurs are being shut down by their nanny-states and barely there bikinis walk around advertising the latest brew. Where were NOW’s resources on these issues this past week?
Jenkins correctly asserts that the Super Bowl is not a reality-free escape zone that is untouchable by advocacy ads. Instead, the Super Bowl celebrates the game of football, and what comes along with football? Players. Athletes who were born from mothers who wrestled with pregnancy, disease and an extra 30 pounds to give birth to the next generation’s role models. Since NOW wants to take issue with the best role model our kids have today, I would like to see who they recommend. On second thought, no thank you.
NOW definitely doesn't stand for me or my opinions and I think it's sad that some people just accept NOW as the women's choice, the women's voice.
I support Tebow and his mother and can't wait to see the ad!
Reply to this
Thanks for bringing this article to my attention. I think it's one of the most honest and well-written analyses on this situation.
Reply to this
So many things to say here.
I suppose first of all is the contention that this ad is breeding. Is it ok to air 15 ads about "male enhancement" while 1 ad on the issue of women's choice is off limits? I can't say I can exactly see the acceptability of one and not the other. If Focus on the Family is willing to cough up the money and CBS wants to take it, then this seems perfectly fine to me. However, those same people that find the Tebow ad acceptable have deemed that an ad by a gay dating service couldn't be shown. Equality means no double standards so in that sense I hope we can all understand where some of the complaints might arise.
Of a little more importance to the discussion are the facts. Pam Tebow was doing the work of the Lord as a missionary in the Philippines during her pregnancy in 1987. Upon falling ill and seeing her doctors, Pam makes the assertion that they diagnosed her with a placental abruption and recommended an abortion. Since 1930, abortion has been illegal in the Philippines and is punishable by a 6-year prison sentence. Now, I will readily concede that a 2005 report by the NYT estimates that 70% of unwanted pregnancies in the Philippines still do end in abortion. Even with the NYT report, I think it bears mentioning that Pam Tebow could not legally have an abortion where she was living during her pregnancy. Take that fact and do with it as you will.
My other concern lies with the other women who have placental abruptions, specifically the thousands that have died along with their fetuses. Placental abruption already carries a 20-40% fetal mortality rate but also carries a severe risk of maternal mortality. Now, the mother dying means the fetus also dies, any children she already had are left without their mother, and she has no chance of conceiving any future children.
Yes, Mrs. Tebow declined to have an abortion, in a country where it was illegal to have one, and may serve as a role model to many for that reason. But let's remember that she also put her own life and any future missionary work in serious by continuing a life-threatening pregnancy.
Reply to this