Blackadder,

Even I agree that that Now is being ludicrous.

They should be pointing out the major discrepancies in the two versions of Pam Tebow’s story, one in The Gainesville Sun and the other in the recorded interview on the web site of Focus on the Family. In the recorded interview, there is no problem over illegal abortion, since the first doctor she sees tells her she isn’t really carrying a baby but a “mass of fetal tissue” or a “tumor.” (I am presuming that an abortion to expel a tumor is not illegal. It is certainly not immoral.) She declines to have an abortion, and does not see another doctor for 7 months until she goes to Manila. In the newspaper interview:

Doctors later told Pam that her placenta had detached from the uterine wall, a condition known as placental abruption, which can deprive the fetus of oxygen and nutrients. Doctors expected a stillbirth, Pam said, and they encouraged her to terminate the pregnancy.

“They thought I should have an abortion to save my life from the beginning all the way through the seventh month,” she recalled.

Since she sees only one doctor at the outset, and doesn’t have any medical treatment for seven months after declining to have an abortion, who is the they in “they thought I should have an abortion” and who are the “doctors” in “doctors expected a stillbirth”?

In the print interview we have this

Just before her pregnancy, Pam fell into a coma after contracting amoebic dysentery, a bacteria transmitted through contaminated drinking water. During her recovery, she received a series of strong medications. And even though she discontinued the regimen when she discovered the pregnancy, doctors told Pam the fetus had been damaged.

In the recorded interview, she takes one only one dose of the medicine, and although it is not altogether clear, it seems to be after she knew she was pregnant. Of course, it’s possible the reporter just got the story wrong.

I would advise any woman who is told by a doctor that she is not pregnant but has a tumor in her womb that will kill her not to wait seven months before consulting another doctor.

(Reposted here from dotCommonweal with some modifications.)

Perfect! Put her story on air during the next superbowl!

No.

The controversy is that an anti-war ad was previously rejected while an anti-abortion ad was allowed, and even encouraged by the network.

More proof that “pro-life” values are badly skewed.

NOW president Terry O’Neill said it glorified violence against women. “I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it,” she said.

Source.

That’s it? All the controversy and gnashing of teeth was over that?

I suppose St. Gianna isn’t good enough for you?

“Doctor’s orders? what the hell do THEY know?”

You say that pro-choicers are not respecting Pam Tebow’s choice to keep her son. But if such a choice is made with bad information, it’s not much of a choice at all.

Show me the Superbowl ad by a sports hero whose mother actually died by deciding to go through with a dangerous pregnancy.

I’d have more respect for the movement.