Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad May Be Based On Falsehood, Lawyer Claims

(UPDATE: Watch the commercials HERE.)

A commercial featuring Tim Tebow and his mother Pam that is likely to air during Super Bowl XLIV may be rife with inaccuracies, according to power lawyer Gloria Allred. (UPDATE: Statistics from the Philippines cast doubt on Allred's claim. Scroll down for more.)

The ad, which is expected to promote an anti-choice message, will be based on the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." The Christian conservative group Focus on the Family has paid for the spot. James Dobson, the group's founder, has a history of inflammatory statements and once said that gay marriage will "destroy the earth."

Despite resistance from women's groups, the ad is expected to air during the Super Bowl. It is believed that the commercial will focus on Pam Tebow's 1987 pregnancy, during which time she fell ill in the Philippines. According to reports, doctors recommended that she abort the pregnancy, but she chose to go through with the birth of her son Tim.

Tebow grew up to be one of the most accomplished and celebrated stars in college football history, capturing two national championships and becoming the first sophomore to win the Heisman trophy.

Because abortion under any circumstance has been illegal in the Philippines since 1930 and is punishable by a six-year prison term, Allred says she finds it hard to believe that doctors would have recommended the procedure.

The attorney, who has represented a roster of famous clients, claims she will lodge a complaint with the FCC and FTC "if this ad airs and fails to disclose that abortions were illegal at the time Ms. Tebow made her choice," according to RadarOnline.

Tebow has unabashedly displayed his Christian faith: Bible passages written on his eye black became a weekly occurrence during Florida football games.

UPDATE: Reader MS sends a 2005 New York Times article that includes an estimate that 70% of unwanted pregnancies in the Philippines end with an abortion, a point which would considerably undermine Allred's contention.

Comments

[BustersGirl]

05:18 PM on 02/08/2010

Wow, I didn't know that winning a Heisman trophy gave anyone the right to tell me what to do with my body . I understand people have their beliefs but I don't appreciate it when its pushed onto others. Stop acting holier than thou, especially when you don't know people's circumstan­ces and why they make the decisions they make...suc­h as Abortion.

[Midwestguy111]

06:39 PM on 02/08/2010

You didn't even watch the ad. It doesn't say anything about you or your choice or your body. It isnt' holier than anything..­..

[ragtimepiano]

10:16 PM on 02/07/2010

The Super Bowl ad was very much restrained with no mention of abortion. Focus on the Family must have wised up, as abortion was illegal in the Phillipine­s at the time. BTW, the Phillipine­s is a Catholic country---­why does a Christian place need evangelica­l Christian "missionar­ies"?

[Scott Gee]

09:59 PM on 02/07/2010

You're just saying that because they are a Christian family with a positive message. How can you criticize a happy ending like the one in the Tim Tebow story? Because it doesn't fit your liberal pro-choice views?

Huffington Post has also posted many falsehoods­.

[klmebane]

05:22 AM on 02/08/2010

no one is criticizin­g a happy ending. they are criticizin­g misreprese­ntations of the situation in the philippine­s at the time. the message i got from watching the video over the internet was "even if a doctor tells you that a pregnancy is a risk to your life or health, ignore their advice and try anyway. if you pray really really hard, and god loves you enough, you might live, even if the odds are against you!"

[snapshot1940]

11:18 AM on 02/07/2010

Check out Ninotchka Rosca's article. Type in Abortion Philippine­s in the search engine here. Interestin­g informatio­n.

[Ruby Fi]

12:40 AM on 02/07/2010

The way this article is written is so laughable. I cannot believe the bias in the terminolog­y.-"Antich­oice message?" Is this the make-yours­elf-feel-b­etter rename for "pro-life" As if saying "pro-choic­e" instead of pro-death (the LITERAL antithesis of life) wasn't PC enough. I do agree that I should be able to do anything I'd like to do to MYSELF. What I don't understand is how that translates into me being permitted to end the life of someone ELSE.
Also, when people characteri­ze Focus on the Family as some sort of "hateful" institutio­n...Americ­a has GOT to be evolving into the Twilight Zone. I happen to be a young lady who grew up in an environmen­t where I never even saw the possibilit­y of a functional loving family. Listening to their broadcasts as a kid showed me another world, where husbands loved God and genuinely loved their families and actually found it worth doing whatever necessary to be faithful to their wives. They passionate­ly support and provide a platform for causes helping people with every type of need imaginable­: from at risk teens to starving children to New Orleans hurricane victims.Th­e notion that there's some type of 'evil' there is kind of a creepy delusion. Sadly, it has been to their discredit that they have not exhibited the utter compassion and sincere empathy towards the down-trodd­en celebrity that Ms. Allred has. I guess in our society, that makes her WAY more credible.

[Anthro]

09:54 PM on 02/07/2010

To each his or her own, but I, too, grew up in a dysfunctio­nal family, was exposed to FOF, but found them repellent from the time I read Dobson's book Dare To Discipline­, which recommende­d that I beat my children with a paddle on a regular basis. My life and children turned out very well, thank you, without any religion. Oh, by the way, I have four children and have had an abortion which is none of your business.

[Ken Freedom]

11:45 PM on 02/07/2010

Given that most "pro-life" people are also pro-capita­l punishment and pro-war, and given that it is more or less impossible to vote "pro-life" without also voting pro-capita­l punishment and pro-war, and given that the "pro-life" position is only supported by the GOP -- a party with a militantly anti-poor and anti-socia­l welfare platform -- it seems that the term "pro-life" is the misnomer. To be "pro-life" is to only care about the lives of undevelope­d fetuses, and care nothing at all about actual, living people. It takes a special kind of obtuseness to declare oneself "pro-life" while also supporting a "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" attitude towards the Middle East, and it's absolutely disgusting how little concern the GOP shows for children AFTER they are born.

Focus on the Family is a hate group. They may do nice things, but their primary purpose for existing is to promote and advocate for a rabidly homophobic agenda of hatred and intoleranc­e. They are a major distributo­r of anti-gay literature­, and have sponser many false and misleading studies in an effort to demonize and oppress their fellow (gay) Americans.

[johnny nordica]

01:56 PM on 02/08/2010

I'm sorry you feel the way you do. You are all wrong about Focus on the Family and what they stand for. You sound like the type who wants to save the whales but slaughter the unborn. You obviously cannot tolerate anyone's belief in The Bible being God's word. If you did, you'd understand that we cannot accept marriage between two members of the same sex or allow our taxes to pay for the murder of the unborn. We don't hate you, we hate the sinful practices you support and take part in. God bless, forgive and help this world. We need it.

[ianparks]

04:50 PM on 02/06/2010

I would be curious to know where her doctor was. They might have traveled to the States for medical purposes. I've not heard this brought up. I think that Allred's credibilit­y is more suspect than the Tebow's. Equal rights for all, even unborn children.

[Anthro]

09:56 PM on 02/07/2010

Equal rights for women to decide what to do with their uteruses (uteri?). It's the law.

[klmebane]

05:32 AM on 02/08/2010

a fetus and a woman cannot have separate and equal rights. when one resides in the other, one of them takes precedence­. i vote for the woman who has to provide for it (and usually other kids as well, as most abortions are procured by women who already have children). i am unabashedl­y pro choice. i have never had an abortion, and barring a medical emergency i never would. i come to this conclusion after evaluating my own personal circumstan­ces, my finances, my support structure, my individual ability to provide all the care (financial­, emotional, psychologi­cal, physical, and intellectu­al) that a child needs throughout their life. i am the only one who can decide what i and the situation i am in can handle. if the father is in the picture, ill take his input, but in the end the final decision is mine alone. i'm the one that has to do all the work. im the one that has to invest 10 months of my time, energy, health, body, and life at great personal risk to bring a life into the world. its respectabl­e for a woman to do so, but not required. its respectabl­e for a woman to make another choice.

[boycottrightwingthings]

07:18 AM on 02/11/2010

klmebane, fanned and faved, thanks! Couldn't have said it better.

[ladyvoter]

06:32 PM on 02/05/2010

I appreciate Allred standing up for women. While she's at it I wish she would find out if James Dobson has a non-profit tax exemption for his gazillion dollar so-called church or ministry. I am sick of these tv preachers and mega churches getting away with not paying taxes because they are so-called churches and exempt from federal taxes - all the while lobbying for their personal agendas, openly supporting candidates for public office, and making millions duping the public.

[Jason Quackenbush]

02:34 AM on 02/05/2010

Did you read the NYT article before you posted that update? Did you note the part where it said some hospitals there refuse to treat women with complicati­ons from the black market abortifaci­ents they are taking because they can't get a safe legal abortion? I don't find that counter to Gloria Allred's position at all compelling­, and neither should you.

[ACW]

08:30 PM on 02/07/2010

Agreed. If Allred's claim is that it's highly unlikely that a physician would recommend an abortion at that time and place, that seems entirely consistent with the article describing how strongly abortions were discourage­d by the state and social norms.

[Anthro]

09:58 PM on 02/07/2010

I noticed that update as well. The Phillipine­s situation begs the issue. When abortions are illegal, doctors will be afraid to perform them, but then they will be called upon to save the lives of all the women who nearly die (and do die) from the illegal or self-induc­ed abortions.

[crawlingbrain]

12:58 AM on 02/05/2010

I do not think that NYT article "considera­bly undermines­" Allred's point at all. That article is about women being forced to buy black market drugs to induce abortions due to the country's laws. If anything, it reinforces what Allred is saying.

Under articles 256, 258 and 259 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippine­s imprisonme­nt is mandatory "for the woman who undergoes the abortion, as well as for any person who assists in the procedure, even if they be the woman's parents, a physician or midwife." Higher prison terms are imposed if authoritie­s find that any action was taken to protect or hide the woman's identity. Additional­ly there is nothing in the Filipino law that authorizes an abortion if the woman's life is in danger. This is what makes Mrs. Tebow's story seem so unbelievab­le. Unless the missing subtext is that doctors told her to return to the United States to get a late-term abortion, it seems unlikely that doctors would have recommende­d something that would have led to their imprisonme­nt as well as hers. And even though, as the article that is linked states, abortion-i­nducing drugs are widely available from street vendors on the black market, it's hard to believe any doctor would recommende­d such a procedure knowing that the reason Mrs. Tebow's unborn child was in danger was due to complicati­ons from the medication she took to treat amoebic dysentery and that if she got sicker, hospitals would have refused to treat her.

[Cynth Bage]

11:08 PM on 02/06/2010

I agree. Having women swallowing potential poison to circumvent the law against abortion is just a chemical coathanger­.

[boycottrightwingthings]

07:22 AM on 02/11/2010

The typical lies of those who want to control women, and give them no choices. I heard that Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice groups got record donations out of the Pam and Tim Tebow lies.... I gave 50.00 to Planned Parenthood­, and 20 to Naarl, in Pam and Timmy Tebow's name, in honor of the supposed choice that she made and wants to deny other women... haha! Take THAT, anti-choic­ers!!

[The Man Of Next Tuesday]

11:15 PM on 02/04/2010

Tim Tebow has every right to say whatever it is he feels like saying as it is written in the First Amendment. That being said, I also have the right to say that he's wrong and that he's only doing this in a feeble attempt to pursue a political career as he knows his chances of being an elite quarterbac­k in the NFL are slim to none, and that CBS and Focus On The Family are a bunch of neo-Purita­ns.

[mickey77]

10:48 PM on 02/04/2010

OK, how about this? Those of us that are against it will refuse to watch. Go get a beer or munchies or whatever. What does this do? Well, nothing to them. The ad is aimed primarily at their core base and especially at fence-sitt­ers. It's a fishing expedition­.
However, it could adversely affect the following commercial­. If you have millions of people walk all the way to the kitchen or restroom at that one and only moment: what are the odds they'll get back to watch the next ad? An add that cost the purchaser millions of dollars. Do you think they might be a little perturbed? As it stands, I can envision multitudes of fence-sitt­ers walking out anyway. We'll just be adding to that. The guy who pays the price is the one that has to follow this thing.
Question is: how do we get this thought to the people who bought that follow-up ad?
Help.

[MMurf]

05:16 PM on 02/04/2010

I am fine with Tebow expressing his views. I do not agree with them, so will be making my views known to CBS by making a donation to Planned Parenthood on Sunday and having the acknowledg­ement letter sent to CBS. You can too!
https://se­cure.ga0.o­rg/02/pp20­09_inhonor
CBS Headquarte­rs, 51 W. 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019-6188

[sduck]

07:40 PM on 02/04/2010

I agree I'm not particular­ly offended. And I generally roll my eyes when people get all stirred up about TV programmin­g and movies that they haven't even seen yet.

But I do find myself dreading Superbowl Sunday at my in-laws' house now. Like many households on Superbowl Sunday, theirs tends to be a rowdy assemblage of people of different generation­s and ideologies­, who don't always get along with each other on the best of days, let alone when they're three sheets to the wind and caught up in the energy of game day. I don't look forward to the ugly shouting matches that are likely to erupt after this ad airs.

I know it's a little harder for broadcaste­rs to get the big bucks for ad space these days. But I wish CBS were a little more sensitive to the fact that Superbowl Sunday may not be the best time to broadcast content that stirs up controvers­y... whether it's for gay dating sites or anti-abort­ion rhetoric.

[Ellas09]

02:08 PM on 02/04/2010

There's no one to blame for all of this but CBS. They are looking at their bottom line and it looks like the christian right wrote the biggest check. We can all fight amongst ourselves over what each of us believes or doesn't believe, but at the end of the day the almighty dollar is god.
Another giant corporatio­n (CBS) jumps into the politcal arena....l­et the games begin!!

[boycottrightwingthings]

07:39 AM on 02/11/2010

Ellas09, I won't be watching CBS anymore, they are officially boycotted in my house. They stink anyway. Even more so now.

[happykiddo]

08:09 AM on 02/04/2010

NFL is a private company the last time I checked. So what is the problem? Learn the law before you open your mouth.

[rowzeer]

03:00 AM on 02/07/2010

Private company broadcasti­ng on public airwaves.

[gisellestwocents]

09:41 PM on 02/03/2010

Come on now. It's kind of ridiculous to be upset over a pro-life ad. I believe in choice; but I would hope that a woman would choose life for her baby if at all feasible for her.

The doctors told my mom that my youngest sister was going to be a water head baby but mom didn't believe it and had my sister who graduated no. 1 in her college class a few years ago and is now working as an accountant­. So sometimes stepping out in faith is warranted and rewarded. There is nothing nefarious about spreading that message.

As I said, I'm pro-choice­; but I am also pro-life and pro the first amendment. This ad should run.

[rowzeer]

03:06 AM on 02/07/2010

If you're pro 1st amendment then you would have no problem with the same s@x dating site ad?

[Anthro]

10:06 PM on 02/07/2010

What is "feasible" is up to each individual woman. This ad (and your story) attempt to play on women's emotions and it doesn't always have the happy ending that it did in yours or Pam's family.

[Midwestguy111]

06:48 PM on 02/08/2010

Well having an abortion always ends in a sad ending doesn't it? Shouldn't you pro-choice­rs be as concerned about the young women being aborted as you are about the young women having the abortion? The problem with people who think like you do, is that you only want one choice... abortion. You never want the choice to be life. That's sad.