When Planned Parenthood feels threatened

It trots out its own drivel in advance of the hotly contested Superbowl ad that will feature Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow.

The ad, paid for by the religious conservative organization Focus on the Family, will star Tebow's mother and will encourage viewers to visit a FOTF website where Mrs. Tebow tells the story of her pregnancy and how doctors suggested she abort when she contracted a dangerous illness. The baby in question was, of course, her son Tim.

Now, I'm having trouble with the trouble this ad has already caused. I don't agree with everything James Dobson and Focus on the Family say or do, but I also don't disagree with everything they offer. Why can't Pam Tebow tell her story? Why can't she serve as a source of inspiration to any woman who has been told (perhaps wrongly) that the baby being carried should be aborted due to an overriding medical condition? What about all the women who ignore their doctor's advice every day and go on to deliver perfectly healthy children? What about those who give birth to children with problems, even though the doctors sounded no alarm?

Planned Parenthood, with its "pro-choice" stance is supposed to be about CHOICE.

Why then is the organization so threatened by Pam Tebow's public airing of the choice she made?

Let's see what PP's president Cecile Richards has to say, shall we? Richards has issued a statement to accompany PP's own counterattack, a video featuring U.S. Olympian Al Joyner and former pro-football player Sean James. (Not sure why PP chose MEN to do its bidding, but whatever.)

Anyway, Richards' statement includes this: "(W)e must respect the ability of every woman to make important medical decisions for herself and her family, after receiving counsel from medical professionals, religious leaders, family members, or others she trusts."

Hmm. I seem to remember intensive campaigns by PP nationwide that discouraged states from making it mandatory for doctors to give out certain information or provide ultrasounds ahead of a planned abortion. I never have understood this. Shouldn't women have access to absolutely everything they need to know in order to make an informed CHOICE? And wouldn't that include "counsel from medical professionals."

I dunno.

Richards goes on to point out -- and rightly so -- that FOTF wears its anti-abortion-under-nearly-every-circumstance position squarely on its sleeve. If FOTF had its way, she argues, women like Pam Tebow would not be able to make choices without government interference. Again, I can't argue. But if PP had its way, women might not get all the facts they need to just say, "no."

Pam Tebow doesn't tell women to not have abortions. She does, however, show us what can happen if we're willing to summon the courage to take the path unknown. She encourages us to find out the rest of the story.

And what's so wrong with that?