The much-anticipated Super Bowl ad telling the story of how quarterback Tim Tebow was born because his mother rejected a doctor’s advice to have him aborted for medical reasons is spinning off ethical issues at a dizzying rate.

Some are easily settled, as Ethics Alarms has already noted. There is nothing wrong with a Super Bowl ad raising substantive issues in the middle of beer commercials and tackles, as some have (incredibly) argued. There is nothing unethical about CBS changing its policy regarding issue-oriented commercials.  The fact that the network rejected such ads in the past does not make it hypocritical now. CBS, having ended a blanket prohibition, must now be fair and reasonable in deciding which issue ads to accept. Let’s see how it goes before we cry foul.

And there is nothing “anti-choice” about a woman’s story of how she chose not to abort her son, and is glad she did. It is not even an anti-abortion ad, unless the pro-abortion movement literally believes that it is wrong not to have an abortion. She had a choice, and she made it. The message of the ad does encourage thought about the consequences of having the procedure, which is unequivocally good.

Now, however, Hollywood lawyer and woman’s rights advocate Gloria Allred has suggested that Tebow and his mother are spinning a tale that is inspiring, powerful, and full of baloney, and she has sent CBS a letter of protest. The medical advice Tebow’s mother said she received came while she was doing missionary work in the Philippines, where abortion is and was illegal. Allred finds it difficult to believe that the doctors in the Philippines would have risked criminal charges to advise her to break the law, and has raised other issues as well. She says the ad as she understands it to be ( nobody has seen it but CBS) is misleading, and that the fact that an abortion would have been illegal must be included in the story. Supporters of the Tebow ad say Allred is “swiftboating” Pam Tebow, accusing her of lying without any proof, with the objective of undermining the persuasiveness of her story.

Thus we have a whole new batch of ethics issues:

• Is Pam Tebow’s story a lie? There is no way to know. She and her son are devoutly religious people, with  strong moral beliefs, and such people are generally reluctant to lie, especially to millions of people. On the other hand, a religious man who believed that stopping abortions trumped ordinary moral codes was just convicted of murdering a doctor to achieve that end. They could be lying, and the incident wouldn’t have to have taken place in the Philippines for them to be distorting it for their social agenda. Everything in the tale could have taken place, or not, in Rhode Island, Nebraska or Wyoming. But it also could have happened, more or less as she has described it, in the Philippines. Would a Pilipino doctor have told her that she needed to terminate the pregnancy, knowing that she could fly home and have the procedure legally? I believe a doctor would have an absolute ethical obligation to do so, if he felt that it was necessary to preserve her health.  There are many ways for a doctor to convey this information without technically breaking a law against “advising” an illegal procedure, and I am certain this has happened and continues to happen. This doesn’t mean that Tim Tebow’s mother is telling the truth, but it doesn’t mean she isn’t, either. There is also a good chance that Allred is misinterpreting Phillippine law (though she is a lawyer in the U.S., she has no more expertise or authority regarding that nation’s laws than you do). See here.

• Does it matter if the Tebow’s story is a lie? Yes, it matters. An inspirational story that isn’t true may still be inspirational, but it would be irresponsible and dishonest to present it as reality, and as unfair to the Super Bowl audience as to opponents of its message. CBS wouldn’t run the ad (presumably) if it knew or suspected it was a lie, so the very existence of the commercial would be fraudulent. Truth is more powerful than fiction. We should not tolerate disguising fiction as truth no matter how virtuous the objective. When author James Frey’s fake memoir,  A Thousand Little Pieces, was exposed as fiction, Oprah Winfrey (to her undying regret) immediately said that she didn’t see why it mattered, if the story inspired people. Oprah later reversed herself and skewered Frey on her TV show, because she realized she was wrong. It does matter, because people have the right to know that their opinions have been shaped by facts and fair arguments, not manipulated by clever lies.

• Is Allred “swiftboating” the Tebows? Not exactly. Allred is treating the Tebow ad like she would if it were a legal dispute, with the American public as the jury. She is introducing evidence that casts doubt on the credibility of the Tebows’ story, without disproving it. In some respects, the Swiftboaters’ ads questioning the legitimacy of Sen. John Kerry’s medals for Vietnam valor were worse that what Allred is doing. The U.S. military had investigated the Kerry story and had concluded that he deserved the medals; it was unfair for former servicemen to come forward three decades later and use hearsay and aging recollections in an attempt to undermine a final administrative decision. In other respects, Allred’s innuendo is worse, as she is suggesting dishonesty with no first-hand knowledge of either the principals or the facts. Both Allred and the Swiftboaters had partisan motives for their actions.

• Is the Tebow ad misleading if it doesn’t reveal that Mrs. Tebow was in a country that prohibited abortions when the situation occurred? No. Why would it be? Allred’s argument on this point doesn’t really make sense. The story is simple: a woman is told that she should terminate her pregnancy for health reasons, doesn’t, survives, and the child grows up to be a star athlete. That’s it. Intended message: that fetus you are considering aborting may grow up to be someone special if you let it. The message is not altered one bit whether the decision not to abort was made because Pam Tebow was afraid of prosecution, wary of the surgery, afraid to fly back the U.S. while pregnant, trying to kill herself with a deadly pregnancy, wanted to spend the money it would cost for an abortion on souvenirs, was following a radical religious agenda, misunderstood what the doctor said or was morally opposed to abortion. Her motives then don’t matter now.  Tim Tebow is throwing passes and making his mom proud, and he was nearly aborted instead. It is unfortunate if that story makes pro-abortion advocates so uncomfortable that they feel they have to attack it.  Misleading, however, it is not.

• Should Allred’s complaint persuade CBS to pull the ad? No. Unless there is more persuasive evidence that the ad materially misrepresents the truth, CBS may reasonable conclude that the ad is an accurate account of how Tim Tebow came to be. If it is accurate, it is fair. Such an ad does not, despite Allred’s protest, have to be balanced, because it is an ad, with a point of view, like all ads. Just as every ad arguing for energy independence or environmental responsibility doesn’t have to mention facts and studies relied upon by their opponents; just as Marie Osmond can make commercials claiming that she lost 50 pounds on NutriSystem without noting that she was also prancing her pounds away on “Dancing With the Stars,” the Tebows are not obligated to publicize every fact that their opponents think undermines their story.

The conclusion? Gloria Allred is playing issue advocacy hardball, and while it may not be wise, it is within the bounds of ethics. So is the Super Bowl ad she is attacking.