RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

BREAKING NEWS: Palin's Daughter, 17, is Pregnant, Can Anyone Say Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage?

By Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check

September 1, 2008 - 12:39pm

Published under: | | | | | | | | | | |
Scott Swenson's blog | Printer-friendly version |
Scott Swenson's picture

Bristol Palin, the 17 year old unwed daughter of Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant. We congratulate the Palins on their expected grandchild, and the fact that their family is in a position to make the choice to keep and support the child, based on access to high-quality reproductive health care and other family resources. Not all Americans are able to make that same choice, and not all 17 year olds are prepared to be mothers. Bristol plans to marry the father of child.

According to the New York Times;

The campaign intends to cast this as the kind of situation that ordinary American families face. The McCain campaign says it was aware of her daughter’s pregnancy before it named her as the running mate on Friday.

 

This is the kind of situation ordinary American families face, which is why comprehensive sexuality education and access to contraception are important. It also underscores why every American family should be able to make the very personal and private decisions that are best for their particular circumstances.

The fact that the campaign knew raises questions about why they waited until today, as Hurricane Gustav hits the Gulf Coast and the GOP convention begins, to announce this. Are they trying to bury the story?

Palin said, "Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows that she has our unconditional love and support." It is great when teens have that love and support, and level of communication with parents, but that is not the case in many families. Palin herself has supported forcing parental notification laws, even in cases where teens may be coming from abusive families, where rape or incest may be involved.

Many people in the progressive sexual and reproductive health community also believe it would be great if teens had the education and tools to prevent these situations, so they don't have to "grow up faster" than their parents plan. Comprehensive sexuality education and access to contraception can help families better communicate about the realities of teen life today.

According to the Associated Press,

"Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America called the pregnancy private. 'It's a matter that should stay in the family and they have to work through it together. My prayers go out to them.'"

 

We should all pray that every American family has the same right to privacy when it comes to personal matters, but the problem is that the Christian Coalition and the McCain-Palin GOP platform will strip that right from Americans. Privacy is not something that is only afforded to people who make decisions that the far-right agrees with.

Bristol's pregnancy seems to support the notion of this Alaska teen's suggestion that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs like those operating in Alaska, don't really work.

We were lectured on the dangers of sex, the emotions, diseases and other problems it created. Horrific pictures of sexually transmitted diseases were projected onto the white board, with gristly explanations meant to scare us away from sex.

A very entertaining lecture by some guest speakers from the federally funded Let's Talk program told us that having sex -- or really any form of physical contact, because that leads to intercourse -- would make us unhappy and impure.

All these efforts to scare us away from sex were mostly laughed at because our class knew that nothing a teacher can say will make all teens abstain from sex. At the teacher's choice, another guest speaker from Planned Parenthood came and taught us about contraceptive options, as well as other facts about the subject. This kind of presentation, however, receives no federal funding, and it was our teacher's choice for us to hear it, while every class heard from Let's Talk.

The fact that the federal government funds an abstinence-only education program is unrealistic and unfair to American teenagers.

"Abstinence is an important option for teenagers," says Clover Simon, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Anchorage. "But when you teach abstinence-only, you leave out that choice that some teenagers will make to be sexually active."

Preaching abstinence will never create a completely celibate teenage population.

 

At least one Alaska teen has the wisdom to see what actually works to prevent teen pregnancy. Lucky for her, her teacher had the wisdom to bring in a speaker that addressed the realities of life, in addition to the mandated lecture from failed abstinence-only programs.

Sarah Palin in her race for Governor said she supports abstinence-only programs. Twenty-five of her fellow Governors have rejected federal abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, but John McCain says he supports the Bush policies when it comes to wasting more than one billion federal tax dollars on failed abstinence-only programs.

 


Scott Swenson's blog | Printer-friendly version |
. . . . .
118 comments
Where is the thought that a
Where is the thought that a "pro-family" candidate is throwing her own family under a bus? She has a newborn that needs SO much love, help, and attention; yet she runs. She has a 17 year old who is pregnant, knows the entire country will now be judging her daughter, and still runs. Where I come from, this isn't pro-family. It's selfish. What does this say about Palin's judgement and abilities, she is not even raising her own family, she has "farmed out" her children to friends and relatives so that she and her husband's careers are unfettered, what kind of mother does this?
Submitted by Anonymous on September 1, 2008 - 1:06pm.
  • flagged
I am saddened for the
I am saddened for the family as they come to terms with this life changing situation. However, I believe that this will cause each of us to assess our beliefs and come to a determination of how we will react to this news as we select a president to lead our country.
Submitted by Anonymous on September 1, 2008 - 1:21pm.
SICKENED BY YOUR COMMENTS
I have never read so much self righteous BS in my life!! You all are saddened, critical and condescending about the happenings in the Palin family. You people make me sick. I was raised that all babies were blessings form GOD. What planet are you people from?? I guess one where nothing like this ever happens as you look down your long long noses at everyone else and criticze..
Submitted by Anonymous on September 1, 2008 - 3:41pm.
Not critical of Palins, just their politics
I'm not at all critical of the private decisions the Palin family is making and celebrate their decisions. I am critical of the fact that as politicians, McCain-Palin will not provide comprehensive sex-ed to teens even in the face of the obvious failures of abstinence-only, in studies linked in the article above, and in the reality that many American families like the Palins face. I am critical of the fact that the Bush Administration, and one assumes McCain-Palin if elected, are trying to make contraception more difficult to access, and as politicians will not afford other American families the same opportunity to make the best private decisions for their family, as the Palins have done. We should all celebrate the choice the Palins have the right to make and do what is best for them. Politically, I want that right for all American families.


Be the change you seek,

Scott Swenson, Editor

Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on September 1, 2008 - 3:55pm.
Lol, I guess you didn't get
Lol, I guess you didn't get a proper sex education either. Babies don't come "form GOD." You make me sick when you take pride in absolute ignorance!
Submitted by Doommaker on September 1, 2008 - 5:50pm.
re:Sickened by Your Comments
Sorry you have such a narrow viewpoint of this world....what saddens me are so many babies are born into this world unplanned and in many cases don't get the best they could have to prepare them for this World....... ....What saddens me are the many babies born into this World under conditions far less favorable than this Baby being born into the Palin Family..... ....What saddens me are the Unplanned babies born which many times relegates the Mother and Baby to a life of hardships and disappoints...... ....I believe in planning, this is why the word "Plan" is put in front of the organization....Planned Parenthood !!
Submitted by Anonymous on September 7, 2008 - 7:51am.
You're just pissed off
You're just pissed off about the money your pals at Planned Parenthood could have made executing both baby Trig and Bristol's child. Generally speaking its best to encourage kids to delay sexual activity until they are at least independant. I'm sure the Palin's tried that with Bristol. Kids don't always listen and this one and her fiance are going to have to grow up fast now, but they're obviously doing the best they can. They're taking responsibility for their actions and have the support of their families. Best of luck to them all McCain/Palin '08!
Submitted by clarem on September 1, 2008 - 1:41pm.
Actually, they'd make more money keeping her not-pregnant

Even wrongly assuming, as you seem to think, that a non-profit like PP is trying to make money, your comment is an epic failure.   If Bristol's parents had let her, she could have gotten birth control pills at PP.  If they "make money" at abortion, then why do they do they make most of their money by preventing abortion? 

 

Personally, I'm mad that the McCain campaign crowed about Bristol's choice.  They don't believe she should have one.  To be consistent, they should have bragged about chaining her up so she didn't have a choice.

Submitted by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on September 1, 2008 - 2:09pm.
Miss Palin was pregnant long before...
Greetings, What do you care if the McCain camp agreed with Miss Palin? Miss Palin was pregnant long before they were looking at her mother for the VP. She is a big girl. Are you claiming she cannot think for herself? Why don't YOU allow her the choice she obviously made long before the McCain’s were shouting cock doodle do about it. In any case, why don’t you leave her alone! Timothy+
Submitted by Timothy on September 2, 2008 - 10:24am.
Abstinence-only doesn't work.
The problem is, that it to many Evangelical Republicans, having an unplanned-for child, is preferable to using a condom. There is no logic in that, just as there is no logic in the teaching of creationism in a science class. Evangelicals would prefer that their children, if they commit the "sin" of having premarital sex, would either have a baby, or contract AIDS, rather than using a condom. In this way, they are "paying for their sin." And you are perfectly right in mentioning that for a well-to-do family, a pregnancy is not a crisis, whereas for a poor or even lower middle class family, it can doom the mother to a lifetime of poverty. In such situations as theirs, I thought parents got the "father" to marry as quickly as possible, before the baby starts showing. I can't figure out why they waited, UNLESS, they thought as being a mere governor, this could all be hidden, whereas now it can't. They don't really need to give an explanation, of course, but I just find all this to be curious. I'd like a journalist to find out if she was off from school, saying she had "mono." In reality, it doesn't matter to evangelicals if her kids are all crack users, it is about what she believes in making everyone else do, through legislation.
Submitted by Anonymous on September 1, 2008 - 1:45pm.
No worries
Greetings, The executive branch of our government cannot legislate anything. No worries. Timothy+
Submitted by Timothy on September 2, 2008 - 1:24pm.
its lucky that if she's VP,
its lucky that if she's VP, she'll be the head of the Senate then, which... oh yeah, legislates...
Submitted by Anonymous on September 22, 2008 - 9:10pm.
forcing young people,
forcing young people, children really, into marriage when they make a mistake in becoming pregnant isn't healthy either. no doubt this will unfortunately lead to early divorce for bristol. acknowledging the mistake and keeping her baby is one thing, but making it "ok" by forcing marriage is another. having access to proper sex education is important. of course schools should promote abstinence, but they need to be realistic and provide proper education about pregnancy, std's and how teens can protect themselves if they choose to become sexually active.
Submitted by Anonymous on September 1, 2008 - 1:56pm.
Who are you?
Greetings, How in the world do you know that she is being forced into marriage? Who are you? Timothy+
Submitted by Timothy on September 2, 2008 - 1:27pm.
How do you know that she is
How do you know that she is not being coerced in to an early marriage at such a young age? Maybe Pain shoud have insisted that Bristol join the rest of the family when they moved to Juneau two years ago. I think Palin's political ambitions have compromised her family. Palin shoud have spent more time parenting and less time in politics. It is a choice to have a large family as it is a choice to run for public office. Oh, by the way, she did have a choice to work or not. Her husband has been working for BP on the slope for 20 years....good pay up there.
Submitted by Anonymous on September 3, 2008 - 11:23am.
A baby will live.
The issue for Republicans is that this baby will live. Along with the spectre of gay marriage, these were the two main issues in both Bush elections. Abortion, and gays. Are the main issues in our country, compared to the economy, jobs, global warming, the war, pollution, and about two dozen other things? No! They are sure about those two things. Many Republicans are sure that gays are responsible for the decline of civilization, and that it would be the worst mistake in the world to allow them to be married. I lived in Colorado Springs, and there, evangelical organizations blamed premarital pregnancy on gays! I am not kidding. They claimed that gays were responsible for degrading the moral fabric of society, and that teens went out and had sex, because of the "anything goes" attitude of gays. For Republicans, the answer is always war, if possible. They don't care about the collateral damage when we are on a mission of idealism. How many innocent families are bombed out of their homes, or lose their lives in the cross fire. Look at the reasoning of the poster here who cites that we who want the right to choose, are only interested in the profit by abortion clinics. TOTALLY OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY. That is like saying we want teens who are sexually active, to use condoms, for the profit by condom manufacturers.
Submitted by Anonymous on September 1, 2008 - 2:09pm.
Civilization
Greetings, Contraception is responsible for the decline of civilization. Just look at Europe. BTW: the demographics here are quickly catching up. Timothy+
Submitted by Timothy on September 2, 2008 - 10:11am.
Enough nonsense
I've had just about enough of your ridiculous argument that contraception is a danger to western civilization. I know all about the fertility figures, but they do not support your conclusions.
First, it should be obvious to any thinking person that a continuous population growth race cannot be sustainable. Resources are limited. You may argue about where exactly their limits lie, but you cannot deny that they are limited and that makes continuous growth a losing long-term strategy. Therefore, even if a fertility differential between recent immigrants and native-born westerners is a problem, a population growth arms race is demonstrably not the answer.
Second, have I been on hallucinogens for most of the past decade or isn't the current occupant of the White House a native-born American? In fact, I seem to remember something about that in the constitution. When I turn on the TV and watch the Republican National Convention, I see more "stereotypical westerners". Yet, these are the very people who brought us warrantless wiretapping, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, attacks on contraceptive access, and the injection of religious authoritarianism into government. They have given us extraodinary rendition, suppression of scientific findings in favour of ideology, and cowboy diplomacy. If you want to see who's standing against the core values of western society, look in the mirror.
You would think a decent values system, one that produces a demonstrably high quality of life, should be saleable to adults, whatever their nation of origin, rather than relying on the indoctrination of young children. Are you afraid you are not in the possession of such a system?
Submitted by DL on September 2, 2008 - 9:12pm.
A Couple More Points
Also, I would just like to point out two more things:
1. Your screeching is exactly the same hysteria that was levelled against Irish immigrants to the U.S. in the 19th century. Those fears, of course, proved to be unfounded.
2. If you're worried about a perceived decline in Western society, perhaps you could explain how large population growth would address the problem of our wholesale transfer of wealth to nations with distinctly anti-western values (i.e. Middle-Eastern theocracies and Communist China)?
Submitted by DaveL on September 2, 2008 - 9:56pm.
Principles of subsidiarity
Greetings, I never suggested a population growth race. However, I will now suggest that Westerners implement policies to SUSTAIN their growth rates, as such rates are indisputably the fundamental factor for the advantageous results of a particular peoples continuing existence. As far as standing against the core values of America, well that’s my point of alerting you to how those core vales correspond to the negative growth rate in European countries and projected to be in America Timothy+ The Irish are Westerners. So, that was racism levied against them, which has not a thing to do with what negative population growth means to a culture, especially when the Irish belong to it, as do the Mexicans. None of that matters… Different ‘screechers’. As far as your last point, I have now made clear that the way to offset negative population growth is with sustainable growth. The redistribution of wealth is horrible and is actually a democrat or liberal idea. So, I am not to sure where your going here, but such a construct favors the globalist, supra-national vision of society that also favors the homogenization of cultures around the world for the sake of concentrated economic power and wealth not racial harmony. This particular ideology is against any vision of cultivating sustainable, culturally strong, local and regional societies according to good principles of subsidiarity
Submitted by Timothy on September 3, 2008 - 7:21am.
Principles of subsidiarity
Greetings, I never suggested a population growth race. However, I will now suggest that Westerners implement policies to SUSTAIN their growth rates, as such rates are indisputably the fundamental factor for the advantageous results of a particular peoples continuing existence. As far as standing against the core values of America, well that’s my point of alerting you to how those core vales correspond to the negative growth rate in European countries and thier projections for America. The Irish are Westerners. So, that was racism against them, which has not a thing to do with what negative population growth means to a culture, especially when the Irish belong to it, as do the Mexicans. None of that matters… Different ‘screechers’. As far as your last point, I have now made clear that the way to offset negative population growth is with sustainable growth. The redistribution of wealth is horrible and is actually a democrat or liberal idea. So, I am not to sure where your going here, but such a construct favors the globalist, supra-national vision of society that also favors the homogenization of cultures around the world for the sake of concentrated economic power and wealth not racial harmony. This particular ideology is against any vision of cultivating sustainable, culturally strong, local and regional societies, independent of any consideration of thier size, according to good principles of subsidiarity. Timothy+
Submitted by Timothy on September 3, 2008 - 7:30am.
Think about it
I never suggested a population growth race. However, I will now suggest that Westerners implement policies to SUSTAIN their growth rates
If the "others" you are so afraid of, however, continue to have a higher growth rate, then your complaint has not been addressed.
as such rates are indisputably the fundamental factor for the advantageous results of a particular peoples continuing existence.
I can and do dispute this. You have never substantiated this claim in any way. In fact, it is mathematically self-contradictory. Continuous growth cannot be sustained indefinitely.
As far as standing against the core values of America, well that’s my point of alerting you to how those core vales correspond to the negative growth rate in European countries and thier projections for America.
I think you missed my point. Growth is not an end in itself. If negative growth is associated with liberty, equality, literacy, rule of law, etc. while high population growth is associated with totalitarianism, oppression, and misery... why are you pushing for positive growth? Are you hoping to create a western misery to compete with Islamist or Communist misery? My point is that there's no point in trying to rescue western civilization by jettisonning everything that makes it worthwhile.
The Irish are Westerners. So, that was racism against them, which has not a thing to do with what negative population growth means to a culture, especially when the Irish belong to it, as do the Mexicans. None of that matters… Different ‘screechers’
It doesn't matter whether you classify them as "westerners" or not. The arguments used against them are exactly the same, only the designated "in" and "out" groups are different. Both suffer the same flaws.
As far as your last point, I have now made clear that the way to offset negative population growth is with sustainable growth.
Sustainable growth requires reliable birth control. QED.
The redistribution of wealth is horrible and is actually a democrat or liberal idea.
Sorry, simple free market economics. You can't lay that at the feet of democrats.
So, I am not to sure where your going here, but such a construct favors the globalist, supra-national vision of society that also favors the homogenization of cultures around the world for the sake of concentrated economic power and wealth not racial harmony.
I have no idea what you're talking about. It seems like you're making things up. Sustainable development (including birth control) does not require homogenization, does not require global government, does not require the concentration of wealth; it doesn't even require the existence of other cultures.
This particular ideology is against any vision of cultivating sustainable, culturally strong, local and regional societies, independent of any consideration of thier size, according to good principles of subsidiarity.
This "ideology" is entirely a construct of your mind. I have no idea where you're pulling this stuff from.
Now, explain how you achieve sustainable growth without birth control and then you might be taken seriously.
Submitted by DaveL on September 3, 2008 - 3:59pm.
Start with the post's title
Greetings, You have research to do first, bub. "I have no idea what you're talking about. It seems like you're making things up." Start with the post's title. Timothy+
Submitted by Timtohy on September 3, 2008 - 4:25pm.
Reading comprehension problems?
I was referring to an ideological position that you imputed to me. This imputation has no basis whatsoever in my posts, and this ideology is completely your own invention.
It's not a matter of research, it's a simple matter of a straw man fallacy.
Submitted by DL on September 3, 2008 - 5:17pm.
Hello
Greetings, Yes, I am suspecting that I do not understand you. Mea culpa. But what I was asking you to research, by referencing my post's title, is the Principle of subsidiarity, which is not an ideology that is a construct of my own inventions. Moreover, this is the principle that I used to defend your reservations about my position. I asked you to look into it. So, this is where the discussion left off from my recollection. Timothy+.
Submitted by Timothy on September 4, 2008 - 9:55am.
Make a complete argument
I understand what the principle of subsidiarity is. Now, I am not going to do your arguing for you. If you have a coherent explanation as to how we can achieve sustainable growth without widespread use of reliable birth control, I invite you to make it. If you can demonstrate that continuous growth of a specific sub-population is indeed necessary to a civilization's well-being, then present such an argument. Your arguments may use the principle of subsidiarity, the principal on your mortgage, or even Victoria Principal for all I care. However, throwing out some jargon and demanding I research it is not an argument.
Submitted by DL on September 4, 2008 - 3:35pm.
Oh, Timothy...
The funny thing is that contraception/ controlled family planning is pretty much the ticket to a country's development these days. The facts directly contradict your claim that contraception is responsible for the decline of civilization. The most effective way to advance a society is to educate the young women, who in turn delay pregnancy and have fewer children, leading to a more educated and productive society as a whole. This tenet is dominant in all economic and social development theory. Birth control = social decline?? Please.
Submitted by Anonymous on September 8, 2008 - 4:56am.
Evangelicals would prefer
Evangelicals would prefer that their children, if they commit the "sin" of having premarital sex, would either have a baby, or contract AIDS, rather than using a condom. In this way, they are "paying for their sin." huh? I'm not an Evangelical but I'm going to take a wild guess, "Anoymous" and say this is bs at the very least. Then another Anoymous says somewhere in these fitty states we have a law that allows parents to "force" marriages on their kids. Scott, please tell me you haven't been drinking the kool aid so long that you believe things like this.
Submitted by clarem on September 1, 2008 - 2:17pm.
Hey Kool-Aid
Clarem, I gave up drinking Kool-Aid when I was a child, the same time I gave up believing that life was comprised of simple choices, or that there was only one way experience life, have faith, and that the choices I made on my path were things I should force on everyone else. Now I drink clear water that allows me to see reality, and thus believe we're better equipping people with information and education to make wise choices for their lives and circumstances. In that way I believe we honor and respect each individual and the journey they are on, and live into the promise of our democracy that allows for difference of opinion, and that no single belief should be forced on all Americans.


Be the change you seek,

Scott Swenson, Editor

Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on September 1, 2008 - 2:30pm.
Greetings, You think that
Greetings, You think that an evangelical mother would desire to have her child contract HIV to atone for the sin of fornication? THAT IS REALLY SICK --- and absolutely wrong, as well. The desrire to have a child catch a life-threatening virus is an objectively worse sin than the daughter fornicating. If you desire edification…I think Scott should disclose your URL and possibly report you to the Secret Service. Timothy+
Submitted by Timothy on September 2, 2008 - 1:37pm.
So I guess that this
So I guess that this announcement by the governor herself about her daughter's pregnancy is supposed to squelch the rumors. But suppose she did originally did cover for her daughter... what is one more lie, and what if -- wonders never cease in this case -- it turns out that they later allege that this newly reported pregancy ends up in an alleged miscarriage? If that raises any eyebrows it will be after the election in November anyway, right? For me, if the original rumors are credible, this well-timed "announcement" is not evidence either way. In the original rumor, people at the local health center would have had to have been in cahoots with the Governor -- and that could still be the case. I'm not saying the rumors are true, only that this announcement has no bearing whatsoever on their plausibility -- unless of course you for some reason believe this new "fact" -- but then why would you have believed the initial rumor? On the other hand, if they lied then, they are lying now -- and the "beauty" of it (for them) is that the truth of this new revelation is unverifiable, unless Bristol, unlike her mother, is actually showing signs of being pregnant.
Submitted by frank burns on September 1, 2008 - 2:26pm.
Unsubstantiated
While there are many rumors floating around there is no reason to speculate on rumors when the facts of the policies are far more important to focus attention on.


Be the change you seek,

Scott Swenson, Editor

Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on September 1, 2008 - 6:19pm.
There's still time
Relax, Amanda, she's only five months pregnant. So she's still got until at least January to make her final decision. What would you advise her?
Submitted by The Raving Atheist on September 1, 2008 - 2:29pm.
Ab-only is the issue
Raving Atheist: How interesting that you would bring up abortion to distract the conversation when the topic is failed abstinence-only programs and in fact we've all celebrated the fact that the Palin's actually have a choice to make, regardless of the choice.


Be the change you seek,

Scott Swenson, Editor

Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on September 1, 2008 - 2:35pm.
She can still change her mind, no?
Scott,
I was talking about adoption, sheesh. We were discussing her decision to keep the child, weren't we? Generally that decision is made by the time of birth, but recogizing that some adoptions are delayed until afterwards, I said "at least." I assumed that adoption was the "choice" you and Amanda were alluding to.
But now that YOU have raised abortion, why are you insisting that Bristol's alleged choice is set in stone? Might she not change her mind? If you think she is being unduly pressured or that there are some other factors she might want to consider, why not do a post laying out all your wisdom so that she can make a fully informed choice?
Submitted by The Raving Atheist on September 1, 2008 - 3:34pm.
Raving Distractions
Raving, Sarah Palin made clear by her statement all the decisions the family has already made. I'll confine my comments to the relevant issue at hand, the obvious failures of abstinence-only-until-marriage policies promoted by President Bush and the McCain-Palin ticket. I believe American families should be able to make those decisions in private, whatever they decide is best for their family, so I'll leave the ranting, raving and distracting to you.


Be the change you seek,

Scott Swenson, Editor

Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on September 1, 2008 - 3:42pm.
Clear enough
It's certainly made clear enough from your response that the "choice" you and Amanda meant was the abortion choice, so you, rather than me, introduced the distraction. And now you've raised the further concept that the abortion choice should be made by the family rather than the individual woman, and that the choice should be conclusively settled by a clear, public press release from the woman's mother, rather than by the individual's ongoing consideration of her ever-evolving circumstances. Isn't this precisely the situation where the woman needs a "safe space" (unfettered by parental notification or consent laws) to engage in her own journey of self-determination? I thought that through your next few promised posts, this site might become Bristol's pressure-free haven for the rational consideration of her options.
Submitted by The Raving Atheist on September 1, 2008 - 5:10pm.
It's just HER decision!!!!!
Sarah Palin made clear by her statement all the decisions the family has already made.
Scott, I hate to say it, but Raving (though obviously sarcastic) has a point. The ONLY person whose opinion matters is Bristol, it's HER body. It is not a FAMILY decision or a COMMITTEE decision or a GOVERNMENT decision. It is a WOMAN'S decision. Nobody can speak for HER or issue statements for her about HER decision.
In fact in this case the "family" is the problem. There is enormous political pressure on her to carry the fetus to term regardless of what her true wishes may be. She may be forced to abandon schooling and a career just to satisfy her MOTHER'S ambitions. But it's not too late for her to do what is best for HER.
So why not reach out to Bristol? This wonderful web site has access to so many prominent people in the reproductive health community. You can offer a friendly, unpressured meeting with a trained Planned Parenthood counselor. And if after all the options are explained to her she wishes to terminate the pregnancy, PP could provide the necessary medical procedure free of charge.
America has had enough of those who would stigmatize a woman's true choice. This is a perfect opportunity to show that all choices are equally valid. Wouldn't it be an amazing, heart-warming sight to see Bristol standing next to Obama at his inauguration wearing an "I Had An Abortion" tee shirt??
(Sorry, I'm getting all teary-eyed again at the thought)
Submitted by Meritorious Brand on September 1, 2008 - 10:56pm.
Yes, Individual decisions, family statement.
MB: I agree that the decision is Bristol's but she did not issue the statement, which is what I was referring to, since it was the candidate who issued the statement on behalf of the family. I agree that these are individual private decisions, that families are there to be supportive regardless of the decision, and that what matters most in this discussion is not the Palin family's private decisions, but the fact that Sarah Palin's policies would deny other families the right to make the same private decisions that are best for them, and focus on failed abstinence-only programs rather the equipping teens with facts.


Be the change you seek,

Scott Swenson, Editor

Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on September 2, 2008 - 7:55am.
Still Concerned
Scott, I totally agree with what you're getting at, however, I am still a little concerned with the family-vs-individual decision problem. I won't repeat what I said above on detail but suffice it to say that the circumstances suggest that a sharp distinction might be drawn between "Bristol's decision" and what you call the "Palin family's private decision." We would be more than wary if a husband stood out in front of his house to issue a "statement" on behalf of his wife about her (or the "family's") abortion decision. With a minor involved the pressure is even worse.
If fact, if you are right about the effects of abstinence-only policies then it is almost a certainty that Bristol has been misled. That is the only reason I suggested a reach-out -- she has been deprived of the information she needs to make the choice, and possibly access to services to effect her choice. Instead of this being a story about how the candidate's policies failed her own daughter, it could be one about how pro-choice policies saved her.
Obviously the time frame for our intervention is short and access to Bristol would be difficult. But the wonder of the Internet is how online "buzz" can turn into a tidal wave that penetrates the public consciousness and can reach anyone no matter where or who they are. Bristol could break away just like VP Cheney's daughter. And she could make statements about more than just the abstinence issue. Like (and here's another tee shirt idea!) she could wear a shirt saying "I aborted the Vice President's POTENTIAL grandchild, and improved my REAL life."
Hey maybe publicity-wise a tee shirt slogan contest for Bristol might be the best way to go -- what does everyone else think?
Submitted by Meritorious Brand on September 2, 2008 - 1:59pm.
Sicko

Good to see that your low opinion of women who have sex doesn't change even if they behave how you claim you wish they would.  Disgusting way to talk about a teenage girl.  But of course, she lost all her humanity to you first when she was born female and then when she had sex.

 

I don't share your low opinion of teenagers or sexually active women.  I think that, given full rights and proper tools, women can be very responsible about their fertility management.  Unfortunately, Palin doesn't agree and thinks that teenagers should be denied the education about contraception they need so this sort of thing doesn't happen in the first place.

Submitted by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on September 1, 2008 - 2:38pm.
OMG
I thought this lady was the poster woman for Family Values. I think the whole bunch are fake and phony...McCain knew this was BIG and waited until the storm to bring it out. I knew she was a horrible pick based on years experience. Apparently they think we are all fools. more lies and I would suspect we can count on more lies. I now wonder if the first rumor is true....maybe the special needs child is not her child after all. Just another politician trying to get elected!
Submitted by Mike on September 1, 2008 - 3:53pm.
She is.
"I thought this lady was the poster woman for Family Values." This poorly written soap opera is conservative Family Values and, thus, conservative politics in action. They'll show the made-for-TV movie after the 700 Club airs. Wait for the Hot Flashes....
Submitted by colleen on September 1, 2008 - 5:24pm.
caught up thank you I think
caught up thank you I think this lady is all caught up and doesnt know just what she is doing . I think she has thrown her daughter under the bus. How long was she going to keep this quiet from the citizens of Alaska. And if she (daughter) is this active now whose to say that she just started it is obvious they have not had that sit down at the dinner table talk about sex. She got a pregnancy now. Maybe there is a cover up of a previous baby and the family had to come forward with it they can't keep taking on babies as there own. No body is going to believe 2 babies so close together.What will they uncover next.
Submitted by Anonymous on September 1, 2008 - 6:12pm.
Palin has an abstinence
Palin has an abstinence only position with respect to sex education being taught in schools. I agree with her, since it should be up to the parents to speak to their children about safe sex, and in the way the parent choses to speak to them. It's what I did with my daughter. None of us except Sarah Palin, her husband and her daughter have any idea if Sarah spoke to her daughter about safe sex or not. Teenagers exercise free will and make mistakes. 1/3 of all teenage girls will become pregnant before age 20, and 80% of those are unwanted. CDC data, if it shows up: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/AdolescentReproHealth/
Submitted by Roe on September 1, 2008 - 4:43pm.
Parents' Rights vs. Teens' Well-Being
Palin has an abstinence only position with respect to sex education being taught in schools. I agree with her, since it should be up to the parents to speak to their children about safe sex, and in the way the parent choses to speak to them. It's what I did with my daughter.
That philosophy sounds good on paper, but what about parents who choose NOT to speak to their daughters about safe sex? What about parents who choose to lie to their daughters about sex? What about parents who choose to make their daughters feel ashamed and frightened of their sexuality? Or, in worse scenarios, what about sexually abusive parents who choose to teach their daughters that being molested or raped is normal? Or who choose to teach their daughters to stay away from sex by abusing them for any real or perceived sexual activity?
Like you said, "teenagers excercise free will and make mistakes." And your statistics on unwanted teen pregnancy sound accurate as well. If there are such high risks that come from allowing parents to miseducate or not educate their children about sex, who do you justify allowing them to do so? Doesn't a teen's right to accurate and comprehensive information about their body and their sexuality override a parents' right to control what they learn? Does a child's mind, body, and sexual identity belong to the child, or is it parental property?
Submitted by Sayna on September 3, 2008 - 3:47pm.
If 1/3rd of teenage girls
become pregnant while teenagers does this not suggest to you that many parents are failing to educate their daughters and SONS? The fact of the matter is that abstinence only sex education is a joke and does not work unless, of course, your aim is millions of pregnant, unwed teenage girls and a couple of generations of boys who believe taking responsibility for their sexuality is optional. Which is pretty much what you have now. Those of us who haven't raised their daughters and sons to be this irresponsible would like to know why y'all keep insisting that policies which result in the destruction of young lives are somehow superior when they clearly do not work well at all.
Submitted by colleen on September 1, 2008 - 5:54pm.
Be the change that you seek.
Greetings, Scott, this article really borders on slander. You actually think that Miss Palin did not want to get pregnant? Who are you? You have absolutely no proof that Miss Palin deviated from her own political beliefs by getting pregnant because she did not practice abstinence until marriage. She could have just as easily wanted to get pregnant and did not think abstinence until marriage right for her. Who are you to deny her that right? Moreover, who are you to question if she denied her own political beliefs? Your credibility has sunk to zero by using Mrs. Palin’s daughter for your political agenda to push contraception. I hope that you can see this. Be the change that you seek. And if you have the nerve to say that you were not intimating that Miss Palin was going against her own personal political view by getting pregnant because she was supposed to be practicing abstinence until marriage, then why use her name in the article’s title to promote abstinence until marriage as a failed ideology? The fact is you do not even know if Miss Palin even intended to practice abstinence until marriage. Why not just tell us again what we already know about her mother without using her daughter to do so? This one is truly a shame. Timothy+
Submitted by Timothy on September 1, 2008 - 8:05pm.
Policies matter
Timothy, You may speculate all you wish about motive. We cover the news here, and offer perspective on it. This is news, and as much as you might want people just to vote on the awesomeness of Mrs. Palin's personal story, dude, policies matter. Some of us do this work because we actually believe every American deserves the same rights to make decisions that the individuals within the Palin family have made for themselves.


Be the change you seek,

Scott Swenson, Editor

Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on September 2, 2008 - 8:29am.
Private citizen
Greetings, Yes, of course, policies matter. However, Miss Palin is a private citizen. She is not running for anything, nor is she stumping for her mom. Just stick to the issues, bub, as I am sure her mom gives you much to talk about. You have no right to invade Miss Palin’s personal privacy in order to discuss how she may or may not relate to the political issues you desire to discuss. That is not news, and you have NO idea, anyway. That is an invasion of privacy. That is wild speculation. That is using a seventeen-year-old woman for you political ends. If you desire to be a news agency, which you are not anyway, why not just report the news instead of being an opportunist? Just report the news without supplying the connections that can be ripped apart. Can anyone say hypocrisy? Give her the dignity of privacy! Timothy+
Submitted by Timothy on September 2, 2008 - 9:23am.
123next ›last »