The family of 44y.o. Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin, including her pregnant 17-year-old daughter Bristol (right).
Hard as it is to believe, I haven't seen a single mention in the media of how the pregnancy of John McCain's Vice Presidential candidate and running mate Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter relates to the Bush administration's, and Palin's, position on sex education for teenagers. Or rather the administration's promotion of sexual abstinence as the only reliable form of contraception and safe sex.
Plenty of the news and discussion has centred around Palin's so-called pro-life beliefs, but honestly I think this is of little relevance given that it's comparatively very easy for a rich kid to afford to make the decision to give birth and raise a kid, especially when 'grandmom' has a political point to make and therefore every incentive to provide the financial assistance needed in such a case.
Whether or not 17-year-old Bristol Palin and boyfriend (no-one's willing to contemplate that it might have been a one-night stand!) were really ready to commit the rest of their lives to each other has become a secondary consideration to Sarah Palin's political career. Just like Britney Spears' little sister wound up pregnant at 16 and engaged to some clearly non-committal teenage alleged father just so Lynn Spears could continue with the release of her book (after a quick re-write). So now Bristol Palin and 'Levi' are stuck, because Palin's voter base is happy enough to accept that a teenager can 'make a mistake' by having sex outside of wedlock (when the only real mistake was the failure to practice safe sex), but not to contemplate that she should have the option not to be wedded to her sexual partner as an additional consequence of said 'mistake' for the rest of her life. Or at least until a divorce from her partner in bad timing will not hold ramifications for Palin's political career.
It's pretty despicable to see this kind of manoeveuring around the lives of two teenagers, whose lack of sex education and failure to practice safe sex are instead being held up as vindication of anti-abortionist political views.
In the end, it's not hard to envisage America taking one step closer to becoming a fully-fledged Idiocracy, and putting a 44-year-old proud northern redneck grandmother as second-in-command in the White House is a giant leap in that direction.
7 comments:
I'm a little mystified by her approach to sex education. Some sources I've seen have her taking a pro-contraceptive position, others have her advocating an abstinence-only apprach.
I can't wait for her to properly address the issue to media; it isn't as Obama said, a private family matter. It relates very clearly to her policies and is very much in the public interest.
Especially if she actively lied about having given birth to a fifth child, which is definitely the kind of thing the public should know.
If there was one thing that made abstinence-only sex education look stupid, it is this.
Although politically I'm sure McCain is loving it - it's the perfect distraction. Noone had ever heard of Sarah Palin before this and now she's international news. Plus it's hard to attack an underage girl who made a "mistake" and is the doing the "right thing".
McCain would have known that Barack Obama was the child of a teenage mother and wouldn't be able to attack her based not only on that fact, but on that fact that he'd be painted as pro-abortion and that would turn off many of the conservative middle-class voters he's already going to have trouble winning because he's black.
BTW what the hell is with those kids names...Bristol, Track, Willow, Piper and Trigg. Fuck that!
Oh, c'mon! There's nothing like forcing the responsibilities of parenthood and marriage onto those two kids to teach them a lesson for their, er, irresponsibility...
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The pro-life argument has stuff-all to do with the rights of the child, and everything to do with control of those that people in political office think shouldn't/can't think for themselves ie women and youth. If the rights of the child were really held so flipping sacrosanct, this society would treat children a lot better AFTER they'd been born - and pro-lifers would have to give equal time and attention lobbying, for instance, for better pay for teachers and childcare workers.
KM- right on. I've always found it funny that these people don't give a crap about the rights of children who are alive- it seems kids living with poverty, inadequate medical care, poor education etc can rot for all pro-lifers care.
Nyree- What's your pick for the worst of those names? I'm having a hard time picking between Track, Bristol and Trigg... definitely leaning towards Track, though.
Jacob- do you think she will even address that topic? Her record seems to be pro-abstinence-only. My guess is she will stick to that.
Maybe if Bristol was conceived in Bristol (or in a large tin of house paint) I could accept it but there's no accepting Track...it is horrific.
Where are the right to lifers now with their placards saving kids from heinous names?
Bristol!?!? What nyree said. Where are the advocates for poor Track?
But she's a GILF!
Post a Comment