September 1st, 2008
|05:44 pm - Update|
Well, this stops that rumour in its tracks. I feel sorry for the daughter, and for everyone concerned.
|Date:||September 1st, 2008 04:56 pm (UTC)|| |
I feel sorry for the daughter but *not* for everyone concerned. Palin is, after all, part of a movement that insists abstinence education works.
I think this is one that will cut right across my f-list
Thank you for putting it so succinctly.
I don't think it will stop the rumor. It sounds like the tabloids are about to pick it up; in the political world, that often feeds into mainstream news.
I do feel sorry for the daughter, and for the son; it's sordid to involve a candidate's children, and I don't like seeing that from the left. I feel sorry for the scrutiny any public figure has their private life, particularly their family life, put under, be it Sarah Palin or Angelina Jolie or anyone, and I don't like seeing that from the left, either. This is outlandish and dirty and negative... and if true, it's also extremely relevant to the legislation this politician wants to pass to control my reproductive options and my private life. I don't know how to reconcile those two things.
And I don't know why this new part of the story makes me feel more strongly that something is wrong here. I don't condemn her for flying while in labor or for quietly adopting her daughter's child, if either of those things happened. But she's pursuing political policies with negative consequences for me, and for every young woman in the country, with now-confirmed evidence of the failure of those policies even in the best of circumstances. Perhaps that's why I'm more bothered now that it's been confirmed her teenage daughter is pregnant; it's not the luridness of the circumstances or lack thereof that bothers me, it's that it's now not just rumor but fact that she prefers to change the circumstances to fit her views rather than change her views to fit the circumstances, and she's going to be in a position to do that for me, and for the people my taxes have the power to help or hurt.
Yes, it is true it is easier for me to be high minded from outside the situation, not facing some kind of awful abortion ban. And surely she'd be a quite dreadful Vice President.
It's not just an abortion ban. Bush's administration is laying the groundwork for the banning of the pill that the religious right has wanted; they've been working to get it reclassified as abortion to use chemical contraception. The gag orders and funding red tape for family planning clinics have been increasing, and they're working to make it illegal discrimination to refuse to hire someone who is opposed to all contraception in family planning clinics. Abstinence-only for unmarried people really means that.
|Date:||September 2nd, 2008 04:31 am (UTC)|| |
Contraception is abortion? I am stunned by the lack of scientific logic here as well as the entrenched hatred of women. Though I really should expect the latter.
Some contraception works by the barrier method, others by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg - in the case of the latter, they're trying to convince people into believing that the pregnancy begins when the egg is fertilized, not when it implants. That makes a kind of non-scientific sense to many. There have already been cases of women refused the pill by their pharmacist, based on the pharmacist's religious beliefs. It's been a big trend for about four years now. (I
But they're not so keen on barrier methods, either. Some pharmacies also refuse to carry those, and the Bush administration's international AIDS funding is dependent on the recipient using an abstinence-only program and not distributing condoms, which is why Brazil turned the US down flat - their condom distribution program (run by the Catholic church in Brazil, no less) has been incredibly effective in reducing their HIV infection rate.
|Date:||September 2nd, 2008 08:51 am (UTC)|| |
Oy. I heard about that. It's pretty bad when the Catholics are way ahead. Those problems just don't happen here; at least I've never heard of it. I'm pretty sure any pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription on religions grounds would be charged with an offence. Wow, something that's good about living here (though the UK is much better).
Oh man, I hope the Democrats get in. They're still pretty right-wing by our standards, but they're a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
That third link was pretty astonishing. The Bush administration is handing them the "chemical contraception is abortion" thing on a silver platter. McCain's really unlikely to change much of this; he doesn't seem to have any opinions of his own on this stuff, or any knowledge about, for instance, the effectiveness of condoms against HIV.
Pregnancies in the family of Mrs Palin are no business of mine (unless they happen to be giving birth on my doorstep, which is unlikely). And pregnancies in my family, or among my friends, or anyone else beyond her nearest and dearest, are no business of hers. That's what we should be telling her.
That's the world I'd like to live in. It's why I feel Bill Clinton's affairs are no business of mine; he's never tried to make mine any of his business. But Strom Thurmond's pro-segregation voting record and refusal to renounce it makes his mixed-race daughter with his black maid very relevant, the way Sarah Palin's pregnancies become relevant the moment she tries to legislate mine. Understanding the people who are trying to exercise power over you and the way they've exercised that power in the past is important.
But my point is that we have to keep stating our view as a rebuttal of hers. We can bear her experiences in mind - the media are hardly going to let us forget the whole damn thing - but the point to campaign on is that it is none of our business just as ours is none of hers.
All my life, the family of any president or presidential candidate has always been of interest to the press, rightly or wrongly. From little "John-John" Kennedy saluting his father's coffin, to Bill Clinton's unpresentable mom and brother, to drunken party-twins Jenna and Not-Jenna Bush, these family members seem to be fair game.
In a society where the children are deemed to be a pretty accurate reflection of the strengths and failings of the parent(s), justification for exposing them to the limelight during a national election isn't hard to construct.
yes...I think the just say no thing has never ever worked...
why didnt' she take her daughter...who obvisouly is seriously in love....to her OB GYN and get her on the pill for cramp management of skin clarification...or whatever...and never even mention boys thingies and the joys of being itimate and the realities of letting passion fly....
|Date:||September 2nd, 2008 08:36 pm (UTC)|| |
The fact is that she won the nomination over others precisely for her stance on abortion. She should be expecting a thorough scrutiny of her legislative record and ethics. I notice that they've even raked up her husband's 22 year old drink driving conviction.