When Chelsea Clinton was just 17 years old, John McCain like to tell the following joke around the halls of Congress:

Q: Why is Chelsea so ugly?
A: Because her father is Janet Reno.

I believe in keeping the children out of the fray for the most part, but Palin’s abstinence only, anti personal choice stance opens a door.

I did hear a good one on the radio the other day…..

“Levi Johnston should have kept his Johnston in his Levis”.

Wow…When Jamie Lynn Spears ended up 17 & pregnant, TV talking heads like Bill O’Reilly basically called her a whore and said her parents were “pinheads” for not “keeping control” over her. Yet he turns right around and says that teenage pregnancy in Sarah Palin’s family is “a family matter” that should be dealt with “sensitivity and privacy”!!! Then they drag her baby daddy on stage and parade him around like premarital sex & babies out of wedlock are acceptable. This is so typical of the way the Republicans have acted so far. Do as I say, not as I do. Don’t you dare criticize Palin or we’ll call you a sexist, (even though we drug Hillary thru the mud every chance we got) We’re supposed to admire and respect Bristol Palin’s choice to have a kid at 17 but they want to deny millions of other families the same right to make their own decisions. Enough Already!!!!

To the writer and all readers

Marie Cocco:

I am writing regarding your article on TruthDig regarding Palin’s extreme anti-choice positions.

I agree with the article and it’s point and have written as much my self. However, this line troubled me, “her extreme anti-abortion credentials”. Certainly she is extreme. However, by using the phrase “anti-abortion” you support the right-wing framing on abortion. No one is “pro-abortion”. And the right is not “anti-abortion”; they are anti-choice, anti-women, and anti-health care for women. There are many allies we turn off with the phrase “pro-abortion”. I am not pro-abortion; I am pro-choice. Woman need that healthy and legal option, but it would be better if we educated people and used birth control, two things Palin opposes. We need to stop using the terms of the right and reframe the debate.

Thank you for your time and informative articles.

From a reader,
Joe Callahan

It is very important that for those who are on the fence that we stick to telling them the issues about Palin. Stay away from the personal stuff and just point out her extremism. Truly, the more we learn about her we see that she is actually practically identical to Bush, much more so than is McCain. Palin really will take women’s rights way back. She also has become quite good in lying….I just pray that the people of America do not get hoodwinked again.

Alaska statutory rape laws declare that anyone who is 18 years old or older who has sex with a person who is 16 or 17, or who is at least three years younger than the offender, can be charged with sexual abuse in the third degree. This is also a felony.

From theage.com.au:
‘Redneck’ Palin boyfriend joining Republican convention
Marika Dobbin
September 4, 2008
“...Levi Johnston, an 18-year-old high school ice hockey player, has been the subject of intense media attention in the US since it was revealed that he was the likely father to 17-year-old Bristol Palin’s unborn child…”

Hmmm… wonder when that happened.

RE: I wish I understood why Republicans want less government regulations and interference EXCEPT when it comes to other people’s bodies, the most personal thing we all have.” [Inherit the Wind]

The other peculiar thing is the inhumane indifference many Republicans leaders exhibit when people are suffering, including infants and young children. Take Senator McCain, for instance, I see he made the Children’s Defense Fund’s list of “Worst U.S. Senators for Children” once again:

http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/2007_Scorecard_bestworst.pdf?docID=6422

And for a country that claims to love children, one wonders why the U.S. does so poorly when it comes to infant mortality:

“Of the more than 4 million infants born each year in the U.S., about 28,000 die before their first birthday. Only three of the 30 industrialized nations that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have higher infant mortality rates than the United States. Eight percent of those born each year have low birthweight. Only five OECD countries have a higher proportion of low birthweight babies. These rates are an embarrassment to our nation. Within our country, major disparities in key child health indicators exist by socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity and place of residence.

Underlying our national statistics are major gaps in health coverage and access to health care. Presently, 9.4 million children are uninsured, representing an increase of more than one million children over the last two years. A baby currently is born without health coverage every 41 seconds. Almost 9 of every 10 uninsured children live in working families. Some two-thirds live in families with incomes at or below twice the poverty level, making even group family health policies unaffordable at current average annual costs of over $12,000.

http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Policy_Health

But you people have been promoting unmarried sex for years n now your complaining about it.

Bjg23

If we had not played God we would never have learned that the planet is round, that gravity keeps us from flying off into space, how to put cream in a donut, or how to cure disease.
We have invented vaccines so that our children need not suffer from dangerous and crippling illness.
We did it by playing God.
We will eventually play God enough to rid the human race of all genetic disease and subsequent malformities. No more children suffering from debilitating illness. What could be a higher calling?
We will do it by playing God.
Of course, there is more than likley no God. Which means we are on our own, and our fate is what we make it. Why not make it the best fate possible?
However, if there is a God and an afterlife, and I was a scientist who spent my life trying to cure diseases and genetic malformity, I would feel pretty good about my chances on judgement day.
After all, shouldn’t our goal be to be more Godly?

Marie, as usual, this is the republican way of ‘do as I say not as I do.’

I disagree with the folks out there who think abortion should not be used to end a “less than perfect” pregnancy.
I think the most cruel thing any one can do in this life is to cause pain to child. Knowingly allowing a child to be born with a severe birth defect should be considered the worst kind of child abuse.
The technology is availiable to catch many horrific genetic defects in the earliest stages of pregnancy. Downs syndrome, spina bifida, children missing mulitiple limbs or even brains, could be spared the incredible hardship and indignity of a terrible existence.(and no, almost no downs syndrome children lead “normal” lives. They are often physically handicapped as well as emotionally unstable. the only saving grace of a “retarded” person is that they for the most part, do not to understand their hardship, thank heaven)
No, you don’t abort a fetus that is nearsited, or has a hairlip. These are small defects that can indeed be delt with easily. But to have a child that doesn’t have legs? Pol Pot would shake your hand when you got to Hell, complimenting you on your capacity for abject cruelty.
And before some of you kids out there in TV land think I’m Hitler incarnate, keep in mind this story.
Once when I was standing outside a hospital waiting for my wife, I helped a woman drag her severely handicapped child up a small flight of stairs in his wheelchair.(before the ADA) She thanked me and said these words, “in a perfect world I would like to think that all handicapped people would be treated with the same dignity as everyone else.” Just then, another man who was standing there as well said, “in a perfect world, nobody would have to be handicapped.”

yellowbird, go take another dose of your lithium

SOME Gov’s exist to protect people; some actually have FDA’s that DO enforce laws so that toxins are NOT used in products to harm folks; unfortunately, ours does not. When enough voices are raised to point that the death rate in USA of babies is HIGHER than any other country (due to the amount of TOXINS used in EVERYTHING to HARM people for the SOLE PURPOSE of MONEY: both to the chemical companies & then on to the Pharma’s;) there is absolutely & positively NO REASON for formaldehyde which is EXTREMELY toxic even in tiny amounts to humans and it is used in almost everything just to make $. So please; STOP the “pro life” when in reality the Gov & FDA & all agencies are doing all that they can to do the most harm to man. OTHER COUNTRIES many of them: MOST of them: have the same freedoms here & MORE SO than “russia”; aren’t you glad we are not like them? STOP: and consider this folks: they BAN toxins and PREVENT Corp’s from USING them & HARMING the people and the land. LOOK at the Indians: they STILL have to pay a penny for YEARS of taking “control” of their $ from oil; another tribe they “lost” $100m; another $500m; it is going into their POCKETS folks! and the PEOPLE are so gullible they KEEP THINKING a “new” Pres will CHANGE what is going on! In reality, they are bribing heads of other countries; telling them it’s been working well in the USA; & they can now do whatever they want if they just do it “our” way cuz they OWN the judges, and Dept of Justice! WAKE UP AMERICANS!

“I wish I understood why Republicans want less government regulations and interference EXCEPT when it comes to other people’s bodies, the most personal thing we all have.”

Inherit the Wind…I have had similar feelings as well and you articulate them here nicely..thank you

Early on, the Roe vs Wade decision evoked a rash of studies around the question of what laid, if anything, behind the anti-abortion stand.

For males against abortion, the ‘issue’ was more often than not, not about ‘saving’ a life, the ‘issue’ was a belief that if women were basically free to abort men would lose control over women - especially girl friends and wives. 

Among females, the anti-abortion stand was slightly more complicated - and in my view required a rather fantastic leap of the imagination, but here goes.  If fear of pregnancy was no longer a deterent to ‘free’ sex, women would willingly jump into bed (with most particularly boy friends and husband) which would then result in a huge rash of infidelity.  Put simply, what keeps husbands out of other women’s beds is other women’s fear of pregnancy, not to mention the resulting widening field of female competition for husbands.

Taking the results of these studies into consideration may explain the glaring contradictions found in anti-abortion arguments.

Well-written article and compelling thoughts, Maria Cocco.  It reminds me of a Jane Adams quote that grandmother favored: “ Civilization is a method of living, an attitude of equal respect for all men/women.”  Adams was a Nobel Peace Laureate in 1931.  She was the first woman in the U.S. to receive the prize.

Just a thought here….the idea of abstenance only education incenses me as much as anyone because it impoverishes our children and attempts to keep them ignorant (tantamount to teaching creationism/ID)....that said, there is absolutely nothing preventing us as parents from teaching our children what we want them to know on this subject or any other for that matter.  The GOP won’t be able to impose that type of limitation even if they tried.  Parents can’t relegate their child’s education completely to the schools/government.  We must be involved in the process no matter how busy we are.  Similarly, we can’t dictate what other children are learning from their parents, as much as I think they are filling their heads with lies and myth…we can’t do it….

When you wish to enforce YOUR views on all of us, it’s pretty embarrassing when that view fails in your own home.

According to Palin, sex ed should consist solely of telling people not to have sex till they are married.  She would force this as public policy on all of us.

According to Palin, the only acceptable means of birth control (at least for teens—she hasn’t been as clear for adults, single and married) is abstinence. She would force this as public policy on all of us.

According to Palin, the only acceptable abortion is if the mother will die without one (Hey! That puts her one up on some of the fanatics).  She would force this as public policy on all of us.

Yet in Palin’s own house, raising her own daughter, she has failed to teach her child effectively about both abstinence and birth control.  Her own family problem illustrates VIVIDLY why the public policy she would force on us all is doomed to failure.

THAT is why this is not a personal matter.  Because her own family demonstrates that the policies she advocates ramming down the throats of the rest of us don’t work.

I wish I understood why Republicans want less government regulations and interference EXCEPT when it comes to other people’s bodies, the most personal thing we all have.

The government exists to protect people, VoT. That’s its responsibility. We have a justice system to enable justice and help people who are victims. What your statement essentially is worth is that of “I don’t care about anyone but myself.”

What happened to Country First?

Aegrus

In the physical world you would be arrested for stalking.

Please try to think outside your narrow box in which everyone is a victim that needs government support.

VoT, you still don’t recognize that not every family can support such an unplanned pregnancy. Palin has plenty of money to help her daughter out. They can afford to “take responsibility.”

What about the millions of Americans who are losing their jobs, their homes and their ability to care for their children financially? It’s a narrow argument that you’ve made. Go ahead and stroke Palin’s moral compass for doing something that she can afford to do. Forget the rest of America. We should all try to be like Palin. Where do I sign up for 27 million in federal earmarks?

I think there is a point here that Marie misses.  And that is that, while this child (yes, child) made a rash error in judgement/action, she and her family are actually taking responsibility for it, not treating the situation as if it were simply a bad peach to return to the store.

The same goes for the Palin’s 5th child, born with Down Syndrome.  Should “choice” mean that if a couple, or person, is pregnant with a “less than perfect” baby, they can just get rid of it?  What does that say about us a society?

Before the crowd piles on me, you should know that I am not a religious zealot, paleolithic man making woman prisoner, etc., etc., blah, blah.  In fact, I am simply trying to have a dialogue.

Well said, Ms. Cocco.

Imagine Obama had an unwed, pregnant 17-year-old; the Republicans would have went crazy. 

1) Abstinence-only: Palin’s kid was having sex despite the indoctrinated view of no sex, in addition to a state policy promoting the lack of comprehensive understanding for schools with regard to contraception.

2) Unmarried and having sex?  It’s almost as if people have a choice in private affairs; I’m sure James Dobson has something to say on this (oh wait, he’s a hypocrite/lunatic as well).

Slowly but surely, as more and more Republicans win office, they will nominate conservative Supreme Court justices who will interpret the Constitution like they do the bible: according to their own bigotries (which are fueled by the bible) and fundamentally eroding the entire Bill of Rights.

When we elect morons, it is a reflection of the populace.