Good Parent vs The Nanny State
John McCain, being a good Conservative, is against spending federal money on teen pregnancy prevention programs. His VP running mate, furthermore, agrees, stating in the past that sex-ed programs would not receive her support. After all, sex education and the prevention of unwed teen pregnancy is the role of the family, not Big Nanny Government.
It's the parents' job to teach their children about unwanted pregnancies, and preferably through the promotion of abstinence only.
Oh wait...
4 comments:
To be totally precise, the question Palin was asked was this:
"Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?"
And her answer, which is the only sign she's given politically that she's in favor of abstinence only programs (my understanding is her administration has neither introduced nor passed anything remotely related to abstinence only sex ed. Most Alaskan schools offer a comprehensive sex ed cirriculum with all options discussed):
"Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."
So in answer to a leading question which was basically "are you for abstinence sex ed or for distributing pills and condoms at public schools?" Palin used the politically useful tool of vagueness.
Everyone is going to be bashing the hell out of this issue which is slightly infuriating as (a) its on shaky ground and (b) there are many, many more sensible and concrete issues to attack Palin on.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 1:53:00 PM CDT
Well, I disagree with both a and b.
A, it's not on shaky ground in that Palin *is* on record for being for abstinence-only education, and the ground is pretty firm that she failed in her own household in this form of sex ed.
B, There are several issues one can use to attack Palin, but this is one of them. A Big One. In fact, I'd venture to say that they hypocrisy exhibited by the anti-birth control/anti-abortion people, and the rift it has caused these last 25 years or so in the country, not to mention the millions of women/girls/children it has effected, is perhaps one of the single biggest issues, to me, in politics today. I don't care what the effing tax rate is for someone making $167,000; I do, however, want unwanted pregnacies lessened.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 4:13:00 PM CDT
To be clear: I agree with you
For the part of me that likes to play devil's advocate:
A. She is on the record but only in the vaguest of sense. This would be like me asking you "Hank, would you prefer to listen to Yoko Ono or would you prefer to listen to a thousand screeching claws on chalkboards?" and you respond "Yes, I would not like to listen to the chalkboard song" and then my saying "Hank is all about Yoko Ono!" It's a logical stretch at best. I'm not saying she's not pro-abstinence in her opinion, I'm saying in practice she's never proven herself to do anything about such beliefs, making her, at worst, all talk. Until she starts acting legislatively on these views I find this to be a non-issue.
Also, her daughter was in those comprehensive sex ed classes that also taught about condoms, birth control, etc, so she is not a case of abstinence-only sex ed.
B. I agree abstinence only sex ed is moronic and largely ineffectual. I disagree this is an issue you can attack her on because she's never done anything about it. If she had introduced any sort of legislation during her tenure in Alaska then this would be free game, but since she didn't and doesn't seem inclined to do so (the above quote is the ONLY indication she's ever given she's in favor of abstinence only sex ed that's on public record, as far as I've been able to find), I don't see the benefit of flogging this horse in this circumstance. Why attack on a matter on conjecture when the only support is a single instance of a leading question, when you could just as easily pick a slew of positions that are backed up with tangible legislative attempts?
In the larger realm of abstinence-only sex ed I am in 100% agreement with you. I just think Palin is going to made into some poster child of abstinence-only sex ed in a way that is (a) possibly incorrect and (b) undermining to the more overall positive message that such criticism could provide.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 10:29:00 AM CDT
I should also add that if she gets this question asked in a debate (which I expect she will) and she says that she is in favor of abstinence-only sex ed and that she intends to pursue it as VP then the issue is totally in play. But until the answer is in return to a fair and balanced question by a (at least relatively) mainstream news/research organization, a single instance of Religious Right questionaire quackery doesn't give me sufficient cause for alarm.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 10:39:00 AM CDT
Post a Comment