I am curious does Obama consider Bristol Palin's baby a punishment like he would if it was one of his daughters?

Great post, Ann. I guess this just proves that abstinence-only sex ed works!

But, but, but, we better not use the Palin family situation to connect policy choices to real life circumstances, or else Republicans will say we're being mean and inappropriately politicizing the issue, just like when John Kerry and John Edwards outed Mary Cheney to the GOP in the 2004 election, and it forced them to defend their lesbian daughter, but only against Democrats, because *they* are the real agents of intolerance.

(/mock concern trolling)

And slightly less sarcastically, sure, *McCain* people said, "Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby" -- but did she make "her own" decision to *marry* the guy?

Because we've really got two potential issues here: the forced-birth movement, and the forced-marriage movement.

And didn't we all agree that after the Texas polygamy/incest ring, that those things are *bad*?

Or are we aiming at "values voters" again?

Tom, what the hell are you talking about buddy? What on earth makes you think Obama would consider it a punishment?

Perhaps the anti choice crowd should remember that if it wasn't for the pro choice crowd, Palin's daughter wouldn't have had any choice to make.

Or is it only the privileged that have a choice and not the poor and uneducated?

I don't think it's as hypocritical as it is an exercise in damage control. That is, even though the daughter got pregnant, she's at least POLITICALLY anti-abortion.

I feel bad for Thomas Eagleton right about now -- he was at least capable of being President, even if not capable of getting elected due to circumstances outside of his control.

And how would the anti-choice people feel if the government required "undesireable" fetuses to be aborted -- as it surely could if the Constitution allows the government to deny women reproductive choice.

Tom,

It doesn't matter if Obama considers Bristol's baby a punishment. The only thing that matters is if Bristol considers it punishment to be saddled with a baby and marriage at age 17.

Tom:

See this: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Stop_these_abortions_.html

I am curious does Obama consider Bristol Palin's baby a punishment like he would if it was one of his daughters?

Considering that Bristol Palin is being married off at 17, do you seriously think her parents aren't thinking of her situation as punishment for what she did wrong?

If she'd used TRUE abstinence only education, there'd be no problem:

http://abstinenceonly.com

not entirely safe for work...

Sarah and Todd palin have released a statement showing that they personally think this was a bad choice for their child--that is that becoming a mother at such an early age isn't in fact the best thing that could happen to her. While they may feel that having the baby and an early and unconsidered marriage is preferable to abortion or adoption its pretty clear from their statement that they don't for one minute think that their daughter having a baby at 17 isn't a punishment for her. That's their position and they are the pro-ignorance/abstinence and anti-choice set. I think we can leave Obama's feelings about forced birth out of it. Even the fundies don't think that unplanned, pre-marital sex leading to unplanned borderline legitimate children is a good thing.

aimai

Anyone taking bets on whether any commenator has the cojones to ask Palin how the pregnancy affects her view of abstinence-only sex education? That can't really be considered a personal instructions, since its a public position of hers.

I guess the kid is following her own family's values; if you do the math between mom and pop's wedding date and the oldest kid's birth date, you find out they are a couple of months short of the mark, too.

It's just a rhetorical trick to imply that pro-choice equals pro-abortion. They're shifting focus from choice/no-choice to abortion/no-abortion. Only pro-choice people will appreciate the luxury-of-choice argument; social conservatives will simply lap up the anti-abortion part of the story.

People,

Why are you responding to Tom's post? Post's such as his deserve one thing and one thing only. To be ignored.

Maybe Sarah Palin needs to get her own house in order before she tries the White House.

The last time we elected a governor with little experience except his daddy had been President and you could have a beer with him IT DIDN'T WORK OUT SO WELL!!!!!!!!
A VP is suppose to be able to step into the presidency if something should ever happen to the president.
Does this mean the neocons are ready willing and able to set up another shadow/puppet government????

Why this disclosure and why now? I can speculate of course ... what were the choices involved in this decision? Speaking them out loud, publicly is necessary to understand the situation if this issue is important to take up shelf space in the media.

This just in: JOHN EDWARDS IS THE FATHER OF BRISTOL'S BABY.

Hey Tom,

The only way Obama might consider the pregnancy a punishment is if they try to tap him as the father...

Why disclose now? The Hurricane, of course. Less chance it will become the news of the day.

These people can be relied on to be fine with choice, as long as it's the right one. (Double meaning not accidental.)

Prenatal testing indicated that Sarah Palin's fifth child would have Down syndrome.

In her seventh month, Sarah Palin went to an energy conference in Dallas TX.

Her water broke.

She didn't go to a hospital. She gave a thirty minute speech at the conference.

After the speech, she still didn't go to a hospital. She flew back to Alaska, arriving there over half a day after her water broke. Then she went to a hospital, and her Down syndrome baby was delivered prematurely.

This long delay doesn't sound like a "sanctity of life" scenario to me.

Sarah Palin's husband lamely stated that they didn't want their fifth child, the one with Down syndrome, being born in Texas.

I get the feeling they didn't what this fifth child, the one with Down syndrome, being born at all, that they were trying to induce a miscarriage by delaying as long as possible her going to a hospital after her water broke.

(Years ago, a friend of mine was vacationing with his late-term pregnant wife several hours from their home. First child. Her water broke. They drove back, taking several hours to reach their local hospital. The fetus miscarried. Wife very upset. She never forgave my friend. They divorced.)

This is why I get the feeling that the Palin's intentionally delayed seeking medical assistance, especially with their knowing, through prenatal testing, that the fetus Sarah Palin was carrying would be born with Down syndrome. They were hoping, and praying, maybe consciously, maybe unconsciously, that the long delay would induce a miscarriage of this Down syndrome fetus. Then they could try again for another healthy baby to go along with their four other healthy children.

I don't know. But this long delay between when her water broke and her seeking medical assistance at a hospital makes me wonder if this "sanctity of life" candidate, and her husband, wanted this Down syndrome fetus to "just go away."

Apparently, you anti-lifers seem to believe that the only proper response from a pro-lifer about a pregnant child is "I'd chain her to the bed until she had the baby."

McCain's response to the question you cited, just like the Palin's statement, simply acknowledges reality -- given the state of the law, parents cannot stop their child from aborting no matter what the parents' beliefs. All that they can do is sit down, talk, and offer alternatives and the best available reasons for keeping that child alive -- whether that child will be placed for adoption or kept by the mother.

Indeed, what you are seeing is a statement that the families would engage in healthy dialogue -- the very thing that anti-lifers like yourself say should happen.

And as for those who suggest that Sarah Palin intentionally endangered trig -- realize that she had been in contact with her OB/GYN about how to proceed, and had his approval and support for the course of action they took. You therefore are treading in what you so often describe as a sacred space between a woman and her doctor where no one else should intrude. Or is that only the case when said space is filled with a suction machine for vacuuming the child from her womb?

TOM: -

I'd say the Palin's have admnitted it is a punishment:

"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child,.."

Steve J.:

Not exactly -- do you know ANYONE who has ever said that raising a child was easy.

Mama is simply acknowledging what everyone knows -- raising children is not a task for the faint of heart, and it is filled with many difficulties, fears, and moments of heartbreak. That doesn't make it a punishment.

Rhymes, I'd say this clinches my argument:

"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. ..."

Far be if from me to come to the support of this Jerry-Sprineroid family, but "keep the child" does NOT automatically mean "not have an abortion," since there's also the option of adoption. "Keeping the child" means "not putting her/him up for adoption" and not necessarily anything else.

Though she's not a poster child for abstinence, she did not immediately think of abortion as an option.

It still doesn't maker her mother any more fit to be the Vice President of the United States, of course, but it does not also make her a hypocrit. Other actions have done that.

Ed

I've been pushing this on other sites, but I really think the more acute issue here is the issue raised by Sarah Palin's own unplanned pregnancy. Is she not only anti-abortion but anti-contraceptives in general? I've seen a suggestion here and there that this is the case. If so, it's not just a private matter. There are pro-lifers who would roll back Griswold v Connecticut as well as Roe v Wade. Griswold established the privacy doctrine underlying Roe, but did so in protection of the right of access to contraception. If she's anti-contraception, that puts her very far outside the mainstream. I think that's a legitimate question.

Steve J.:

Actually, no it doesn't.

What it does is say that it doesn't line up with the hopes and dreams that they, like every other parents, have for their children.

My guess is that the Palins wanted their daughter to finish high school and go on to college before shouldering the burdens and blessings of parenthood. They recognize that her choices are going to require that she do a whole lot of maturing in a short amount of time in order to be ready to take on the responsibilities that go with being a parent. They would have rather have seen her wait.

That does not make the baby a punishment. At worst, it is a statement that they believe their daughter and her boyfriend made some poor choices, and are now going to have to live with the results of those choices. But the mere fact that something is difficult and the result of less than optimal choices does not make it a punishment in the eyes of reasonable people.

And just wait until this child grows up and finds out that her mom "thought about" her "choices". Did she only choose to continue the pregnancy because of a religious belief?

It seems possible to me that someone could discover that they were pregnant and because they had considered the possibility prior to having sex, knew that they wouldn't need to make any decision. They would simply make plans to have a baby.

But none of that seems to be part of the story here. It appears that Bristol was hoping to have sex and not get pregnant. This is speculation, we don't know, but the parents, her Mom, released a statement that she "chose" to have the baby.

Just so we are all clear, the phrase used in the statement is “have the baby” not “keep the baby.” This clearly refers to deciding (Who knew? Gov Palin is pro-choice after all!) to continue the pregnancy and not to terminate it. No reading of this allows adoption to be one of the options under discussion.

See it here: http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/ab547fc8-d96d-4f87-aa8a-2e52be2b66fc.htm

Some have commented that this is only a recognition of current law by Gov Palin and not an acceptance of the pro-choice position. Given that this is a personal statement, not a policy statement, Gov Palin does not need to recognize the legal right currently in place to allow a woman to decide. By stating that she was pleased that her daughter decided to have the baby is implicit acceptance of her daughter’s right to choose (and by extension, other women as well). She could have easily said, “I’m proud that my daughter will be having a baby and will provide my full support to her.” If Gov Palin were asked in a political/policy setting whether she would uphold a woman’s right to choose, she could then acknowledge that although she opposes abortion, she as the executive charged with carrying out the laws would follow those laws on the books, such as a woman’s right to choose.

The problem, T-Bone, is that she is talking about her daughter's decision, not her own.

Her daughter could have decided to abort, and Palin could have done nothing to stop it (unless, of course, you believe she was going to chain her daughter to the bed, which would make her as much a monster as Obama for voting to let babies die in linen closets).

You are simply reading too much into that word choice.

everyone in the world knows that getting on an airplane while late in pregnancy let alone in labor is very dangerous to the life/health of the fetus. everyone but rhymes with dumbass who has the luxury of telling everyone what to do according what they KNOW is right or what the bible told them. sound pretty damn elitist, just like all these christianist kooks that are ruining this country.

OK first, assuming Trig, Trog or whatever the new baby's name is, is in fact Palin's AND she actually was permitted by any sane human being on the planet to fly with broken water, etc. (I won't repeat all the sordid details here), given her age and the fact that this was already KNOWN to be a downs baby, I would have to say the only rational conclusion is that Palin's EXTREMELY IRRESPONSIBLE and HIGHLY RISKY late third trimester conduct was probably intended to kill the child. She would NEVAH EVAH have an abortion...but help along a stillbirth of a known trisome baby? NooooOOOOOOOOooooo not from the "family values" crowd.

Riiiiight

Failed hommaed abortion, I say.

Rhymes, as you see, I clearly understand it was her daughter’s choice she was referring to. (“By stating that she was pleased that her daughter decided to have the baby is implicit acceptance of her daughter’s right to choose (and by extension, other women as well).”)

The key is the statement is from Gov Palin, not her daughter. Gov Palin (presumably) chose or approved of the words. Why is she acknowledging the choice? To her, the choice may be legal, but it is immoral and illegitimate. In the pro-life (let’s be real anti-choice) world, one gets pregnant and has a baby. There is nothing else to do. There is no decision to make. Why mention it in the statement? And if Gov Palin replied that it shows that her daughter chose life and is an example for others, then she shows that in her family there is acceptance that there is a choice to make. If you don’t believe or accept that there is a choice, you don’t mention it.

Or perhaps she believes that there is a choice with only one possible answer: choose only life. But is that a choice?

Or perhaps she believes for her family the choice should only be life, but by accepting that there is a choice, others can choose the other option, abortion. Hence, pro-choice.

If Bristol Palin were to consider adoption, my husband and I would happily raise this child as our own. And there are tens of thousands of other American couples who would like to adopt a child, any child.

The world is a terrible enough place without making a vulnerable teenage mother and her even more vulnerable child into a political football, no matter which faction does it. All people, including children, are precious in God’s sight, whether they happen to be the grandchild of an American governor or Afghani children slain by NATO artillery. Ideally, all ought to be precious in human sight too.

rhymes, i guess i'm having a hard time seeing what the essential difference is between a pro-lifer who wants to outlaw abortion and the metaphorical chaining of the woman to a bed and forcing her to have a baby...

also wondering about the forced-marriage following the forced-birth and the type of sex ed that this girl received..

otherwise very good article i haven't been following this business all day, and this article hit the nail on the head.

OK, just indulge me in some conspiracy theory for a second...assume that the "despicable rumor" that Palin lied about her fifth pregnancy to cover for her daughter (who supposedly was away from school for four months with mono). As a high power Republican campaign fixer, what is your fix? You need to divert attention immediately away from the lie, making it off limits. You do this by throwing a red herring: a new fictitious pregnancy. Really a brilliant bit of political jujitsu. What do you want to bet that come Christmas there is no sixth baby.

Rhymes WIth Right - just in case you genuinely don't get it - yes, of course pro-choice people support personal statements like ""The final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel," " (which is, quite literally, pro-choice, whatever McCain pretend),or Sarah Palin's quoted remarks about the "decision to have the baby". The problem is that on a policy level, McCain/Palin's would apparent try to take these choices away from other people's daughters (and sisters, mothers, friends, etc.) This is, of course, as it ever was (and will be again, if the forced-birthers get their way) - daughters of the wealthy and connected got trips to other countries, or other forms of special dispensation, etc.; daughters of regular folks got back alleys, disease, and sometimes death.

"apparently try," that is.

Does anyone think the hardline right is being duped by Sarah Palin's political duplicity after reading the statement about the daughter's pregnancy and Sarah's own recent pregnancy? Here's where the real issue exists. In a "prepared" written statement, the Palins proclaim. "We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents." Bristol's "decision"? Isn't that "pro-choice" for Sarah Palin's daughter? Similarly, as a minor, why would their daughter even have a "choice" in the matter? And while the media hangs on every extemporaneous verbal comment by the candidates, a prepared written statement acknowledging a minor's "choice" to have her baby and continue the pregnancy is made by a candidate who claims to support the denial of these rights to all other women and married couples.

Sarah Palin' own recent pregnancy raise the same "pro-choice" concerns for the hard right. First, she is protrayed as knowing the Down Syndrome affliction of the child she carried and "chose" to have the child anyways. Similarly, her own pregnancy demontrates she did consider abortion as a choice. That is, in order to know she was going to have a Down Syndrome child, she had to have been offered and consented to an invasive procedure (amniocentisis - sp?), agreed to genetic testing and agreed to be advised of the results. If she is hard "pro-life" as she is being branded for the right, once she knew she was pregnant, there was no need for the tests or the results since the information was irrelevant to the pregnancy. Her alleged hard pro-life principles required her to carry the fetus to term regardless of the information obtained. These facts, and her admission she "chose" to carry the fetus to term upon obtaining and considering this information, shows she does in fact support choice. The bottom line, she is duping the "pro-life" right with her politically expedient branding while she engages in conduct which evidences "pro-choice". In short, "choice" for me and mine, but not for the rest of you. Now, if only the media will explore these stark contradictions for the voters and make her explain the unexplainable. Peace, Out. By Lance Free

Let's get real, here. No pregnant person who informs their sex partner, family, and friends of said pregnancy is immune from pressure. All pregnant teens instinctively know that once they inform their parent(s), it's more or less out of their hands. That's the life of a minor.

Bristol knows her parent(s)' beliefs in this issue. I think you can safely conclude she made a decision, as she likewise did when she has the umprotected sex that got her pregnant in the first place.

I fail to see how you conclude that everyone in America regards pregnancy before the age of 30 and graduation from Harvard as the ultimate ill.

I mean, get a grip. There is no draft and her son is on his way to Iraq. Obviously, they don't think identically to YOU.

For all of that, your decisionmaking hasn't really done your thinking capacities any favors, either.

Obama is right: drop it. Everybody working for the Republicans, as usual. You don't think they knew the kid was pregnant and that you'd jump all over them like the classist harridans 50% of the country already thinks you are?

By the way. I see you have a public platform. Where is *your* PhD in women's studies?

In a truly just world, the Women's Studies Department at Harvard could abort you.

I guess the real question everyone seems to be asking is how much of Bristol Palin's belifs (anti safe sex education, anti-choice etc) played a role in bristol's "decisions"/conduct. If Bristol was fully informed about birth control, would she have been in this position?
If McCain wins, than Sarah Palin is moving to DC.
Likely Bristol, he husband and baby would not.
My heart goes out to her. To be pregnant, married and without her parents at this young age?
I know a number of mothers in their 30's who needed and were blessed with her mothers being around before and after the birth of their child.

Good post,thanks a lot.There is not a question of whether there are enough people to possibly be trained to practice medicine. There is only the question of whether you want one more doctor or one more derivatives trader.