I don’t think having a pregnant teenage daughter will turn off voters to GOP vice presidential Sarah Palin. Stuff happens in every family, and Americans are basically a tolerate bunch. Palin’s lack of experience will be a much bigger barrier.
Here’s what I wonder: I imagine that Palin’s conservative evangelical credentials translate to a desire to teach abstinence over birth control in sex education — a misguided effort when dealing with teenagers. You can teach abstinence all you want (though its success rate is low), but when dealing with raging hormones and immaturity, you better give them a back-up plan — birth control — that will prevent teenage pregnancies.
The Latest on Faith and Doubt
25 responses so far ↓
1 Drew // Sep 3, 2008 at 3:10 am
Actually her desire IS to teach abstinence only in schools, see the link I left in the other Palin thread, it was a question.
I don’t really care one way or the other that her daughter is pregnant, nor do I think that fact should disqualify her as some stated, that she should be there for her daughter. Just nonsense.
What I would like to know, is, since she had a captive audience in her own children, where I am SURE she stressed abstinence only, and has obviously FAILED. Has she given any consideration that she was wrong? Does she acknowledge that such a policy is stupid and in-effective, given that she can’t even enforce it in her own house?
I bet she doesn’t.
2 Iron Pol // Sep 3, 2008 at 3:53 am
Drew - Can you cite a single other sex education program that is 100% (or even 75% effective) in preventing teen pregnancy? No sex ed program will completely stop teenage sex. And anything other than abstinence is guaranteed to have a lower success rate at the “supposed” goal of limiting teen pregnancy and the transmission of STDs. Nobody lives in a bubble believing the teaching of abstinence will be 100% effective.
What they do believe is that anyone following an abstinence policy is quite unlikely to experience any of the negatives associated with sex outside of a stable relationship.
I think there is a lot of room for handling the teaching of sex education in the public school system, and that abstinence as the ONLY option might poorly serve all customers. However, there are a great many parents who don’t want their children exposed to the liberal sex education you seem to be espousing. If I want to teach my child abstinence and the public schools FORCE them to learn about a great many things I don’t want taught, how is that different from Palin forcing your child to learn abstinence.
In fact, if the schools teach abstinence and you want your child to learn more, teach away. If I want to teach abstinence, and the school teaches my kids about condoms, oral sex, manual stimulation, alternative lifestyles, etc, I can’t unteach it.
3 Jerry // Sep 3, 2008 at 4:25 am
Palin has supported the Alaska Independence Party AND experts say that might be the most politically detrimental of anything that’s been unearthed.
The Alaska Independence Party has called for Alaska’s secession from the union!! They no longer want to be part of the United States.
It’s been pointed out that it is practically impossible for McCain to make a “country first” argument when his running mate is affiliated with a political party that puts country second.
4 Jerry // Sep 3, 2008 at 4:38 am
“The Iraq War Is A Task From God”
google the above for links to the whole article..
I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,” she told them, “but I can do my job there, in developing our natural resources, and doing things like getting the roads paved, and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms, their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded. But really, all that stuff doesn’t do any good if the people of Alaska’s heart isn’t right with God.”
Switching to the war in Iraq, Palin told the group of students that they should not only pray for men and women in the military but to make sure the leaders of this country are sending U.S. soldiers “out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
Observing that the audience looked hipper than the typical religious group — “You guys are all a cool-looking bunch of Christians” — she confided that she was initially alarmed to learn that her eldest son had gotten a tattoo but became mollified because “he’s got a big old Jesus fish” as a tattoo.
“I love you guys, and thank you so much for dedicating your lives to Jesus Christ,” she said, concluding her speech.
5 Drew // Sep 3, 2008 at 8:28 pm
IP,
I am not saying that we shouldn’t teach abstinence in schools. I was. But I was also taught about birth control and STD’s.
You seem to both agree and disagree that abstinence only is a poor lesson plan. Well that is what Palin advocated in that questionairre. She stated specifically that she would support only an abstinence plan, and no other.
Personally, with all those hormones a ragin, I think it very naive to believe that kids are not going to have sex, and to teach abstinence only is setting them up for failure.
And on top of that, high schoolers especially are preparing to enter the adult world. They need to know as much as possible.
Oh, and to answer your question…no, I can’t point to a single sex ed program that 100% prevents pregnancy or STD’s. That is exactly my point. The ONE program that can lay a claim to trying is abstinence only, and it doesn’t work. Give the kids the tools and most will make semi inteligent choices. Deprive them of knowledge and most will make really poor choices.
6 Drew // Sep 3, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Hey Blue Jerry,
That makes her Pledge of Allegience quote all the more ironic! lol
7 Drew // Sep 3, 2008 at 8:35 pm
The other Jerry,
It is really freaking scary how in this age people still think that way!
It is one thing when people turn to religion to help deal with tragedy and loss in their lives.
But this kind of thinking is backwards and dangerous. We HAVE TO STOP. How many people have to be killed in the name of god before we move on?
And they can’t say it is the radical fringe because here we have our own politicians saying the same shit. Still. As if we haven’t had enough from the current administration. I am feeling more and more like I am watching the Blues Brothers…Whenever we do something stupid I just want to shout that we are on a mission from God.
8 Iron Pol // Sep 3, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Jerry 4:25 - Nice talking point. Palin has been a member of the Republican Party since 1992, the AIP has never had her registered as a member, and no part of the AIP platform calls for secession from the union.
It is a third party that seeks a return of all federal lands to the state of Alaska. Quite different from secession. Palin’s husband, an independent, registered to vote with the AIP twice. Sarah Palin addressed the party to welcome them as a political party, citing in her speech that she didn’t agree with them, but welcomed the competition.
I’d double check your sources.
9 Iron Pol // Sep 3, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Drew, you can’t teach abstinence AND alternatives. If you teach kids about “safe sex” and mention abstinence as one option, you aren’t teaching abstinence.
And I didn’t say that abstinence only was a poor option, only that it wouldn’t be 100% effective. What I did say was that teaching anything other than abstinence removes the ability of parents to use that approach. It might have been unclear.
Take three families, One wants to teach their kids abstinence only, the second wants to teach abstinence and “safe sex” options, and the third wants to promote free love (open and promiscuous sexuality).
If we teach abstinence, families two and three can still teach their values at home. If we teach abstinence and “safe sex” alternatives, family two is happy, and family three can continue to promote their lifestyle. Family one has lost the ability to educate their children according to their beliefs.
The third alternative is meant to show the other extreme. Imagine some school teaching a “promiscuity is great” program. Parents who want to promote safe, responsible sexuality have to try and counter the “free love” their kids are being taught at school.
Are you willing to apply your “know as much as possible” theory to other things. Kids seem to continue to get their hands on guns. Should we teach gun and hunter safety in schools? Give the kids .22 rifles and make sure they know how to aim? Kids also seem to continue to use drugs, so we should also commence programs for safe drug use. Forget “Just Say No!” We need to make sure those kids who will use drugs should know how to get clean drugs, as well as proper dosage.
I’m just saying that sexuality should probably be handled as we handle other things. Guns, drugs, alcohol, etc. are best left to parents to determine the exact approach. The most conservative approach (no guns, no drugs, no sex, no alcohol) is best when in a group.
10 Drew // Sep 3, 2008 at 11:50 pm
IP,
The quote in your post I was specifically reffering to was:
“I think there is a lot of room for handling the teaching of sex education in the public school system, and that abstinence as the ONLY option might poorly serve all customers. ”
I agree with this. But I will go one step further and say that abstinence only poorly serves ALL but a small percentage of students. Most kids are either actively experimenting or trying to. By limiting sex education to “Don’t do it” you are failing those kids. Note I am not advocating teaching a promiscous lifestyle, and to my knowledge there is no school system that teaches one. But knowledge is power and ignornace causes all sorts of problems, as we have seen throughout history.
Your examples of guns and drugs I think are poor ones. For one, if you have a gun in your house, I think you should be taking your kids out ot the range and teaching them all about it. First, what it can do. Second, how to load, unload, check the chamber, safe it, and handle it. Otherwise, teaching them to keep their hands off it will just add to the mystery of it, and one day when they do get a hold of it they or one of their friends may get shot accidentaly. I don’t like the idea of teaching gun safety in school only because schools already have too much to teach, and at least here most families do not have guns at home.
Next, drugs. The Just Say No campaign didn’t really work all that well. Now there are new ideas, here where I live is the D.A.R.E. program, where kids starting in 2nd or 3rd grade are taught all about drugs. What they look like, smell like, what they do to you, and what the effects are. Time will tell if the program is more or less effective than the old ways, but again, abstinence only didn’t work, it only adds to the mystique for a large portion of kids.
As for allowing parents to have the final say in what their children are exposed to or taught, I am torn. I fully support freedom and choices, but there are some things that I think should be regulated. Education is certainly one of them. If you deprive your kids of knowledge and then turn them loose at 18 or whatever, they become Society’s problem to deal with. I think many parents are just not capable of deciding what their kids need to be taught in order to function well in the world, and more over, I think far too many just don’t have enough interest to even try. School should be about imparting as much knowledge as we can, not with holding it. I also think that among things that should be curbed are a parents right to with hold medical treatment and vaccines. We are seeing an uptick in the amount of measels and other diseases that were all but irradicated.
Home schooling should also be reserved only for children with medical conditions, or rare instances when it is dangerous for a child to attend school, such as crossing an avalance zone or some other wierd thing. It may be anecdotal but my brother lives next door to a home schooling family. Maybe all the kids are metally retarded in some way, I am not qualified to diagnose, but I do know that they have no friends and are the most socially defunct kids I have ever met. And, well, they are just plain stupid to boot. They know next to nothing about elementary academics. Clearly these parents are failing their children, though it is within their rights to. In addition, as soon as the oldest daughter had her first period she was locked up in the house and is not allowed out except with her parents. Soon these people, since that is what kids are, will be turned out with no way of coping with society and no ability to blend in. Not only have their parents failed to properly prepare their kids for life at large, but they have also put the other kids at risk since they are not vaccinated. One of the kids has had measels. I understand that some of the diseases vaccinated for only protect against small exposures, or dormant phases you are likely to be exposed to, but that full on disease can be still be spread. Should we allow this? I think not. I think that limiting one’s education because of antiquated beliefs is similarly a bad idea, and bad for us as a whole.
11 Iron Pol // Sep 4, 2008 at 1:56 am
Short answers to a long list:
The drug and gun analogies are exactly perfect, because they are two things we know a great many kids deal with. Even D.A.R.E. teaches kids NOT to use drugs. It doesn’t say, “These are the drugs. Don’t use them, but if you do, let me teach you the safe way to do so.” Marksmanship and archery, both commonly offered in public schools in the past, could never happen, now. Yet drugs and guns are the same as sex. Something many kids are likely to experiment with or encounter.
Unless a parent’s actions are a direct threat to the well being of a child, the state should ALWAYS cede decision making to that parent. And if a parent doesn’t care to be the decisionmaker, that is just too bad. Perhaps they could have used a bit of “abstinence only,” themselves.
To answer a few of your comments, home-schooled children are statistically and factually shown to be the best educated children in the country. Privately educated children come in second place. Bringing up the rear are kids taught in government controlled schools. So your analogies about “retarded” home-schooled kids are more likely a sign of abuse then the shortcomings of homeschooling.
Medical treatment, like other things, is a parental responsibility, barring a proven risk to the child or society. The biggest threat a non-vaccinated child poses is to others without vaccination. How about the (supposed) link between vaccinations and autism (I don’t believe it to be true, but others do). If a parent believes a given medical treatment is likely to lead to a worse problem then is being treated, should they have no right to make the decision?
I have acid reflux and a hiatal hernia. The doctors prescribed two different medications where the side effects were worse than the heartburn. I refused. Should they be able to force me to take it so I limit the risk of cancer from the reflux?
12 Drew // Sep 4, 2008 at 2:58 am
IP,
These are all discussions that have no easy answers. On the one hand is taking away one’s rights to live as they see fit, on the other is allowing somone the freedom to allow harm to innocent people who would choose otherwise.
In the case of sex ed, I just do not see the problem with teaching kids what their bodies are, how they work, and how to protect themselves. Again, no one is advocating sex. You as a parent can still teach your kids that they shouldn’t have sex. Whether they listen to you or not has nothing to do with what they learned in school, but what they learn there may in fact prevent them from getting pregnant, or worse.
Most parents do have the expertise or resources to educate their children nearly as well as a school does. Hell most parents were taught abstinence only is school and don’t know that much about their own bodies! By eliminating sex ed we would be handicapping alot of people and perpetuating certain antiquated beliefs and frankly have no place in modern society. For one there is no part of the human body we should be ashamed of and second there is nothing at all wrong with people having sex before they are married. I don’t think kids should be making that choice, but the fact remains many do and they need more information than abstinence only gives them.
As far as drug education, of course they aren’t telling them to go out and try them. For one that is illegal, for another most illegal drugs are more dangerous than sex, and far more so than sex with a condom. As far as guns, kids learning firearm safety under competent supervision would not be dangerous, nor would I be opposed to it so long as some other more important area of study was not removed to make room.
I am glad we argree that when parents make choices that are a proven (or for me likely) risk to the children or society they should forfiet that right. Let us start with parents who choose not to vaccinate. ( the autism link as you suspect doen’t hold up). Taking measels, for example, children are not given the first vaccine until 12 months. In a society that is 100% vaccinated there is no issue here, however, in a society where some children are not vaccinated, they may carry and transmit the disease to those too young to have been vaccinated. Also, the vaccine is not fully protective until the second stage is given, around 4 years old.
What about Christian Scientists? Should they be allowed to continue to deny their children healthcare?
On education alone, should Holocaust deniers have the right to dictate what parts of history we teach? After all, you could easily teach your children about the Holocaust at home, while the other parent can’t unteach it.
For your last points on health and treatment. We live in an analog world filled with more than 1’s and 0’s. There are instances where treatment is worse than the disease, and these instances should be dealt with as they arrise.
For your own conditions, you are an adult making a decision that effects you and only you, so it isn’t analogous to our discussion. However, just to raise a different point, if there was research into a cure for your conditions, that looked promising but also offended my religious beliefs, I myself may refuse any treatment, but I would not deny you.
And I guess that brings us full circle to the real crux of the matter. And that is one group of people trying to force all others to live the way they want. The Christian Church has not advanced it’s thinking or positions much over the last 2000 years, and it shows. The world we live in is far different than the world Christ lived in. If someone chooses to live their lives based on those principles that is fine. The day they stop trying through law to force me to comply with the same is the day I will stop fighting them. If you want to opt your kid out of sex ed. fine, but don’t force the school to give up the curriculum, and if you get elected to a political office, you need to remember that not all your constituents believe the same way you do.
And as Governor, or President, or V.P. your responsibility is to ALL the people, not just the ones who voted for you or go to your church.
13 Drew // Sep 4, 2008 at 2:59 am
Edit, sorry for the confusion…this line
“”Most parents do have the expertise or resources to educate their children nearly as well as a school does”"
Should read most parent do NOT have…
14 Jerry // Sep 4, 2008 at 3:35 am
I think the part that bothers me the most is that Palin cut funding for the exact project designed to help unwed pregnant teens in Alaska. Sure it would be wonderful if most families embraced and rallied around their pregnant teens, but most of the time they don’t. My own mother was shunned by her family and we grew up on public assistance for a few years in the beginning since she was unable to finish high school. Without those programs we would have starved to death. That is why now, as an adult, I support programs like the Hamilton House. I realize that Republicans believe that the responsibility for family members with issues like mental illness and pregnancy should be handled by their own families (ie. Ronald Reagan shutting down state institutions etc..) and maybe its a bit easier when there is money involved to support and medicate them, but when I walk down the streets of Portland where I live, what I see are homeless teens, pregnant homeless teens and people with psychiatric issues whose families have turned them away. I guess if your about to move into the White House, there is room for babies and baby daddies and beautiful weddings on the white house lawn and everyone lives happily ever after, but that doesn’t happen in my neighborhood.
So maybe there is a bit of resentment and that resentment reinforces to me at least, that this country is set up for the more wealthy to excel and let the needy fall by the wayside and hopefully just disappear. Survival of the richest. And currently the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and it’s important to note that some people want it that way. If I had 7 houses, sure my pregnant kids could just move into one of them. But that isnt my reality nor is it the reality of anyone I know.
15 Iron Pol // Sep 4, 2008 at 4:49 am
Drew - I will only reply to one part of that, the edited part. You contend most parents do not have the resources to educate their children nearly as well as schools.
I contend that most parents, given anything remotely close to the financial resources available to the public school system could easily provide a vastly better education. Give me 1/3 of what the government spends and allow me to pick where my kid goes to school, or see to my childrens’ education on my own, and they will receive a much better education. This is proven time and again when comparing home or privately schooled kids with those in public schools.
So, no, I won’t agree. Any parent could provide a better education with a fraction of the resources used by the government.
16 Iron Pol // Sep 4, 2008 at 5:01 am
Jerry 3:35 - I can’t speak to the conditions in which you may have been raised. But allow me to disagree on some points.
Your own comments support the “limited welfare” system where people are provided a safety net and then helped to transition to self-support. It sounds as if your mother improved her lot, even after the struggle of an (apparently) unplanned baby. Your mom also appears to have taken the higher moral road and chose life over acceptance.
And according to just about every means of evaluation, the rich, the upper class, the middle class, the lower middle class, and the poor are getting richer. The increasing “wealth gap” is the result of “everyone” improving on their own situation, and others (many from outside the country) taking over the lowest positions on the wealth scale. (Yes, I acknowledge there are those who make little to no effort and continue to struggle, as there are some who face greater challenges and seem to make little headway).
The upper limit (the really wealthy) continue to benefit from the skills that made them wealthy in the first place, and the lower limit is continually replenished by new poor people. It isn’t a function of a large group of the same people making less and less money and all that money transferring to the rich.
My church recently sponsored a refugee family from Burma. By US standards, they are impoverished. By their standards, they are rich (because they are here, have a house, and get to send their kids to school). They will work hard and I am positive they will greatly improve their standard of living within a single generation. In fact, they are so pleased with how things went we are working to help other family members get to the US, and get several who are already here to our area. They are all part of the “poor getting poorer” though in their eyes they are much better off.
17 Drew // Sep 4, 2008 at 5:14 am
IP,
I won’t argue that, but since most parents do not have those resources, kind of makes your point moot.
18 Jerry // Sep 4, 2008 at 6:45 am
MARRIAGE:
It is a SACRED thing between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN
Or, it is a shotgun thing between one boy and the poor chick he knocked up
19 Drew // Sep 4, 2008 at 7:08 am
Here is a, I suppose, a meta-analysis of sorts from the Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia showing no link between autism and vaccine if anyone is interested…
http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp?id=84662
20 Drew // Sep 4, 2008 at 7:16 am
Jerry, I agree that Palin is a poor choice for office, any office IMO. And while I don’t agree with much of what Obama has said lately, I do agree that a candidate’s family, and especially children should be off-limits.
Palin has so many faults we need not look into Bristol, or whatever her name is. Having a pregnant teen as a daughter doesn’t mean she would be a bad VP, nor does it mean she is a bad parent.
It only means she has a daughter who decided to have sex. Her body her right. That she is pregnant just means she made poor choices regarding protection.
21 Iron Pol // Sep 4, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Two things.
First, Drew. The only reason (many) parents don’t have the resources is because they give them to the government. Hence the whole voucher argument. Which, by the way, is a huge success in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and other locations.
Second, did someone post an offensive or spam type link in the “Live Blogging” post? I can’t get into that one.
22 Thranil // Sep 5, 2008 at 1:30 am
This is one thing that scares me about Palin. I have seen too many studies that show how ineffective abstinence-only ‘education’ is at preventing unwanted pregnancies, std transmission etc (and how other programs are significantly more effective)… if I get spare time (not much of it these days), I’ll try to post some links to references of said studies.
23 Iron Pol // Sep 6, 2008 at 4:23 am
Let’s see, 2003 data showed teen pregnancy rates dropping in the US. Of course, we aren’t really an “abstinence only” country, but we do have an administration that favors it.
The challenge is trying to use only pregnancy numbers. If we compare 100 kids taught “abstinence only” with 100 kids from programs covering “safe sex” (all of whom DO have sex), I wouldn’t be surprised to see more pregnancies in the abstinence group. Then again, you’d have to do a great deal of research to find out things like how many of the abstinence group knew about and used condoms. How many from the “safe sex” group didn’t use them. They are finding more and more that kids taught “safe sex” don’t practice it, just as some kids taught abstinence don’t practice that.
Abstinence is a near perfect way to prevent STDs. You are unlikely to show more than a handful of cases where abstinent individuals contracted an STD.
One study in Virginia compared kids in an abstinence program with those taught safe sex. Of the kids in the abstinence program, just over 9 percent admitted to having sex in the research period. For the other group, it was over 16 percent. Again, it doesn’t really tell us anything.
Of the kids who had sex, how many would have done so regardless of what they were taught? How many had sex and lied? (I’d guess that would tend to skew the abstinence group more) What percentage of each group got pregnant.
And perhaps the most serious question is this, do we believe that absent teaching in the school kids don’t have the opportunity to learn? I never learned about condom use, female birth control, etc in school. Yet I still learned it. Most of what we would consider “important” I learned from my parents. Most of what I learned from friends was pretty wrong.
I still go back to my original point. Parents will have a great deal to say about what they think their kids should learn. So why not let the parents do the teaching? And please, no “The parents won’t teach them,” responses. It isn’t the responsibility of the school to teach everything to kids. Parents have some responsibility, and this is one area where I think they have to step up and decide what to teach their kids, and when.
24 Drew // Sep 8, 2008 at 8:01 am
IP, what is it about safe sex practices being taught in schools that you are so afraid of? Is it losing some control or influence over your children? Something else? Perhaps you honestly feel that this information is dangerous to young minds?
Personally I am not a fan of censorship, and that is what abstinence only education is. You have all the information out there, but you are keeping it from the kids. There is nothing dangerous about the information being given, so no reason to hide it.
25 Barbara // Sep 8, 2008 at 9:11 am
I agree with you 100%. Its a nice fantasy to think that you can teach kids about abstinence and it will prevent teen pregnancy and STDs. Sure, some kids will make a decision to wait till marriage, but that’s very rare. We can teach our kids abstinence all day long but we better teach them about safe sex at the same time.
Leave a Comment