posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
the_dala at 10:09pm on 02/09/2008
the_dala at 10:09pm on 02/09/2008Here's what I have to say in regards to the Sarah Palin topic du jour, namely the pregnancy of her seventeen-year-old daughter Bristol. I have enormous sympathy and feeling for the entire Palin family - especially for this young girl who is going to have cameras trained on her during probably the most difficult time in her life so far. I wouldn't wish that kind of scrutiny on anyone in such a situation. Moreover, I have no wish to crucify the Palins for whatever they have or have not done in their own household. A teenage pregnancy does not necessarily a bad parent make. Shit happens. It happens to all of us, from every economic background and religion and race and creed. That's human nature.
What I'm upset about is that now I fear we aren't going to have a conversation that this country desperately needs to have.
Abstinence-only education DOES NOT WORK.* This is not opinion, this is not personal belief, this is cold hard fact. Multiple studies* have proven time and again that the kids who receive comprehensive sex education have less sex, less early (in fact I believe it's the earlier education starts, the longer sex tends to be delayed). Not only is abstinence-only education ineffective in preventing teen pregnancy and transmission of STDs, clinging to it in our public classrooms is, in my opinion, tantamount to child neglect. It hurts our children, it hurts our young adults, it hurts unplanned babies yet to be conceived, it hurts parents. It hurts families, and I am sure that is the case within the Palin family even though they're showing (rightfully) public support for Bristol.
But the Palin family dynamics are not the issue here. I don't give a flying fuck what Sarah and Todd Palin teach their children in their own home. My concern is what they learn - or don't learn - in publicly funded schools. If my tax dollars are the only way for some teens to get access to condoms and comprehensive information about sexual health, then that is where I want them to go.
This is an issue that should transcend party politics; Obama said as much in his acceptance speech last week, that we may not agree on abortion rights but we should all work to decrease the number of teen pregnancies. If we follow the policies of McCain and Palin, that will not happen. In fact it'll fail to happen a lot sooner than they'll be able to overturn Roe v. Wade, considering the Bush administration already favors abstinence-only education programs.
I respect and agree with Obama's statement regarding the Palin family's privacy. But I am so frustrated that the topic of teen sexual health might now remain entirely off-limits, because ANY attempt to address it will be seen as an attack on Bristol Palin. We're probably going to talk the right to choose, which we should, and it might get ugly, which could be bad for everyone involved. I just wish we could also talk about real, tangible ways to reduce the number of teenagers who are forced to make that choice.
*note I said abstinence-ONLY education, not the teaching of abstinence in conjunction with methods of birth control. Abstinence should always be a part of child/teen sex education, and anyone who believes comprehensive programs don't or won't mention it is an idiot.
** I am too researched out to do the digging myself, but believe me, I've read them and they're not at all hard to find if you know your way around a library database. As a brief primer to the candidates' positions, here's a short article that just popped up on the Yahoo homepage as I was writing this.
What I'm upset about is that now I fear we aren't going to have a conversation that this country desperately needs to have.
Abstinence-only education DOES NOT WORK.* This is not opinion, this is not personal belief, this is cold hard fact. Multiple studies* have proven time and again that the kids who receive comprehensive sex education have less sex, less early (in fact I believe it's the earlier education starts, the longer sex tends to be delayed). Not only is abstinence-only education ineffective in preventing teen pregnancy and transmission of STDs, clinging to it in our public classrooms is, in my opinion, tantamount to child neglect. It hurts our children, it hurts our young adults, it hurts unplanned babies yet to be conceived, it hurts parents. It hurts families, and I am sure that is the case within the Palin family even though they're showing (rightfully) public support for Bristol.
But the Palin family dynamics are not the issue here. I don't give a flying fuck what Sarah and Todd Palin teach their children in their own home. My concern is what they learn - or don't learn - in publicly funded schools. If my tax dollars are the only way for some teens to get access to condoms and comprehensive information about sexual health, then that is where I want them to go.
This is an issue that should transcend party politics; Obama said as much in his acceptance speech last week, that we may not agree on abortion rights but we should all work to decrease the number of teen pregnancies. If we follow the policies of McCain and Palin, that will not happen. In fact it'll fail to happen a lot sooner than they'll be able to overturn Roe v. Wade, considering the Bush administration already favors abstinence-only education programs.
I respect and agree with Obama's statement regarding the Palin family's privacy. But I am so frustrated that the topic of teen sexual health might now remain entirely off-limits, because ANY attempt to address it will be seen as an attack on Bristol Palin. We're probably going to talk the right to choose, which we should, and it might get ugly, which could be bad for everyone involved. I just wish we could also talk about real, tangible ways to reduce the number of teenagers who are forced to make that choice.
*note I said abstinence-ONLY education, not the teaching of abstinence in conjunction with methods of birth control. Abstinence should always be a part of child/teen sex education, and anyone who believes comprehensive programs don't or won't mention it is an idiot.
** I am too researched out to do the digging myself, but believe me, I've read them and they're not at all hard to find if you know your way around a library database. As a brief primer to the candidates' positions, here's a short article that just popped up on the Yahoo homepage as I was writing this.
cynical
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
It's pretty simple, as I see it. The government just as much responsibility to teach kids how many holes the vagina has as it has to teach the capital of Montana and long division.
(no subject)
Oh, this would not be a problem if it was a Democrat candidate's underage daughter pregnant (male or female) out of wedlock. You can bet it'd get all kinds of discussion. (And on a side note, probably cost Dad or Mom an election instead of being roundly applauded by the Christian conservatives as a positive statement. If this was a girl in a poor neighborhood, with parents who can't afford to support her and her baby and her husband, I doubt it would get this kind of approval.)
We desperately need a government that lives in the 21st century - that understands science and equal rights - not one mired in the 12th century.
(no subject)
It might be true that attacks would come from the other side if the situation were reversed, but we don't have any way of proving it (except I'm pretty sure that the Obamas would defend their children vigourously, just as Barack has already defended Michelle for the most ridiculous attacks against her - so far anyway...). Obama has said his people-in-glass-houses thing with integrity and I'm following his lead. I'm just irritated because I keep seeing what I feel is the wrong argument from BOTH sides - Sarah Palin as mother versus Sarah Palin (and John McCain!) as legislator. (And not just on LJ, but in mainstream media as well.)
(no subject)