More Republican Controversy: Bristol Palin, Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter, is pregnant
76For people who like controversy, we got more controversy today about Bristol Palin, the 17-year-old daughter of first-term Gov. Sarah Palin, who is about 5 months pregnant and isn't married, according to a McCain aide, who refused to be named and report released by CNN.
An advisor for presumptive GOP nominee John McCain said that McCain was aware of Bristol Palin's pregnancy before tapping her mother to become his running mate. The advisor, Doug Holzen-Eakin, said on Monday that Palin "was completely vetted by the campaign" before she was selected. According to another advisor, who requested to remain anonymous, "Sen. McCain knew this and felt in no way did it disqualify her (i.e. Palin) from becoming vice-president. Families have difficulties sometimes and lucky for her, she has a supportive family".
One McCain aide insisted that "She was very upfront about it (her pregnancy)", emphasizing that Bristol will keep the baby and this decision is "supported by her parents".
When asked how the American public will perceive an unmarried teenager, another senior McCain aide, Steve Schmidt, snapped "I don't know. I'm not a psychic". The only people who snap at reporters when they ask sensible questions are those who have something to hide.
In another twist, the McCain camp decided to reveal Bristol Palin's pregnancy in response to rumors that Sarah Palin's 4-month-old baby, born with Down's Syndrome, is actually Bristol's. Hang on. Is this the GOP (Grand Old/Conservative Party)? They sure are creating a lot of drama. So, this means that 17-year-old Bristol Palin already has 2 kids? How does the McCain camp respond to this? According to a spokesman, who again, refused to be named, "In the course of correcting that (what? Down's Syndrome?), we felt that we needed to get the truth out". What? So the McCain camp wants to "correct" the fact that SARAH PALIN'S 4-MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER HAS DOWN'S SYNDROME by saying that it's Bristol Palin's baby? There's no logic in that.
For her part, Palin and her husband Todd issued the following statement through McCain: "Bristol and the man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family". Wait a minute. So, the Palin family will only give their daughter love and support during her pregnancy? Also, the phrase "are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the pregnancy.
So, does anyone have any theories about why all this strange stuff is going on now instead of five months ago, when Bristol Palin had animal-like sex and fell pregnant? Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, released the following statement: "Fortunately, Bristol is following her mother and father's example of chooisng life in the midst of a difficult situation. We are committed to praying for Bristol and her husband-to-be and the entire Palin family as they walk through a very private matter in the eyes of the public". What can we deduce/infer from this statement? McCain has chosen a maverick who seems to have plenty of energy and enthusiasm, but here's the important question. With the pregnancy of her underage daughter, what are Palin's general views about underage pregnancy/sex before marriage as this is a very important fundamental for Republicans.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Oh, by the way, I was mentioning those websites & quotes mainly to point out the strange attitude of Republicans, who on the one hand tell us that most teen-age unwed mother pregnancies are "sins" but it's OK when the girl and guy decide to get hitched.
My ancestors did not wed until after the woman was pregnant, and that's just a fact. From my grandfathers to my grandmothers, and farther back in time, all the women of those generations "back in the good-old days" got pregnant before they ever spoke a vow of marriage.
So I guess this isn't just a product of the "Godless" nation we've become since the start of the 1960's. eh? LOL!!!
I have no idea why Bristol Palin being pregnant would preclude Sarah Palin from the job of Vice President. Attack her for her stands on issues, but not her daughter. Pathetic.
I was taught by a librarian that in the Old Testament, that's how marriages occurred - someone became pregnant first. I have not checked that out with original translations, though.
02SmithA, it doesn't preculde her from being a VP candidate. The entire story has taken on a life of its own, but I personally don't agree that it should be news.
However, the simple truth is that many people who have in the past condemned the many other women who have become either pregnant before marriage or have chosen to be single mothers makes it an issue in general of how we believe we need to deal wit this.
I have not heard many Democrats branding unwed mothers and pre-matiral sex as a sin, yet I have been hearing that, up until yesterday, that is, from my many Conservative friends. Now, all of the sudden, the debate is off the table.
While I believe the issue for the Palin family needs to be a choice kept within the family, it does seem to some that something hypocritical is happening here, and that will need to be addressed in one way or another by the Republican Party as a whole.
Patty Inglish MS, I agree that it was not thought of as unusual for a woman to get pregnant before marriages. Just as I agree that it was not unheard of for women to get abortions.
In ancient Rome there was a plant that assured abortion, and it was so popular that it became extinct. Male Lions in the wild will butt their heads against the female lions to abort any fetus from another male.
Personally I don't think it's a bad thing for her daughter to be pregnant. Sad, but not evil or sinful. I leave that judgement to those who have for years preached that getting pregnant before getting married was and is a sin before God.
Why is it suddenly a "pro-life" choice and not a sin? Sounds like Social Conservatives prevaricate just as much as LIberals do, doesn't it?
As for Sarah Palin's credentials, I'll leave that to others to explore. Her selection as McCain's VP choice makes him no more attractive as a candidate to me than he was before.
***************************
And 02SmithA, if this were the only time one could use the word pathetic about something that has been said, done or written about a candidate, his or her spouse or children, then I guess I would also be shocked.
But far worse things have been said about candidates in this election year and in past years. Maybe it's time for issues and plans to be debated and for all of us to get off the he said/she said and pundit-driven circuit of news and commentary.
After all, none of that trash-news we are all subjected to would exist if we general viewers in the U.S. didn't give it our own personal stamp of approval. I agree that issues of this kind do not have a place in the kind of campaigning that Obama wants to conduct, as he strongly stated yesterday. I am assuming McCain says the same thing.
Still, people are going to talk about it. I am certain it will be on the check-out counters later today, if it's not there already.
Thanks for all the feedback everyone. This is the best response I've ever had on a single article.
Chef Jeff says:
15 months ago
I agree with Barack Obama that much of this is off-limits for the media, even though the very Conservative Republicans do not seem to believe in any kind of "sex education" apart from abstenance.
I believe that some of the candid talk from Palin has been put out there to counter false reports that the little 4 month old is really the daughter's child. I also heard that the reason they gave her the baby to hold was to cover up her pregnancy bump on her belly, but again, that may just be raspberry reporting, with an agenda and an axe to grind.
All that said, if the Conservatives are going to rub it in the face of Democrats that things such as "sex education" are wrong, then I guess I would have to say on the larger issue of abstinance only sex education does not seem to work quite as well as it should, and that it is not only the poor, non-White urban dwelling young women who get pregnant out of wedlock.
Just the same, the range of choices for White, suburban young women seems to be larger than those for others in our society. Is this fair? Personally, I do not think so.
I am pleased that Bristol will be marrying the man who fathered this child, and if such a choice were open to others maybe this would not be so much of a touch-point issue. However, to push one agenda (abstinance only) and reject any other educational possibility does smack of elitism and theocratic thinking to me, and misses the reality of life for many millions of women and men in our nation.
It is the same for another issue, that of Creationism, which I find has no solid evidense to become a science-class subject, even if one may believe in an overall creator. But that is not the issue at hand here. Unwed pregnancy is the issue, and I believe it was the Republicans and Right Wing who have made it a huge issue of "sin", in lieu of understanding that people make errors in judgement.
Now I wonder what the Biblical "punishment" should be for a young woman who finds herself pregnant out of wedlock? Is there one, and if so, then why are not the Evangelicals, who tell us we must live by Biblical laws and rules, not administering this punishment even as we speak?
Here are some websites on both sides of the issue:
First from a religious point of view:
http://dustofthetime.blogspot.com/2008/03/unwed-mo
http://www.tldm.org/News8/UnwedMothers.htm
http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/proc
http://www.crusadeforlife.org/about_crusade.htm
**************************************
And now for a more secular point of view:
http://www.solidpapers.com/collegepapers/Literatur
********************************
And another more or less religious view from: http://www.ldolphin.org/SSGen.html
"The New Testament does not single out homosexual sin as worse than other types of sexual misbehavior. Note for instance Hebrews 13:4,"
"Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, because God will judge the immoral and the adulterous."
"Here there are two classes of immoral sexual behavior mentioned: engaging in heterosexual or homosexual sexual activity prior to marriage, or being sexually unfaithful to an existing (heterosexual) marriage partner. Extramarital or premarital sins are treated alike: God approves of sexual expression and endorses it only in marriage. From the time of creation, "marriage" (the oldest of human institutions) is the union of one man and one woman. Furthermore marriage unions are made by God. It is He who joins a man and a woman together in marriage."