Let's not talk about Palin's granddaughter.

It’s appalling that Governor Palin had to publicly announce her daughter’s pregnancy, apparently to kill some rumors.

The speculation about this has been shallow, stupid, disgusting. It’s not something that political bloggers should be treating as a news story. And it’s completely unfair to Palin’s daughter, who is not a public figure and shouldn’t be subjected to public discussions of her body or her pregnancy.

UPDATE: What Hilzoy said.

This entry posted in In the news. Bookmark the permalink. 

36 Responses to Let's not talk about Palin's granddaughter.

  1. 1
    Jeff Fecke says:

    I disagree, but only on two points: first, as this shows in microcosm, the just-say-no approach to sex doesn’t prevent pregnancy, and abstinence-only sex ed doesn’t prevent kids from having sex. Second, the McCain/Palin campaign made a point of noting that Bristol had chosen to go through with the pregnancy, and that’s all well and good — it’s her choice, after all. But if the McCain/Palin campaign had its way, there’d be no choice to make.

    Those are, of course, bigger issues than Bristol Palin — and in twelve years, it could just as well be my daughter who’s facing the exact same decision as Bristol did. The girl’s not the first teenager to become pregnant, and she most certainly won’t be the last. She’s not evil, and I hope after this, we stop talking about it, and give her privacy. But it is worth noting that Bristol’s mother would not do the same for my daughter; if Sarah Palin gets her way, my daughter won’t have the luxury of making a private decision should she need to. And that should not pass unremarked.

  2. 2
    Ampersand says:

    With all due respect, Jeff, do you feel that making either of those arguments about Bristol Palin are going to win the debate once and for all?

    Because it seems to me that these are ways of scoring points in a debate, but aren’t really going to change the substance or outcome of the debate. And I don’t think it’s worth it, because it just makes our political discourse a little bit uglier while not actually accomplishing anything beyond the current news cycle.

    For your first point, I think “microcosm” is another way of saying “anecdotal.” That one child raised with abstinence-only (if she even was — we don’t know what kind of sex ed was taught at her school, afaik) is pregnant, isn’t really evidence one way or the other. After all, it’s not as if abstinence advocates are claiming that abstinence only taught teens NEVER get pregnant; they just claim they get pregnant less often. So it’s not really a good argument.

    For your second point, you could also say that about Sarah Palin, rather than her daughter. And there it’s much more legitimate, in my view, because Palin is a public figure who uses her own choice not to abort to legitimize taking that choice away from other women.

  3. 3
    Robert says:

    You are both assuming that the daughter was trying not to get pregnant. I have no reason to believe that she was, but no reason to believe that she wasn’t, either.

  4. 4
    Ampersand says:

    I do think that this story will implicitly make it harder for Sarah Palin herself to argue for abstinence only education on the stump, and that’s good. (Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Palin’s kids were given abstinence-only education.)

    But I don’t think there’s any need for people to talk about her daughter, for that effect to apply. It’s enough to have it be an unspoken elephant in the room whenever Sarah Palin discusses abstinence-only.

    Also, I think the political downside for Democrats trying to make hay of this is obvious.

    Rather than attacking their kids, let’s ask why John McCain voted against S-Chip. Why the Democrats didn’t mention that over and over again at the convention is a mystery to me.

  5. 5
    Ampersand says:

    You are both assuming that the daughter was trying not to get pregnant. I have no reason to believe that she was, but no reason to believe that she wasn’t, either.

    I’m pretty sure that abstinence only is supposed to encourage teens to wait until marriage, not just to wait until they want to be pregnant?

  6. 6
    Jeff Fecke says:

    I’m pretty sure that abstinence only is supposed to encourage teens to wait until marriage, not just to wait until they want to be pregnant?

    Indeed.

    As for the point — I don’t think this should be belabored, and I think we can be done with it. I just don’t think we should let those two facts pass unremarked. After all, Sarah Palin wants to change the law to eliminate the possibility of choice, and wants to eliminate sex education. Those choices don’t respect my daughter’s privacy. Perhaps I’m simply finding it hard to be any more charitable than she is.

  7. 7
    OH says:

    I’m with Jeff here. First, she has very little track record, except what she herself has claimed: being a hockey mom of five kids, as she highlighted in her very first speech. And her job as a PTA president was evoked by John McCain as a primary reason for his pick in his recent interview with People Magazine. It was John McCain who compared Barack Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Then Palin herself decided to take this job knowing this truth about her own child, knowing that it would have to become public knowledge during her campaign.

    And, second, yes, Palin would gladly both force my kids to learn nothing about safer sex. She is publicly and fully supportive of abstinence only education. (I do not know what she thinks about birth control, but that’s exactly what the rest of the anti-abortion crowd is pushing to abolish right now.)

    And on top of all that, she and the religious extremists that she represents would take away the ability of my daughters and me to choose, privately, what we would do in the case of an unplanned pregnancy. She, not me, believes we have no right to privacy in regard to our reproductive lives.

    And the McCain campaign highlighted in its announcement of this fiasco, saying that it was Bristol herself who made this decision. But that choice, particularly for 17 year olds, exactly what they want to do away with.

    I am sorry but Sarah Palin would not be where she is today without feminism, and yet everything she stands for would happily and deliberately undo feminist gains. McCain’s choice of her was deliberately pandering to disgruntled Hillary supporters, and was deeply insulting to real feminists. Everything that is happening right now, and their campaign’s responses to it, demonstrates that impeccably.

  8. 8
    Jolie says:

    I believe abstinence only education, dominionist christian political values, and anti environment policies are all examples of political positions that deserve to be examined and confronted within a political season. I believe these are necessary and vital targets for progressive blogosphere. I completely reject the notion of a teenager’s sexuality or breeding behaviors are somehow politically viable targets for progressive speculation. This teenager is not Sarah Palin. In fact she is not Sarah Palin’s property either. This teenager’s life does not have an impact on amercian politics and her experience does not create a province for bloggers to define their theories all over her body.

  9. 9
    Nancy says:

    Ampersand,

    _Thank you_ for this excellent comment. My sentiments exactly.

  10. 10
    marmelade says:

    I think that Palin’s daughter’s teenage pregnancy *should* be on the table for discussion, for this reason:

    Palin doesn’t (apparently) bring much value to her ticket except 1) she’s a woman, 2) she’s made some anti-corruption efforts in AK during the past 1.5 years, and 3) she’s a staunch social conservative. Everyone assumed that her role would be to beat the traditional values drum in the evangelical churches of America. If that’s her plank, isn’t today’s news relavant?

    Now, if her strengths were economics or environment or foreign policy – then we’d have much more reason to leave this issue lie.

    Obama has said that the pregnancy is off the table (although, really, he has to say that, doesn’t he).

    I just wonder if the *real* reason Palin was brought on board is her – and her husband’s – connection to oil. It just seems that oil is the wizard behind the curtain in so much of our politics . . . and McCain does not have the oil-plated pedigree that our current leaders do. I don’t mean to over-caricaturize those EVIL oil people – I love consuming oil products as much as the next red-blooded american – But oil does seem to have an incredible corrupting influence on our political life.

  11. 11
    marmelade says:

    And you know, this whole Palin nomination seems to be a very weak move by the McCain folks. Either they knew about this teen-age pregnancy (as they said) and brought Palin on as their social-conservative front person *anyway* or they didn’t do their homework (and are lying about it now).

    And, I’m probably going to get blasted for this, and I’m open to changing my mind on it . . . I just wonder about electing someone to VP who’d have a better-than-typical chance of actually becoming president who has a brand-new baby, is 44 years old, and who aparently doesn’t believe in use of contraceptives.

    In these times, I don’t think we should have a person in the oval office who’s a brand-new parent. I’d feel the same if it were Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, or Joe Biden.

  12. 12
    Lu says:

    A minor point, to be sure, but how do we know Bristol’s, um, child-to-be is a girl? Afaik the sex hasn’t been announced (and it needn’t be).

    I agree that we can discuss abortion, sex education, and a host of related issues without getting into persons or personalities. A couple of other disgusting gambits I’ve seen in comments on liberal blogs (not this one!) are “well, of course it was easy for Sarah Palin to keep her Down’s baby, she has plenty of resources,” and, of course, “people shouldn’t knowingly burden society with disabled children.”

    ETA:

    I just wonder about electing someone to VP who’d have a better-than-typical chance of actually becoming president who has a brand-new baby, is 44 years old, and who aparently doesn’t believe in use of contraceptives.

    Oh, yes, forgot that one. There are many reasons why Palin is unsuited to high public office, but this isn’t one of them.

  13. 13
    Veronica says:

    And it’s completely unfair to Palin’s daughter, who is not a public figure

    “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.” – John McCain, 1998

  14. 14
    Lu says:

    Veronica, in what way does McCain’s boorish behavior make it OK to pick on Bristol Palin?

  15. 15
    Pat Kight says:

    Veronica@13: I’d like to think that my side has better sense than to use a spurious (and sexist) tactic just because the other side has done so. Whatever happened to taking the high road?

    There are more than enough good arguments against the McCain ticket’s fitness for the office. Choosing to go on and on about the candidate’s (and her daughter’s) pregnancies distracts from the bigger issues, and is likely to win McCain-Palin sympathy votes. It also leaves us no moral ground to stand on when the GOP launches its inevitable next smear against Obama-Biden.

  16. 16
    Thene says:

    My reading of Veronica wasn’t that we should pick on Bristol, but simply a proof of IOKIARDI.

    I do hope that this will spark off a national conversation about the corrosiveness of abstinence-only ed; Palin’s positions on sex ed, contraceptive access and abortion access are not personal in the least – she could be president in a year’s time! If this hadn’t happened, perhaps those positions would have stayed off the table. But it has. I don’t want to talk about Bristol Palin personally, and I won’t be doing so; she can go her way and all the best to her. But I want to know Palin intentions for my body, and now she can’t stop that from being an issue.

    So thankyou, Bristol, and goodbye.

    LuA couple of other disgusting gambits I’ve seen in comments on liberal blogs (not this one!) are “well, of course it was easy for Sarah Palin to keep her Down’s baby, she has plenty of resources,”

    I think that’s a pretty valid comment, if that’s exactly what was said; does Palin think all parents deserve support to care for disabled children? Or does she think that the rich can afford to live with that burden, and everyone else can suck on it?

  17. 18
    Kai Jones says:

    It’s facile to argue that Ms. Palin (or any other advocate of abstinence-only sex ed) wants to keep your child from learning about contraception or any other sexual ethics. They can’t, because you can always teach them at home, or in your religious community, or you can take them to the doctor for a lecture. I certainly didn’t leave it all to the schools; if I had my younger one would never have learned to spell, because at school they didn’t make him correct his errors–I had to listen to him complain that the teacher doesn’t make him, and respond that I’m in charge of him, not the teacher–the teacher is my agent, my deputy.

    What you are complaining of is that other people’s children, ones who don’t believe as you do in teaching their children at home but leave everything to the public schools, won’t learn what you want them to learn. You could start a private class for those kids, or maybe teach through some established program like scouting or 4-H. Heck, you could teach an animal care class that includes sex ed disguised as controlling your pet’s fertility.

  18. 19
    Lu says:

    Thene, here is the full quote:

    Conservatives are quick to adopt Palin’s Down’s baby as a poster child for the Pro-Life movement. They should think again. Palin’s decision better exemplifies the Pro-Choice side of the debate. She had a choice and she did what was right for her and her family. Palin’s circumstances cannot be compared to an 18-year old rape victim who has an alcoholic mother and no health insurance.

    While the last sentence is certainly true, it’s also true that this was a private decision made by the Palin family, and we don’t know what considerations they weighed — we don’t even know if they knew in advance that the baby had Down’s. But, in any case, if you’re pro-choice you have no business second-guessing their decision or claiming that it was easy.

    Incidentally, I looked up the Alaska governor’s salary; as of 2002, it was $83,280, a good living but hardly a king’s ransom, and most definitely not enough to hire platoons of nannies and servants.

    Now, I have a dog in this fight, having a severely disabled child myself, so it’s possible that I’m overreacting a bit. What I can tell you for sure is that raising a disabled child is damned hard work no matter how easy your life is otherwise — and I have to admit that mine is pretty easy.

    I do hope that this will spark off a national conversation about the corrosiveness of abstinence-only ed; Palin’s positions on sex ed, contraceptive access and abortion access are not personal in the least – she could be president in a year’s time! If this hadn’t happened, perhaps those positions would have stayed off the table.

    As Hilzoy so astutely points out, unless anyone is claiming that abstinence-only sex ed always results in abstinence until marriage, there’s no reason to drag Bristol’s pregnancy into it. (Another thing we don’t know is what if any sex ed Bristol actually received.) Sarah Palin’s positions on those issues are as relevant as any other major-party VP nominee’s, no more, no less.

  19. 20
    Lu says:

    Thene:

    [D]oes Palin think all parents deserve support to care for disabled children? Or does she think that the rich can afford to live with that burden, and everyone else can suck on it?

    On more sober reflection, this is a great point, and a great starting place for that conversation you mentioned. Palin said in her statement:

    Bristol and the young 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.

    Again, as best I can tell, the Palins aren’t exactly what I’d call rich; they’re certainly nowhere near the exalted standard of John “I can’t remember how many houses I have” McCain. Your question is still a good one: if a pregnant woman has neither money nor family, where will she find that support?

  20. 21
    Molly says:

    Poor girl has no choice but to have the baby and get married cause her mothers so fanatical. I get the impression that even adoption is not an option in the Palin household. Being married with a kid at 17 is among the worst fates I can think of…

  21. 22
    Lu says:

    It’s not what I want for my daughter, that’s for sure, and it’s a tough row to hoe, but I wouldn’t go all the way to “among the worst fates.” I know at least three people who had children as teenagers (one had twins and never saw the father again) who have done fine in the long run.

    And here again, if you weren’t there, you don’t know what went on in the Palin household.

  22. 23
    Hmmm... says:

    This is quite an interesting debate. Here’s my 2 cents…

    I don’t feel like Bristol should have the spot light on her. I honestly hope this blows over. I do. She’s just a kid and it’s overwhelming enough to have to be pregnant and get married…but at such a young age, it’s even overwhelming I’m sure…

    BUT, you have to admit…There is IRONY here. I mean really…In all honesty, I think it’s safe to assume that she has had abstinence education. Her mother wants abstinence education in schools, she wants “creationism” taught in science class. Let’s be honest, it’s not a huge leap to assume that someone who believes in these things tries to teach there kids the same values (as we all do).

    With that said, I hope that this does start a discussion on the topic. The only “research” that you will find that says that abstinence education works is from religious (biased) organizations. If you find an unbiased source, it will say the exact opposite.

    Furthermore, I’m glad that Bristol chose to keep her baby. And I’m glad that Palin decided to keep her child, knowing full well that the child would be disabled. I respect that immensely. But I hope that this doesn’t suggest that she is the moral authority on the matter because she’s not. Period.

    My mother had to make the same choice as Palin because of a terrible car accident. But she decided on abortion. It broke her heart. But with a failing marriage that left her alone to take care of 5 kids already (3 adopted), she made the decision that was right for her. It broke her heart. But it was her choice. I understand that Palin did what was right for her, but she has no right to tell me or my daughter what to do with our bodies. I want my daughter to have a choice. And I hope that people aren’t intimidated to say that because of Palin’s decision.

  23. 24
    Thene says:

    Kai Jones – yeah, SO true. I mean, all children have loving parents have that much time on their hands. If there are any kids in the world who don’t have such stellar parental care, I guess those children deserve to have their lives founder because some other folks don’t want accurate information about sex to be presented in schools. Is that what you’re saying?

    Lu – I may be wrong but I thought Palin’s husband had a good job in the oil industry. One $80k income, probably with excellent benefits, plus another substantial income? Dear god, I wish my household had that. (One of the family members I live with is a 10-year-old who has autism, and we get no government support to cover his educational needs; all his behavioural and learning help is paid for by the family).

  24. 25
    Lu says:

    Here’s what a quick google gave me on Todd Palin’s job:

    Todd Palin has worked 20 years in a job on Alaska’s North Slope for BP, where he has continued to work as a production operator.

    He’s also said to be a commercial fisherman. I haven’t the slightest idea what a production operator makes; I know commercial fishing is among the most dangerous of all jobs, and I don’t get the impression that it’s very lucrative. In any case, he works for a living, and not sitting at a desk collecting sweet bonuses.

    So, yeah, they’re comfortable, better off than most people, but they’re not filthy rich as best I can tell. She hasn’t been governor for very long, either; I can’t imagine that being mayor of Wasilla pays much, so until last year they were probably living just, or mostly, on his income. (And, btw, I don’t know Alaskan geography, but isn’t the North Slope a fair hike from Wasilla or Juneau? To say nothing of being out on a boat for days at a stretch. Most parents of young kids would rather be home every night if at all possible.)

    All that said, Thene, your family member’s situation sucks, and so does support for people with disabilities. One upside, if you can call it that, of having a severely disabled child is that you don’t usually have to fight for services; I know several people whose kids have Asperger’s, ADHD, and the like, who’ve managed eventually to get their children into appropriate school programs for their needs, and apparently it’s rather like getting blood from a stone.

  25. 26
    MisterMephisto says:

    The part I find most obnoxious is that the McCain/Palin team are trying to spin this as a “Bristol and her family are showing her devotion to right to life politics by keeping this baby.”
    So they SAY that they don’t want the spotlight on her, but then GOP spin-doctors are also trying to hold her up as some kind of shining example of how a right-to-lifer is keeping the baby, while a pro-choicer would have certainly terminated the pregnancy…
    Which is, of course, a false dichotomy. Just because a woman (young or old) supports pro-choice, it doesn’t mean that said woman is automatically incapable of choosing the other option.
    Soap-box aside though, I reiterate that, for all Palin’s complaint to “leave her daughter alone”, she’s more than happy to let her be a symbol for her own campaign, so long as the “other side” doesn’t use her against her potential vice-presidency.
    And it’s the worst form of hypocrisy for the GOP (and anyone running under their aegis) to scream about the “liberal” media using this against Palin, when you KNOW they would be more than happy to use the same situation against a Dem (care of FOX News).

  26. 27
    Kevin Moore says:

    If Sarah Palin had been an advocate for choice and for sex education that discusses responsible behavior beyond abstinence, it would still have been possible for her daughter to have pre-marital sex and thereby become pregnant. She still might have chosen to keep the child.

    In other words, the “irony” of this situation has no real bearing on the debate over sex education. It’s an individual instance, a case where the daughter is still her own person, an agent of her actions. And like Barry, I advocate respecting her privacy. (Shit, I advocate respecting the privacy of every politician and political families, cuz it’s not only not our business, but it is not at all relevant.)

    Also, in the alternate universe scenario I describe above, we would condemn conservative bloggers for crowing that the pregnancy proves that abstinence-only education works. Would we not?

  27. 28
    MisterMephisto says:

    Lu said:
    He’s also said to be a commercial fisherman. I haven’t the slightest idea what a production operator makes; I know commercial fishing is among the most dangerous of all jobs, and I don’t get the impression that it’s very lucrative. In any case, he works for a living, and not sitting at a desk collecting sweet bonuses.

    Last I heard it was around $10K a month to be a commercial fisherman up in Alaska. So, yes, it’s dangerous, but It’s also EXTREMELY lucrative. At least for about 3 months a year during the summer, when the bulk of the fishing takes place.

    So it’s not like they’re poor either. Especially when you combine it with a Governor’s salary and a second high-paying “oil-man” job during the remainder of the year.

  28. 29
    Silenced is Foo says:

    Should we talk about Palin’s daughter? No. But should we talk about Palin’s platform as it relates to her daugher? Hell yes. She’s an anti-contraceptives anti-abortion conservative. She wants abstinence-only sex-ed. Her 17-year-old daughter is relevant to the debate.

    Obviously, her daughter should never have to see a goddamned camera. But if somebody brings up her daughter in a discussion about Palin (or a discussion with Palin) then I don’t think you can shout “leave the family out of it!” – this is one of those places where the personal and the professional intersect.

  29. 30
    Megalodon says:

    Second, the McCain/Palin campaign made a point of noting that Bristol had chosen to go through with the pregnancy, and that’s all well and good — it’s her choice, after all. But if the McCain/Palin campaign had its way, there’d be no choice to make.

    I don’t think McCain/Palin, Focus on the Family, Dobson, et al. are extolling this person’s decision as a celebration of individual, reproductive autonomy. They are saying, “Kudos to her for making the decision that should be mandatory to begin with. She didn’t choose the evil option that is regretfully available right now.”

    Though, I’m not sure about the relative availability of abortion in Alaska as compared to other states, and what rules they have regarding parental notification or permission.

  30. 31
    Kevin Moore says:

    Except that the arguments cancel each other out. Put the shoe on the other foot. Had Palin advocated a more fully-informed sex education with safe sex practices, abstinence-only advocates could say, “See! She gave her daughter too many choices, too many mixed messages! Children need firm definitions of right and wrong!”

    As Barry pointed out, Palin’s daughter’s situation is anecdotal. It carries none of the weight of an argument grounded in statistical studies which show that teens who are better informed on the risks of sexual diseases and pregnancy and on safe sex practices tend to make better choices, whether abstinence or practicing safe sex. By all means, argue against Palin’s hard line stance on sex education and reproductive rights, but leave her daughter out of it, because it is too personal and not actually proof of anything.

  31. 32
    Sailorman says:

    Personally, I can only but hope that Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy will do damage among the conservative religious maniac set. I have known a few religinuts and there was certainly a concept that one could/should judge more morality and effectiveness of parents by how their children acted. My friend couldn’t be elected a deacon (or was it an elder? something…) until his kids were old enough that he had proven his ability to parent.

    Now in my own personal view, the fact that Bristol got pregnant doesn’t necessarily indict Palin for bad parenting. Teens screw around. But it might indict Palin for inconsistency between her own actions and the actions she espouses:

    -If she ever tries to claim that pregnant teens are idiots, for example.
    -Or if she tries to blame it on other parents, though, say, a claim that teens get pregnant because they have too little parental involvement.
    -Or if she attacks society for “promoting” teen pregnancy.
    -Or if she blames teen pregnancy and young motherhood as a big problem in society.
    -Or if she complains about young mothers setting a bad example.
    -Or if she supports laws against, or otherwise attacks, sex outside of marriage
    -Or if she supports blaming parents for the behavior of their kids
    -Or, generally speaking, if she claims that something is not OK for her daughter but is OK for the rest of society. Or the reverse.

    Yeah, in those cases I think that trotting Bristol out is completely fair game. It’s not fair to Bristol, but since when do we value the sensibilities of a single person when weighing the entire country’s president?

  32. 33
    Silenced is Foo says:

    One simple question, though: if it had been Obama or Pelosi’s teen daughter with an out-of-wedlock child, how do you think the GOP and Fox News would be handling it?

  33. 34
    FormerlyLarryFromExile says:

    Following the same lines of thought as mentioned above, I think the media should investigate Chelsea Clinton’s sex life to see how well it matches her parents values. Maybe we can find something that can be spun into hypocrisy. Some things that Chelsea should be asked immediately:

    1) How old were you when you first had sex?
    2) Have ever had sex with anyone that wasn’t wearing a condom?
    3) When you give blow jobs do you consider it sex?

    The scenario is pretty revolting once the shoe is on the other foot and your political blinders are removed isn’t it? Hopefully, when this story blows over some of you (and most of the media) will still have the human ability to feel shame.

  34. 35
    Myca says:

    You’re 100% right, Larry. Anyone who attacks a candidate’s children should be drummed out of public life forever. It’s a low-down slimy thing to do, and the kind of politicians who engage in it are pond scum, pure and simple. I cannot imagine how anyone could, in good conscience, vote for a politician who did that and sleep well at night.

    “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”
    – John McCain, 1998

    “I have heard some of the news on this and so let me be as clear as possible. I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people’s families are off limits, and people’s children are especially off limits. This shouldn’t be part of our politics, it has no relevance to governor Palin’s performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. And so I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18. And how family deals with issues and teenage children that shouldn’t be the topic of our politics and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that is off limits.”
    – Barack Obama, 2008

    I hope you’ll bear this in mind when you’re in the ballot box, Larry.

    —Myca

  35. 36
    FormerlyLarryFromExile says:

    “I hope you’ll bear this in mind when you’re in the ballot box, Larry”

    Oh I certainly will.