Bristol Palin, Mary Cheney and the Limits of Family Privacy


The John McCain campaign says this is a just a private family
matter. Sen. Barack Obama says candidates’ families, especially
children, are off limits. But when family matters relate directly to
policy matters, they are fair for discussion.

Obviously, I am referring to the media coverage surrounding Alaska
Gov. Sarah Palin, the presumptive Republican vice presidential
candidate, and her pregnant, 17-year-old daughter, Bristol. Gov.
Palin’s family is asking for privacy, yet the policies of Palin’s party
do not protect the rights of American women to making their own private
decisions about unintended pregnancies.

The situation raises legitimate questions about Gov. Palin’s
positions on sexuality education, teenage pregnancy and reproductive
choice. Americans have every right, and American media the
responsibility, to explore those questions without exploiting the child
involved. After all, Gov. Palin had no hesitancy sharing the details of
her son Track’s entering the army, or her personal decisions about her
infant, as examples of her commitments to family. How could she expect
that her daughter’s decisions wouldn’t be put into play?

According to MSNBC, Gov. Palin has said that keeping the baby was
her daughter’s own decision. Really? In 2006, Gov. Palin said that she
would not support abortion even in the case of her own daughter
becoming pregnant from rape. I could be wrong, but I’m guessing that
there wasn’t much discussion about all of Bristol’s legal options when
she told her parents about her pregnancy.

I’m also wondering how much talk there was about sexual
limit-setting beyond "just say no" and contraception in the Palin
household. Gov. Palin opposes comprehensive sexuality education, and
supports abstinence-only-until-marriage education. If
abstinence-only-until-marriage doesn’t work in your own home, how can
you expect it to work for the country’s teenagers?

The research, as I’ve written in my books for parents,
is quite clear. In homes where parents talk openly about sexuality,
including their values about premarital sex, contraception and STD
prevention, their children are more likely to delay sexual activity and
to protect themselves if they do have sex. Comprehensive sexuality
education programs have a far better record
of helping young people abstain and protect themselves than
abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Perhaps Gov. Palin will now reconsider her (and Sen. McCain’s) positions on teenage pregnancy prevention.

"Family privacy" only goes so far. The Clintons were famously
protective of their daughter Chelsea’s privacy during their years in
the White House, and admirably so. Yet it was a legitimate issue for
public discussion in 1993 when the Clintons, after campaigning for
strong public schools, chose to send their daughter to a private school instead.

Then there was Mary Cheney in 2004. Cheney, no child, nevertheless
sheltered behind her parents’ indignation when John Kerry raised the
question of how the Bush-Cheney ticket’s opposition to lesbian and gay
civil rights would affect the vice president’s own daughter. Rather
than address the question, Cheney and wife Lynne excoriated Kerry
for violating their family’s privacy. Lesbian and gay Americans never
got a fair hearing after that. We must not let that happen this time.

My organization
recently wrote to both campaigns, urging them to support comprehensive,
age-appropriate sexuality education; access to affordable sexual health
and reproductive services, including abortion and adoption services;
and full equality, including civil marriage, for lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender Americans. The situation in Gov. Palin’s family must
not be allowed to shroud these issues. If anything, it makes addressing
them even more urgent.

This post first appeared on Huffington Post.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with Debra Haffner please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • invalid-0

    Debra Hafner links to another article with the statement that comprehensive sexuality education programs have a far better record than abstinence programs.

    So we read it and we find that the article Hafner links to doesn’t state that at all. It says nothing of the sort.

    We find that abstinence education doesn’t make much difference, but there is no data on the efficacy of other sex ed programs at all, and it becomes obvious that if any of them were effective there would be refernce to this.

    Sex ed, family planning services, and contraception are most available to kids in inner cities, and yet these are the kids with highest rate of STDs and teenage pregnancy.

    It would be fitting if hafner would bring forth evidence to substantiate her case rather than relying on unproven brazen assertion.

  • invalid-0

    Greetings,

    > Gov. Palin has said that keeping the baby was her daughter’s own decision. Really? In 2006, Gov. Palin said that she would not support abortion even in the case of her own daughter becoming pregnant from rape.

    So, in other words, you are accusing a presumptive vice-presidential candidate of The United Stats of America that she is maliciously and criminally coercing her daughter into having a child that you have evidence that was not her decision to keep. And of course, your research does not fit the criterion of evidence. I hope you have the real evidence to substantiate your accusation. If not, you are way outside the pale of what your first amendment rights afford you by slandering a highly respected public official with no criminal background and using only your reproductive health statistics to do so.

    Timothy+

  • invalid-0

    To imply that Bristol had a choice in this matter is what I would define as skewing the evidence. The evidence, based on Palin’s own statements, actions, and organizational affiliations clearly show that she does not believe in abortion EVEN in the case of rape or incest. So far, it has not come out that Bristol was raped or molested by this young man who will soon be a husband a father, she practiced unsafe sex and became pregnant. She most likely practiced unsafe sex because contraception, safe sex, and other pieces of information that are vital to protect against unintended pregnancy were withheld from Levi and Bristol because of ideology, NOT because of science.
    The notion that she had a choice in the matter when her family and church’s views are taken into consideration is preposterous.
    Those on the far right that infiltrate these blogs with such viciousness touting their no abortion under any circumstances view now hide behind the idea that Bristol had a choice because it is convenient. You can’t say day after day that there is no choice to make re: abortion and now say that Bristol had a choice and voice in the matter.
    At least be honest with yourselves because you certainly aren’t being honest here.

  • invalid-0

    Greetings,

    >You can’t say day after day that there is no choice to make re: abortion and now say that Bristol had a choice and voice in the matter.

    Yes, we can. We are merely asking you to be true to YOUR own ideals. You choose to be hypocritical and invade a young girls privacy instead. It is OBSCENE. It is actually you who are presenting duplicitously. We are just asking you to hold to your ideals and leave her alone. You can’t do that, though. It is satisfying to recognize how much of a threat the Palin’s are to the left. Why not give the girl the choice to be pro-life, if that helps you wrap your mind around the concepts you purport as true.

  • invalid-0

    Bristol was denied a choice. Her mother’s ideology prevailed. Her mother’s political ambition exposed a fragile teenager to public scrutiny and ridicule. I don’t see my Christian ideals portrayed in that scenario.

    • invalid-0

      I agree with this poster.
      I was raised in a Fundamantalist Evangelical church,
      and the very THOUGHT of abortion,(much less anything deemed ‘vulgar’) was off-limits.
      Palin is very much an hypocrite. Read the ‘she is getting married to the man…’ part and you will notice this incongruity.
      In fact, the original article was pointing out that
      Palin was against abortion even in situations of rape.
      It goes on to point out that her daughter was impregnated by
      a rapist. And now she is to keep the baby–and even marry the assaulter, if I am reading this correctly! What a burden for her to carry; a baby that most likely is not wanted.
      Most thinking women do not want a baby of rape. Adoption is a viable answer according to Ms Palin’s doctrine; why was this not mentioned?
      There are so many inconsistencies in this post (and most likely in all of Palin’s rhetoric) that one wonders what she TRULY stands for, except for the dogma of the religious right, and getting elected as the first woman VP. And now I hear that alot of women are switching their vote from the solid Obama issues and values to the McCain interests; it certainly pains me. Have they no values themselves?
      Either these woman have vapid brains, or they only wish a woman in the White House. Either way it is appalling to me.
      I am hoping and praying she will (and will be allowed to) have as a single mom a daughter with a baby–or adopt it out–just as many as for whom the next president needs to assert himself.
      I, for one, am sick of wishy-washy politics. Along with the mother politico leading the way here, via her daughter (like geting paid to voice her opinions and using her offspring as a scapegoat) is not Christian in any way.
      Our country has NO room for double standards, and it seems this is one has created to fit her needs, not God’s.
      How selfish can a mother be?! Palin worked long and hard on this issue, and cannot afford to lie. Or can she?
      Lies are pretty easy for the right wing, not to mention about having a baby–whether by abortion or adoption; especially when it is HER daughter.
      To me, abortion is a choice, as is adoption; if her daughter needs to make a concrete decision–without all the sycophants close by; not to mention the paparazzi….)
      she should be able to make it without the press’s microscopic eye. I rue the day when all veeps are untouchable, and any pregnancy is met with a shotgun or worse. Her mother’s one (so far) political ad shows her impatient and bothered by the whole situation. An abundance of women who can’t get pregnant watch in disbelief at this daughter who CAN, and weep for the outcome.

  • invalid-0

    For me, the real question is this:
    Are all young men & women entitled to comprehensive sex education or not?

    In my view, this is no different from teaching them about how germs cause disease. If they aren’t taught the importance of hand-washing in disease prevention, a large fraction of them will needlessly suffer from preventable illnesses.

    Does society have a responsibility to protect children from their parent’s ideology?

    Most would agree that if that ideology includes female genital mutilation, because of the lasting harm such mutilation brings, the answer is unquestionably “yes!”.

    Similarly, I’d argue that having a child at age 17 has a high probabilty of causing lasting harm to the young men & women who become the parents of that child – not to mention the harm to the child!

    Bottom Line
    Because it’s not very effective, Sarah Palin’s abstinence ideology is causing a great deal of needless human suffering. Our children deserve better. As a society we should require that all children receive a comprehensive class in sex education regardless of their parent’s ideology!

  • invalid-0

    Greetings,

    Paranoia or reality: What if a governmental sponsored ideology deviated from the one you desired to implement in the raising of your children but the government said you had to use theirs? This potential outcome, we as a nation, have come to protect against by affording parents very special rights to raise their kids the way they see fit, especially about highly personal matters that pertain to sex, as they directly relate to a parent’s constitutionally protected religious beliefs. The parents are also free to let or not let their children learn these things in schools. Excuse me. That is if you do not let live in Massachusetts, were it is now federally mandated via federal district court that all children going to public schools must be indoctrinated as compulsory not only in sex education but alternate life style education too. The latter has children as young as six years old role-playing same sex relationships. Coming to a state near you soon.

    Timothy+

  • invalid-0

    My Bible says “You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free.” I raised my kids to know complete truth about how babies are made and how not become a parent before they were ready. My oldest son was 30 and my youngest son was 37 before they became fathers, not like this poor 18 year old kid who is being forced into a marriage he cannot support emotionally or financially simply to save his future mother-in-law’s political career. According to his website, he didn’t want to get married.

    You’ve been watching way too much Fox, Buddy! Come out into the real world and discover TRUTH!

  • invalid-0

    It is the job of Child Protective Services to do exactly that. Protect children. That should include protecting them from misguided ideology. Abstinence only doesn’t work. Children need to be educated not only about their sexuality but about the realities of being a parent. Babies making babies can often lead to a lot of unhappiness. My mother was a dynamic young woman, a flapper if you will, involved in many clubs and activities in high school. In her senior year she got pregnant. In 1928 there weren’t any options that she knew of, she got married. She was trapped by the prevailing attitudes of her time, changed overnight from a vivacious teenager into a housewife and mother, way too soon. She would never admit it but she carried that resentment all her life. I raised my daughters differently and had hoped that those stupid ideas of the past had gone to rest. Unfortunately I see they have not. Sarah Palin is welcome to keep her opinions but she should not inflict them on her children or anybody else for that matter.
    Bob Lastiri

  • invalid-0

    Greetings,

    Well, I did not make a Christian argument I made all religious beliefs are protected by the Constitution argument, the truth in that verse is Jesus Himself, as being the way, the truth, and the life, anyway, and not any other truth that we mortals would have It be, good job using your parental rights, you have no idea what that young man is capable of other than he can get someone pregnant, that he can change his mind, and get married, all three of which we no right to deny him, and I do not watch T.V. My argument obviously stands, Lady.

    Timothy+

  • invalid-0

    Greetings,
    Everybody is welcome to give their opinions and we are all free to inflict them on our children or anybody else for that matter.

    Timothy+

  • http://feministblogproject.wordpress.com invalid-0

    “The latter has children as young as six years old role-playing same sex relationships.”

    You criticize the OP for a lack of evidence, and then you give this statement without proof? Double-standard.

    Furthermore, why is this worse than 6-year-olds role-playing opposite sex relationships? Just because you don’t like it? Well, maybe some of us would like our hypothetical children to be taught in school that homosexual relationships are okay. Maybe we would like our children to avoid having to struggle with issues of gender, sexuality, and choice the way we did.

    If I had children, I would want them to have a better, easier life than I did. And if schools were willing to be open about different kinds of relationships and life choices, I would really appreciate it.

  • http://feministblogproject.wordpress.com invalid-0

    “you have no idea what that young man is capable of other than he can get someone pregnant, that he can change his mind, and get married, all three of which we no right to deny him”

    Sure, he can change his mind. Maybe he changes his mind and wants to get married. But what if, 5 years down the road, he realizes he hates being a husband and father, changes his mind about his commitments, and leaves? Would you support his choice then? Why are you only interested in supporting his “choice” to get married without recognizing that he might “change his mind” yet again, this time with consequences for his ex-wife and child? And I’m not even talking about financial ones necessarily. Which would be more devestating for a child? For her/his parents to never have married to begin with, or to see her/his parents constantly fighting and angry with each other, and then witnessing the divorce process?

  • http://feministblogproject.wordpress.com invalid-0

    Linking sex ed to disease prevention is a GREAT analogy.

    I just wanted to let you know how much I liked this comment.

  • invalid-0

    YOU HAVE WAY TOO MUCH TIME ON YOUR HANDS, THE MAJORITY OF POSTINGS ON EACH OF THESE BLOGS ARE FROM YOU!

    YOU REALLY NEED TO STEP AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER AND GET A LIFE!

  • amanda-marcotte

    So either she coerced her daughter or is a hypocrite. I see no out for you.  If you support forcing women to bear children at gunpoint—which you do if you are, like Palin, "pro-life"—then you are pro-coercion.  Maybe Palin does make an exception for her own family.  Maybe she’s an elitist who thinks she has rights she won’t extend to you. 

  • amanda-marcotte

    The idea that it’s okay to reserve choice for your child but to force everyone else to have children against their will is elitism of the worst sort.  This is a democracy.  If Palin offered her daughter a choice, then she’s not committed to the belief that leaders are also citizens subject to the same laws.

  • invalid-0

    Greetings,
    Yes, but it is a paid job.

    Timothy+

  • invalid-0

    Greetings,
    Good try… but those are the parameters by which the author of the article inadvertently defined the discussion for me to address her not you to address me. However, I did have to think. I do appreciate that.

    Timothy+

  • invalid-0

    Greetings,
    The choice she has, Amanda, is the choice to be pro-life. That is a choice that is exclusive of the consideration of how those who are pro-choice define choice, as keeping or not keeping, as becoming or not becoming, or as intended or not intended. If she is pro-life, than you need to give her the privacy that your own ideals say you must. Otherwise, you are the one who is being an elitist by claiming that Miss Palin does not have the right to be pro-life and must first be pro-choice in under to weigh all the evidence, which is probably entirely irrelevant to her. She has the right to her views, and I imagine if you have children you would like to be entitled to yours.

    Timothy+

  • invalid-0

    “Yes, but it is a paid job.”
    What organization pays you to post here?

  • invalid-0

    “maliciously and criminally coercing her daughter”
    The child is a minor and not graduated from HS yet so it’s a bit difficult to know where you came up with the notion that anyone is accusing Mrs Palin of illegal actions at least in regard to her daughter. It’s a shame that Mrs Palin’s exploitation of her daughter is not illegal because it’s certainly disgusting.
    The pro (some) life movement is by it’s nature coercive and dehumanizing.
    You might want to stop trying to sound like a constitutional scholar or a lawyer when you try to threaten people, Tim.

  • invalid-0

    Nobody wants to go back to the fifties or sixties when young pregnant girls were hidden away in maternity homes and their babies (often by force) adopted away. Obviously, premarital sex has always gone on and it always will. But by the late sixties the numbers of teenage pregnancies were steadily increasing and “comprehensive sex ed” was introduced into classrooms nationwide. Since then teen pregnancies, abortions and STD’s have skyrocketed. Trying to take responsibility for sex ed away from parents and handing it over to the public schools has done dramatically more harm than good. Give the responsibility back to the parents. Encourage parents to trust themselves to parent their own children. Communication is crucial for strong families, but for Christ’s sake leave this poor kid alone. I’m starting to think whoever’s running this web site would love nothing more than to sew a scarlet A on the clothes of every member of the family!

  • invalid-0

    This (unnamed) person as I stated before, is just someone with too much time on their hands. I have never heard of an organization that would pay someone to voice their CRASS opinions on a blog.
    I also think that (unnamed)person is not from the United States because he/she clearly has no knowledge of how the United States Government is run, nor does he have any knowledge of the Constitution!

  • invalid-0

    “comprehensive sex ed” was introduced into classrooms nationwide. Since then teen pregnancies, abortions and STD’s have skyrocketed.

    Actually, they haven’t. Teenagers experienced the highest level of births in 1957. We have yet to reach those same heights (thank goodness). Abortions, also, have decreased in recent years. STD detection and treatment has become much better than it once was which accounts for many more cases being discovered (and thanks in part to comprehensive education, young people know what to look for and are given the confidence and knowledge to get themselves tested). However, many STD rates have ALSO decreased since the advent of comprehensive education.

    Trying to take responsibility for sex ed away from parents and handing it over to the public schools has done dramatically more harm than good. Give the responsibility back to the parents.

    Not only are you wrong that there has been more harm than good but you are also wrong that parents have had any responsibility taken from them. Parents are STILL primarily responsible for the education, including sex education, of their children. The first responsibility rests with parents to discuss this issue BEFORE their child engages in sex and to discuss it in an open way which fosters real communication (instead of instructing them to “just say no”). That public schools feel compelled to offer this education does not take away the parent’s responsibility. It is simply an acknowledgement that not all parents uphold their responsibilities.
    My own parents were of this group. They were literally terrified of talking about sex. They tried to censor all media so that I wouldn’t pick anything up about sex and then they refused to honestly answer my questions when I did have them. They became red-faced, told me I was “too young” to know certain things (which just increased their appeal), and then clammed up and refused to answer my questions. If it were not for my public education addressing sex education as part of a curriculum designed to turn me into a capable, contributing adult, I might have had many negative things happen to me. As it was, I learned about condoms, infections, testing, birth control, and also gender stereotypes, how to communicate with a partner, and how to say no effectively BEFORE I began having sex. If it had been left to my parents, I would have been at risk for contracting an infection.

    Communication is crucial for strong families, but for Christ’s sake leave this poor kid alone. I’m starting to think whoever’s running this web site would love nothing more than to sew a scarlet A on the clothes of every member of the family!

    First, the kid is evidence that the ideology and policies the family supports DO NOT WORK IN REALITY! Secondly, if this child were not getting married, which we have been promised is going to happen, how many conservatives would be wanting to brand her with a scarlet A? In fact, how many conservatives do you see ROUTINELY trying to shame young Women who become pregnant (particularly when they are poor or are of an ethnic minority)? It’s almost as if the Republican party is rallying around Palin because: A) The choice has been made and B) We can all turn our heads at the “fornication” because at least she’s going to get married so that makes everything, including the unrealistic policies, okay!
    The whole point of the article is not that the family should feel bad or shameful because the young Woman is pregnant but that the families of pulic officials are under scrutiny particularly when they demonstrate choices that the public officials, themselves, claim not to support.

  • invalid-0

    Jenna: “Since the mid 1960′s the percentage of children born out of wedlock had quadropled from 8% to 32%”
    author: Robert Rector
    published in: Intellectual Ammunition
    date: 1/1/1999
    publisher: Heartland Institute

    also:”Gonorrhea rates began soaring in the late 1960′s and peaked in the 70′s. Rates for syphilis increased for four straight years to 2.7 cases per 100,000 people in 2004. Also in 2004 the chlamidia rate rose to 319.6 cases per 100,000 up 5.9% from 2003″.
    author:Lawrence Altman
    published in: New York Times
    date: 11/9/2005

  • invalid-0

    “I also think that (unnamed)person is not from the United States because he/she clearly has no knowledge of how the United States Government is run, nor does he have any knowledge of the Constitution!”

    I think it’s also possible that he’s not completed HS yet or, more likely, was home schooled.

  • invalid-0

    Where were Mr./Mrs. Palin when her daughter Bristol was partying with her friends?

    http://www.stupidsheeple.com/index.php/2008090140/latest/bristol-palin-gone-wild.html

    WHITE+TRASH=REPUBLICANS

  • invalid-0

    “Since the mid 1960′s the percentage of children born out of wedlock had quadrupled from 8% to 32%”

    Children born out of wedlock and children born to teen-aged mothers are NOT THE SAME.

    The statistic you posted has nothing to do with your original comment on this thread. Also, quadrupled was spelled wrong.

    Think a minute about that ok? Children born out of wedlock increasing in recent years should NOT surprise you.
    And come on, you know children born to teenagers and born out of wedlock is not the same. DUH.

    Thus, it’s hard to take you seriously. Check your facts if you want to convince people. (Not that you could have.)

  • invalid-0

    “Nobody wants to go back to the fifties or sixties when young pregnant girls were hidden away in maternity homes and their babies (often by force) adopted away. ”

    This is not true. Serial adulterer and former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich actively advocates for just this sort of ‘solution’ as have MANY social conservatives..
    Attributing the rise in teen pregnancies to sex education is yet another display of atrocious ‘faith based’ logic.
    If parents like Mrs Palin were responsible Mrs Palin would not be punishing her 17 year old, unmarried pregnant daughter by hauling her around like an exhibit in a Evangelical Revivalist tent show.
    If the parents of her boyfriend were responsible they would not have produced a son who does not use condoms and announces on his myspace page that he does not want to “marry or have no fu**ing baby”)
    Abstinence only sex education does not work. Under ab-only the teenage pregnancy rate has increased. StD’s have increased. Deal with it.
    I do agree that it would be a great idea to leave this poor young woman alone. What a disgusting woman Mrs Palin is, to exploit her own daughter in this fashion for her own greed and ambition.

  • http://feministblogproject.wordpress.com invalid-0

    “If it were not for my public education addressing sex education as part of a curriculum designed to turn me into a capable, contributing adult, I might have had many negative things happen to me”

    I had parents like yours . . . and unfortunately, my public school provided abstinence-only sex ed. I didn’t know what a condom was until I got to college. And this was in 2002, when such information was easily available on the internet – I just didn’t know how to search for it, especially because my family shared a computer and my dad checked our browsing history on a regular basis. It’s almost surprising that I’ve never had an unplanned pregnancy or STD.

  • invalid-0

    estelluxx, I think your comment is directed at me (though I can’t imagine where you got the idea that I think teen births and out of wedlock births are the same). Anyway, sorry about the typo. It is also possible that at some point I may have used “teenage births” and “out of wedlock births” interchangably and you’re right. I shouldn’t do that. I shouldn’t assume anything. Obviously the point of my first post is that in the years since “comprehensive sex ed” first became a part of compulsory public school education out of wedlock births and STD rates among teenagers have skyrocketed. Jenna later commented that that was untrue, apparently believing that these problems were worse in the past. That’s why I posted the quotes. Certainly “comprehensive sex ed” has been a fabulous job creation project, but as far as actually preventing pregnancies or STD’s it’s a disaster.

  • invalid-0

    So once again we have a unmarried pregnant daughter (Bristol) following her mother’s example. Sarah Palin was unmarried when she conceived her son Track. Teen pregnancy is EVERYONE’S business as it an economic and social drain on our nation according to the RIGHT wingers.

  • invalid-0

    as far as i’ve heard, there’s no same-sex role playing going on in any public school (at least, not school sponsored role playing). there was, however, and episode of south park where stan and kyle were forced to role-play as same sex parents… perhaps you were confused? as for alternate lifestyles being taught, well, teaching children tolerance and acceptance is a far cry from indoctrination (not that it’s even possible to be indoctrinated into a homosexual lifestyle anyway… if it was, then all the gay people would have been made straight ages ago). i would say you are the one who is paranoid.

  • invalid-0

    so you say she had the choice to be pro-life, which no one is critisizing. she did have the CHOICE to be pro-life. the important part of this statement is the word CHOICE. that is what pro-choice MEANS (it’s got the word choice right in there!) unfortunately, what mrs. palin wants is to REMOVE that choice, thus, making her own daughter’s sacrifice (no matter your views on the subject, a 17 year old having a baby is sacrificing quite a lot) into something she HAD to do, not something she CHOSE to do.

  • invalid-0

    the out of wedlock birth phenomena has already been studied, and it was found that “out of wedlock birth” and “unplanned birth” are also not the same thing. it’s just that more parents are having children before (or instead of) getting married, not to mention same sex couples and single women who now have the ability to have a biological child. the stigma of being unmarried with children is gone, and with all the issues and expense currently surrounding the prospect of legal marriage, it should be no surprise that people are having children out of wedlock.

  • http://wisewomanexpos.com/ invalid-0

    This is horrendous. I agree very strongly with Deb, it is everyone’s business.

  • http://www.whatmakesfashion.com invalid-0

    Surely if the Republicans want to be serious about winning in 2012, they need to forget Palin.

  • http://handleyourgame.com invalid-0

    I do not have statistical evidence, but I tend to agree that education is very important, and that it can help to prevent pregnancy, and also STD’s.

    Although people have to make their own decisions, and will ultimately do so, it is important for them to be able to make those decisions with the proper information.

    By not providing that, we are short changing our youth… especially when we think that by not telling them will be more effective because we hope they won’t take action.

    If we don’t provide accurate information, they will get if from other sources, and usually those sources are wrong.

    Matt