From Tapped:Now today comes the news that Palin's 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. In the news release, the McCain campaign made sure to state that:
Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said.
While it's obvious why they made this statement to assure the public that Bristol was not coerced into keeping the baby (after all, she does have a parent who is a staunch opponent of the right to choose and is currently on the Republican presidential ticket), as my significant other pointed out, there's some serious hypocrisy at play here. I mean, John McCain and Sarah Palin don't believe women have a right to choose. It's absolutely absurd for the campaign to emphasize the fact that Bristol "made this decision," and then push for policies that take away that choice.
If I were, say, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, or anyone else with a brain, I would be hammering home this hypocrisy starting today. Choice-for-me-but-not-for-thee takes on extra-special meaning when coming from people who support anti-choice public policies.
Monday, September 1, 2008
"PALIN AND THE MEANING OF CHOICE."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Very good observation.
So how could they have stated it? Either way, you would have slammed it.
Anon, given that the McCain/Plain ticket supports overturning Roe v. Wade (and by extension making abortion illegal), giving the daughter a choice at all creates a rift between both rhetoric and public policy and action.
There's not really much Palin could have said except "In keeping with my publicly stated beliefs about reproductive rights, I will be ordering my daughter to bear the pregnancy to term."
If she had done that, yes, I would have disagreed with the position, but at least it would have been consistent with her stated beliefs. Instead, by stating that it was her daughter's (who is a minor) choice, not only does Palin use the language of the pro-choice movement, but she is revealing herself as a hypocrite.
No, you are assuming the ONLY choice available is keeping the baby, or aborting it. She probably meant it was her daughters choice to keep the baby as opposed to giving it up for adoption. Abortion isn't the only choice.
1) Why would you assume I overlooked adoption? It's starting to feel like you're reaching unwarranted conclusions about what's going in my head.
2) It actually has very little to do with the content of the choice in question, and almost everything to do with the fact that Palin, who supports taking away choice from women in general, gave her own daughter a choice at all - and even used the language of choice to explain it.
They believe in removing ONE choice, but that still leaves several choices available. You are upset because the one choice YOU like may be gone. If several other options are still available, choice still exists.
Technically, you're absolutely right. There is still a choice.
However, it's clear we're talking about the choice to bear to term or not, and that's a choice Palin would take away from women. Interesting that she appears to have given her own daughter that choice.
Pretending that choice as a term still has meaning if the most significant choice has been taken away is either disingenuous or silly.
Post a Comment