Couple hypotheticals…
- Close your eyes and imagine Barack Obama’s beautiful 9-year old daughter, Malia. Now imagine her 7 years older, 6 months pregnant and unwed. Would she be labeled as a courageous young woman with strong family values? Would evangelicals rally behind her? Hmm… I'm thinking NO WAY, but that's just me.
- Keep your eyes closed, but now imagine a Sarah Palin presidency with respect to reproductive rights. Roe V. Wade overturned. Abortion illegal, even in the cases of rape and incest—a position that even Cindy McCain opposes. Abstinence taught in schools (along with Creationalism! But that’s a different story). Funding cut for programs that benefit teen moms (see image below)… which would include her own daughter, Bristol. That is, if Bristol were any of the other 749,999 pregnant teens whose story wasn’t being exploited as a Family Values platform by the RNC.
4 steps back. 0 steps forward. And you know what stings the most? All this regression will come at the hands of one of our own, a woman.
(Props to Field Negro/ArtMaggot for the first image)
Related:
Freakonomics - The Numbers on Teen Pregnancy
The Field Negro - Sarah Get Your Gun
Jezebel - Ask Not What Bristol Palin Can Do For You, Ask What Sarah Palin Can Do For Your Pregnant Daughter


woah! I think you've hit the nail right on the head. It never even occurred to me to reverse the roles (hypothetically), and you're totally right.
Palin BLOWS. SO. HARD.
Posted by: jpastor | September 04, 2008 at 09:05 AM
Yeah. Right on, Ryan. Actually the media (right leaning) already referred to Michelle as the "baby mama" of her and Obama's daughters. I figured that this use of African American English was their nasty way of injecting race into the campaign and insulting the Obamas. Haven't yet seen that moniker used by them for Palin's 17 year old (not yet born) baby mama.
Posted by: CNKeach | September 04, 2008 at 01:13 PM
Ha! Imagine what the GOP would do if the "elite media" (as they've started calling every station except for Fox) began calling Bristol Palin Levi's "baby mama"... such a good point.
Posted by: RyanB | September 04, 2008 at 02:01 PM
I stumbled upon this blog searching for ... I can't even remember ... a few days ago.
Under a Palin presidency, if that were ever to happen, Roe v. Wade might be overturned. That's an issue of judges, whether we get ones that adhere to the Constitution or legislate based upon what they feel is 'right'. I'm of the breed that believes life begins at conception, but am pro-choice; this is a state issue, and if it were overturned, rest assured there would never be a Constitutional amendment banning it.
Second, Palin does not have the power to make laws, Congress does. If the SC finds Roe v Wade unconstitutional, there would be no federal banning of abortion either (it would be overturned on the grounds that it is not something that should be regulated federally). Palin personally believes against abortion in all cases, but I have never heard her state this as something she'd inact as policy.
And if Palin is conservative, as she claims, then maybe she'd like abstinence taught in schools, but she'd have no say of it ... because, it's a state issue. But I'd think, maybe I'm wrong, shouldn't abstinence be taught too? I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but if you don't have sex you can't get pregnant? Sure, some still will, which is why both need to be taught (perhaps this is evident with her personal situation ... some kids will do it anyway).
Creationalism! Isn't it already taught in some respects? I mean, I remember having a subject on religion and perhaps there was some touching upon their beliefs. I'm not sure what really needs to be 'taught' about it. I mean, have your biology class just mention that some believe in creationalism and that means ________. Or at least emphasize evolution is an unproven theory. I'm pretty sure I just assumed everything I was told was fact, rather than theory.
Funding cut for programs that benefit moms. Why should I have to pay for programs that benefit moms? Or why is someone who doesn't have kids taxed to pay for these programs?
:) hope you enjoyed my rant
Posted by: John | September 07, 2008 at 04:18 PM
Very good point, Ryan. Since when do conservatives & evangelicals support teen pregnancy. The hypocrisy kills me.
Posted by: Manny Stevens | September 08, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Nice article about teen pregnancy. =)
Posted by: discount pharmacy | August 05, 2009 at 02:14 AM