One thing is certain, she is the current Rock Star of the Republican Party. No one can generate a 'buzz' like Mrs. Palin.
And, of course, in politics, it's all about the 'buzz'.
Something she said caught my ear, however.
It was just a snippet of a conversation she was having with Oprah. She was talking about learning that she was pregnant for her son Trigg, and then learning that he had Trisome-21 (formerly known as Down's Syndrome).
She said something like, "I can understand why some women would consider abortion. I did. But, thank God, I chose to go ahead with the pregnancy."
My jawed dropped.
She "understood" a woman's consideration of abortion.
And - did you hear it? - she CHOSE to continue with the pregnancy.
It was her CHOICE.
No one forced her into it.
No one condemned her for it.
It was her CHOICE.
Whether it was the right choice or the wrong choice is not the issue.
It was her CHOICE.
Unfortunately, I don't think the lady has got enough gray matter cells in her cerebellum to be able to connect the dots between her choice not to abort and another woman's choice to abort.
I wonder if she'll ever actually listen to herself, rather than her own media hype, and get enough insight to be able to be a bit more compassionate and non-judgmental.
Then again, it's pretty obvious that she doesn't listen to anyone.
Why should she bother to listen to herself?
17 comments:
I remember thinking the same thing during the campaign. Katie Couric asked her if she thought women who had abortions ought to go to jail/prison or be deemed criminals and Sarah said, "No." My jaw dropped then. That is PRECISELY what overruling Roe vs. Wade would accomplish. Prior to Roe, the issue of abortion was left to the states. Most states made it illegal, and in so doing made it illegal through their criminal statutes. It was a crime. When you overrule Roe vs. Wade, that is what you allow the states to do again. Its also ironic because Alaska was one of the states prior to Roe vs. Wade that legalized abortion through the state legislature.
"I've been catching bits and pieces of Mrs. Palin's various "exclusive" interviews - which one was the 'exclusive' "
All of her interviews are exclusive. There's nothing about her that's "inclusive."
Matthew said "Katie Couric asked her if she thought women who had abortions ought to go to jail/prison or be deemed criminals and Sarah said, "No." My jaw dropped then." That's because she doesn't connect the dots between cause and effect. Just two independent thoughts hanging in that free space between her ears.
Most republicans don't listen to the logic of their arguments--there ain't any.
Under current law, she had a choice. Ms Palin is opposed to abortion, and would, I believe, seek to make abortion illegal. But given the current law, she had a choice, and she stuck with her principles and chose life. For her to say she chose to continue with her pregancy, given the current law, is not to say that she believes that choosing abortion is acceptable.
If abortion were made illegal, that would not require those receiving abortions to be jailed. Perhaps only the perpetrator of an abortion would be punished in some way. The law might be written in such a way as to require something of the person receiving the abortion, but not time in jail.
I saw an interesting bumper sticker a few months ago: "If its not a baby, you aren't pregnant."
Every evening, my wife chooses not to strangle me when I'm asleep, though I'm sure I often give her good cause. The fact that she chooses to let me live doesn't necessarily mean that, if able, she would enact a law giving wives the constitutional right to strangle their husbands.
"Katie Couric asked her if she thought women who had abortions ought to go to jail/prison or be deemed criminals and Sarah said, "No." My jaw dropped then. That is PRECISELY what overruling Roe vs. Wade would accomplish."
Not really. I know that the New Mexico abortion law nullified by Roe considered both the mother and her child victims of the abortionist, with no criminal liability on the mother's part.
Whether that was the case elsewhere, I don't know. But I don't recall any mass release of mothers from prison in 1973, when the killing of the unborn went from homicide to constitutional right.
(And please don't take this as an apologia for former Governor Palin. Even a broken watch is right twice a day.)
The point I am trying to make is that Mrs. Palin had the option to choose what is best for her, what her conscience directs. That's all any woman wants. And, TBTG, abortion is safe and legal. The point is, to keep it that way and continue to address the reasons women have abortions in the first place.
My favorite bumper sticker: If you don't want abortion, don't have one.
Here's a link to an article about an Anti-Abortion Group which plans to protest Mrs. Palin's position on abortion. They hear her loud and clear.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/11/american-right-to-life-abortion-protest-sarah-palin
I really, truly, do not understand how those who are "pro-life" can advocate for the mother not being punished (no jail time) but its all the abortionists fault. Would they make the same argument for infanticide (committed by another with their knowledge and consent). That is the essence of the bumper sticker mentioned by hiram (if its not a baby you're not pregnant). IF its a baby and you are an accomplice to its death, wouldn't you want the same punishment as live born babies? The fact of this argument being presented as serious, coupled with the fact that prior to Roe sentences were very light (if at all) compared to adult murder, all indicate the ambivalence our society has with treating the lives of the unborn the same as those born, despite rhetoric like, "its a baby" and "its murder." In addition, most abortion today is simply pills you go home and take. If we make abortion illegal, we will simply have another drug war on our hands and it will be as effective as the current drug war.
My second favorite bumper sticker (altho a bit long for drive-by reading) is:
"You trust me with a child but
you don't trust me with a choice?!"
My first favorite: "Prayerfully Pro-Choice"
The part that always floors me is they don't seem to understand that the alternative to "safe and legal" is "the uterine police." The public end of the right wing claims they don't want the uterine police. But if abortion is illegal, explain to me how any miscarriage can't be "a suspected abortion" and how that law could possibly be enforced unless women who miscarry are interrogated? I am pretty sure a large number of anti-abortion folks would find that an intrusion and appalling to some degree.
"But if abortion is illegal, explain to me how any miscarriage can't be "a suspected abortion""
The same way that every death isn't treated as "a suspected murder," even while it remains illegal
Strange how the pre-1973 world is turning into a projective fantasy with "uterine police."
No fantasy, Rick. Two states, Texas and Virginia, have in recent years tried to ram legislation through (that mercifully died in committee) that physicians were to be mandated reporters to either law enforcement or coroner/medical examiner offices for all miscarriages, at the threat of action against their medical licenses.
It was a ridiculous attempt at a law, because genetics being what it is, MANY women miscarry in that 4-12 week period for all sorts of reasons.
All deaths, Rick, are accompanied by death certificates, and thereby "reported to the authorities". States have laws empowering coroners' offices and medical examiners's offices in certain circumstances surrounding deaths.
In my state, the state of Missouri, certification of fetal demise is already done if the fetus reaches 20 weeks or 200 grams. The reasons for this are many, and mostly related to having teeth to investigate abuse to pregnant women.
But no, Rick, this is not "pre-1973 stuff." The mechanism is already in place for most states to change the focus regarding miscarriages if a group of people in power chose to do it, with only a few minor tweaks needed.
Thanks, Doc.
"The mechanism is already in place for most states to change the focus regarding miscarriages if a group of people in power chose to do it."
Of course, they may, if they wish. That's true generally, of any issue. But apparently they didn't, not even in Texas or Virginia, nor did they do so before Roe v. Wade.
It just strikes me as a little paranoid to spin out all these speculative horror stories when we can see that they had no substance when elective abortion was actually outlawed.
If people are out to take away your rights, it's not paranoia to try to protect yourself in adavance.
All you have to do is go to any of the Anti-abortion websites and read their platform. If they get their way (which, please God, they won't, but justice requires vigilance), not only would abortion be illegal but every miscarriage would become suspect and everyone would be subject to legal action.
The rage and fear are palpable and there is absolutely no mistaking anyone's intent.
It just strikes me as a little paranoid to spin out all these speculative horror stories when we can see that they had no substance when elective abortion was actually outlawed.
MORE horrible than the coathanger?! (Bicycle spoke, etc, etc, ad nauseaum)
It's hardly necessary to paranoid, to be horrified, rick.
[I actually heard an EWTN commentator a few weeks ago, talking about a nation thats anti-choice forces had triumphed---Nicaragua, I think?---concluding, "...and now they don't have abortions there anymore." AS IF!!! No, they don't have legal (and usually safe) abortions there anymore. Lord have mercy!]
Thanks, JCF. And, of course we know that nothing ever happened to any Jews anywhere in WWII Germany. Death camps? No, no, no. That's just rumor and myth. Now, will Health Care Reform bring death panels to kill granny? You betcha!
Post a Comment