Point #1: When abstinence-only education fails, what’s Plan B?Â Oh yeah, there’s no Plan B.
I have no idea what to make of the rumors floating around that Palin’s fifth child is actually her grandchild.Â Whether or not it’s true is largely immaterial to me; it’s a family matter.Â Nonetheless, if it turns out it is true and if it turns out the Palins concealed this truth from McCain’s vetting committee…
More problematic is the new revelation that Palin’s 17-year-old daughter is pregnant and that she plans to marry the boyfriend who is the father.Â Again, this would normally be a family matter I would care nothing about, but… this is a governor who advocates abstinence only sex education in public schools.Â In 2006, while Palin was running for governor of Alaska, she answered a write-in questionnaire prepared for the candidatesÂ by something called Eagle Forum Alaska [link].Â Question #3 asks “Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?”Â Her answer: “Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.”Â So, to paraphrase Tyler Durden, how’s that working for you, governor?Â I feel sorry for the daughter, but I have to admit to a certain schadenfreude at seeing the chickens come home to roost on a public servant who advocates such idiotic policies.Â If Sarah Palin had her way, your daughter could be the next young woman who receives no information on effective birth control.
Point #2: Should candidates aspiring to federal office have a basic grasp of American history?
In the same Eagle Forum questionnaire, Question #11 asks “Are you offended by the phrase â€œUnder Godâ€ in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?”Â (Nevermind that whether or not this is offensive is not really the point, but whether or not it is Constitutional.)Â At any rate, Palin’s answer: “Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and Iâ€™ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.”
I’ll let that sink in a minute.Â The founding fathers, I dare say, would cringe at the notion of a Pledge to start with.Â Anyway, the Pledge didn’t come into being until 1892 (written by Francis Bellamy, a private citizen).Â The Pledge wasn’t officially adopted by Congress until 1942, and the phrase “under God” wasn’t tacked on until 1954.Â So Palin was either speaking tongue-in-cheek, or she’s ignorant of history, or she’s willfully perpetuating misinformation in order to get elected.
Point #3: Don’t be afraid of information, but be very afraid of science.
In a brodcast debate in 2006 [link], candidate Palin said, with respect to creationism,Â “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”Â Well, why stop at “both”, gov’n’r?Â Why not teach ALL crackbrained, outdated, antiquated, debunked and rejected scientific theories?Â There’s no tug-o-war between creationism and Darwinian evolution in the scientific community, any more than flat-earthers are challenging astronomers or alchemists are clamoring for equal time with chemists.
After the debate, she “clarified” her position by saying “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”Â What Palin didn’t clarify is that the Republican Party of Alaska’s platform states “We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory.”
There’s more, of course.Â Google “Sarah Palin” and have yourself a field day.Â I’ve only touched on a couple of issues that relate to separation of church-and-state.Â The news updates fast these days, but I’m wondering if Palin will survive to the end of the Republican National Convention.