game changer, indeed
by Sandra Kinne
Published: September 4, 2008
Before I even had a chance to react at the keyboard to Senator John McCain’s selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential pick - and trust me, there was a lot of reaction - the news broke about her 17-year-old’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy. I couldn’t keep myself away from the keyboard any longer.
The Republican vice-presidential candidate’s 17-year-old unwed daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. The Republican. That’s right, the pro-family, pro-life party. (As though Democrats are anti-life. These are people who are generally against the death penalty and want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals who kill people. And we’re anti-life? As if.) No, this time, it’s the other party. The abstinence-only advocating, sex before marriage means you will go to hell, no, you can’t make the choice for yourself, even if you are a 35-year-old, MBA-educated, executive at a Fortune 500 company, party.
As the Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama rightfully came out and condemned the online banter and media attention to this topic. As he told The New York Times, Obama said, “[Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy] has no relevance to Governor Palin’s performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president.” He reminded voters his mother had him when she was 18, and said, “How a family deals with issues and teenage children - that shouldn’t be the topic of our politics. I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories.”
The tradition in politics has always been to leave the candidates’ children out of the political fodder and off the gossip pages. This has been true of adult children of candidates, even when Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter and her partner had a child - even though the Bush-Cheney administration didn’t support gay rights, and technically, Liz Cheney’s child was born out-of-wedlock. It is noble of Obama to want to continue that tradition. It’s the right thing for a candidate to do.
However, these topics are the very nature of our politics. The single mother who can’t feed her child on minimum wage; the suddenly pregnant 20-year-old college student who relies on the continued existence of Roe v. Wade in order to make the choice best for her own private family matter; the gay couple who can’t adopt because they’re gay despite wanting to simply provide a loving, caring home for an unwanted child. The personal is always political, and this is no less a topic for political fodder than universal health care or gay marriage; these are all topics innately personal, yet decisions made by our elected officials, whom we choose based on their political positions and policies.
Republicans love to talk about how great abstinence-only programs are. How they are the best sex ed programs for our nation’s children. How they teach values, morals and the sanctity of marriage. If only they actually believed in them and practiced what they preach, too.
I agree we need the candidates’ children out of it; it’s too bad Rove and Co. didn’t do so in South Carolina in 2000, and it’s too bad John McCain made comments about Chelsea Clinton back in the day. This isn’t 6-year-old Sasha Obama losing a tooth and talking about the importance of dental care for all Americans. This isn’t 23-year-old Meghan McCain discussing her favorite blues songs and including in her Top 10 list “Sweet Home Chicago” and having some random, unidentified blogger construe this to mean it’s an ode to Obama, who lives in Chicago. This isn’t about a teenage Chelsea Clinton getting a bad haircut or braces. This is the potential VP’s 17-year-old, unwed daughter being 5 months pregnant. But try telling that to GOPers a few days ago. Try having one of Biden’s boys impregnating a 17-year-old, and see how quickly conservatives ignore the “this is a private family matter” rule.
No, this is not that big of a deal in 2008; it happens all the time. I’m not passing judgment on those who choose to have children in their teens or who choose to have children out of wedlock. A dear, dear friend’s 18-year-old also recently had a beautiful baby boy. Another friend married when five-months pregnant. As a 31-year-old single gal, my friends and I often have the “What if …” conversation - what if we hit a certain age and are still not in a committed relationship? Do we have a child on our own?
In this day and age, single parenthood is more the norm than the exception, and my own household was part of that norm. As the child of not one but two divorces, I have the view that two people who absolutely should not be together need not stay together for the sake of the children. However, Republicans seem to forget these matters and cast judgment on others, citing the moral failings of our culture whenever it’s convenient for them.
The Palins and their daughter made the choice for her to keep the baby. Seventeen-year-old Bristol and her boyfriend, or at least their parents, are making the choice to marry. They are choosing to make the best of this situation. Too bad Palin doesn’t support other women making their own choices for their own situations and bodies.
People make mistakes. As Mathew Staver, dean of Liberty University School of Law, said, “We are all sinners.” This is true. No one is perfect; everyone, especially teenagers, make mistakes. Now if only they didn’t have to be Republicans to be forgiven.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
September 9th, 2008 at 2:22 am
Sandra, if you’re not going to pass judgement on kids who want to have children in their teens, I will.
Attention baby-chasing teenagers: you’re all morons!