Sarah Palin is backing a ballot measure to bypass the Legislature and make it illegal for teenagers to get an abortion without telling their parents.
The governor said the only reason she's not sponsoring the initiative herself is not to give ammunition to her critics.
"I got a preliminary opinion from Law (Department) just giving me a heads up that critics would certainly file an ethics charge against me if I were to sponsor an initiative. So though I maintain I have First Amendment rights just as any other citizen does, I won't flirt with the notion of giving critics more ammunition to keep filing wasteful ethics charges against me, but instead I'll volunteer to be the first signature."
Sarah Palin is in hot water for speaking out against Ballot 4, relating to Pebble Mine and the Clean Water Act, which is the reason she started claiming her First Amendment rights, blah blah.
There's a world of difference between the two ballot initiatives. Pebble Mine stood to make huge financial gains by defeating the environmentalists. They spent $12 million dollars between what could be seen as bribes and publicity in order to secure a "No" vote. Sarah Palin's endorsement of their views clinched the deal.On the other hand, in this abortion initiative nobody will make any money, there are no financial interests involved. The people who would gain from it are controlling parents who don't have proper dialogue with their daughters and abusive fathers who would feel their abuse is validated by the state.
Article, Miami Herald
.
16 comments:
But practically speaking, what's the difference between sponsoring the initiative and this oh so cutesy little endorsement she's giving it? Can she not understand that being the governor limits her free speech rights?
I'm an Alaskan and have two comments on the posting. First of all there is no aspect of the Constitution that should include the response "blah blah", especially when it comes to the very amendment that allows this and other blogs to exist.
for the uninitiated:
The First Amendment reads:
Freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....
Secondly, Bribes that is slanderunless you have actual proof. If not be quiet.
Anonymous@18:46,
The Palin administration also declined to investigate ethics concerns raised by a Republican lawmaker who said mining officials had tried to buy the loyalty of native leaders, not least by paying $25,000 per month to house workers in the homes of influential locals. One of those houses is owned by Ethel and John Adcox, the parents of a close friend of Todd Palin, the governor’s husband.
At first I thought the right thing to do would be to contact the parents, but after hearing stories about abuse, it is not always what's best. I think they should be given proper counseling before, and given other options also. This reminds me that I should do what I usually do on most issues and accusations against other people, look for the truth and hear other opinions, not just mine.
Anonymous @18:46
It is deeply ironic and hypocritical that you would post about "free speech and the First Amendment" and then try to shut Regina's blog down with a threat ("be quiet").
Related to the "bribes" issue, her language said "could be seen as." That is the conditional verb tense in English, not the present verb tense which designates a statement. Can't you read?
There are some contradictions in this type of initiative.
First, it is the ultimate in government taking over medicine by not allowing a physician to exercise his or her best judgement in dealing with an underage client/patient.
Second, it will revive the number of non-medical attempts at abortion.
It does nothing to improve the relationships within a family that would lead to a pregnancy in a young woman/girl.
Great rebound, Regina! Great post!
I don't know how old any of you are, but I remember well when abortion was illegal. Women died, regularly, of botched, back alley abortions.
Whether they are legal or not, abortions will happen.
What gripes me, is we have the means to reduce the need for them. The morning after pill prevents implantation if fertilization has occurred. It is not abortion as some claim.
Taking extra birth control pills can prevent fertilization if taken at the right time - something easily taught, but not allowed in abstinence only classes.
Those against abortion are also against birth control and the education that will lessen the need for abortion.
Yes, in a perfect world, a young girl could discuss her situation with her parents. But what about the young girl who is pregnant by her father, brother, uncle, cousin, neighbor, foster brother, foster father, pastor, priest, teacher, counselor, or is homeless because she has been thrown out?
The discussion of when life begins is a religious one and does not belong in the legislature as different religions have different perspectives on this.
I see a little irony here. The doctor who is supposed to have delivered Trig is Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, who is the volunteer medical director of The Children's Place, Anchorage, Alaska. Opening up the website of The Children's Place, one sees, in red leters, warnings about children who have been sexually or physically assaulted. Alaska has one of the highest rates of rape and child abuse. What do you think that Dr. Baldwin-Johnson, Sarah Palin's OB would counsel a young girl who had just been raped by a close family member?? Go back to the family member who committed the assault for permission??
Kyra: I am old enough to remember those days. I would suggest watching "Dirty Dancing" to get a reminder of how things were in the past.
For those who haven't seen Dirty Dancing (one of my favorites by the way) one of the characters has a back alley abortion and almost dies of infection. She gets medical care and survives, but too often, women back then were too frightened to get care thinking they would get in trouble and so died of infection and if they didn't die, were often unable to have any more children.
When I was growing up, girls who got pregnant had to go to another highschool in case they "infected" the rest of us, or they were sent away to homes for unwed mothers. And those were the lucky ones whose parents didn't force them to get married or kick them out.
What I can't get over is Sarah Palin not understanding that in her position as governor, she is in a unique position of public trust and special ethics rules apply to her and to her family.
How she got away with claiming that Todd could do what he did as a "citizen of Alaska" I don't know. It's like sexual harassment. As her husband, he was in a position of power over state employees, so actions he took were NOT as just "a citizen."
She is being totally disingenuous when she claims that she should have first amendment rights just like anyone else when it comes to endorsing an initiative. She has a bully pulpit that no one else has and she knows it.
Is Palin unethical or just an ignorant amateur?
I'm leaning toward a compromise...unethical, ignorant amateur.
That's the only choice that seems to make sense in light of all the nonsensical things she says and does.
So here is another issue that is not being discussed.
Incest....
(and yes it does happen and it does occur)
Or
a girl that is beaten by her parents and is afraid of them.
Parental consent is a noble idea in principle. It is hideously impractical.
Most girls who get pregnant will say "my mom will kill me" but they also know that their mom will NOT kill them they are just scared. MOST girls will be able to tell their parents.
But what about those who literally cannot? They have rights too. What if you are so afraid, you have been so abused (physically or mentally) that you literally fear for your life if your parents find out?
They have no rights - is that the deal?
SP is a flaming loon and a raving hypocrite. She is a baby machine but not all of us share her desire to repopulate the world and have her husband and daughter raise those kids because she's too busy.
As far as libel? Yeah right ... how about this one.
SP is a lunatic that needs medical care and probably involuntary commitment. She appears to be a true psychopath in my opinion. A danger to herself and others.
Her advice sucks and her little flying monkey minions deserve her on a platter with an apple in her mouth. Fortunately the rest of the country realized that she is a disaster in human form and she had no business in public office.
Dear Flying Monkeys: She's all yours - you want her, keep her the hell out of our faces. She's freaking nuts...and so are her pathologic worshippers.
basheert,
You sure made me giggle :)
Jo, good point about the way things used to be. My husband, who generally agrees with me on most things (fortunately!), raised the point of parents NOT being notified of what he called only a "medical procedure," putting it in the same category with stitches, wisdom teeth removed, or other non-hot-button surgeries.
I pointed out that we have sons--not daughters. We've seen our sons through the noncontroversial medical procedures I mentioned, and more. Then I added that underage women from abusive and otherwise dysfunctional families who seek abortion without informing their parents generally have a very good reason. Their mother, their impregnators--a father or stepfather?--might refuse them an option to abort. These girls might be abused further as well.
He admitted that he'd never really thought this through, since the issue had not ever arisen for him or for his immediate (highly functional) family-of-origin. *Whew*!
Lots of people are like my husband, and lots more are very close-minded. Unfortunately.
Post a Comment