Cara had a great post last week on how annoyed she was that antichoicers were portraying Sarah Palin's child with Down's syndrome as a heroic choice on the part of the vice-presidential candidate. Cara writes,
You know, it's the anti-choicers who use "it's not a choice, it's a child" as a rallying cry to force women to give birth. And yet here I am, as pro-choice as can be, really fucking annoyed that conservative assholes are portraying this very real, actual child as a political choice rather than the human being that he is.
Now today comes the news that Palin's 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. In the news release, the McCain campaign made sure to state that:
Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said.
While it's obvious why they made this statement to assure the public that Bristol was not coerced into keeping the baby (after all, she does have a parent who is a staunch opponent of the right to choose and is currently on the Republican presidential ticket), as my significant other pointed out, there's some serious hypocrisy at play here. I mean, John McCain and Sarah Palin don't believe women have a right to choose. It's absolutely absurd for the campaign to emphasize the fact that Bristol "made this decision," and then push for policies that take away that choice.
In reality, Bristol's actual "choice" was probably not whether to terminate the pregnancy or carry it to term, but whether raise the child herself or put it up for adoption. But the reason that the McCain campaign chose to emphasize Bristol's agency in this decision was to reassure the public that this pregnancy is not coercive. They know the public wants to feel secure in the knowledge that it was Bristol's choice to keep the pregnancy. And coming from the McCain campaign, which opposes a woman's right to choose, that statement is disgusting. As Kate Sheppard wrote in In These Times recently, during the 2000 primary McCain said that if his daughter got pregnant it would be a "family decision":
"The final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel," McCain said, referring to himself and his wife, Cindy. When reporters suggested that this view made him, in fact, pro-choice, McCain became irritated. "I don't think it is the pro-choice position to say that my daughter and my wife and I will discuss something that is a family matter that we have to decide."
In other words: My family and my daughter deserve a choice, but no other woman can be trusted with this decision. This fits nicely with the narrative on both Palin's decision to carry her Down's syndrome child to term and her daughter's decision to carry her own pregnancy to term. Their decisions are seen by the antichoice Republican base as affirmation that Palin shares their values. But the underlying message that each woman had a choice is a validation of pro-choice values.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sarah Palin and the meaning of choice.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/9014
I just read about Bristol Palin's pregnancy and announced marriage. It concerns me that she might have been pressured into keeping the baby, and it concerns me even more that she might have been pressured into marrying the father for the sake of political pandering (just because a good number of seventeen year olds, especially those with supportive families, legitimately choose to carry their babies, but I know of fewer teens in Palin's particular situation who choose to immediately get married).
But I dont' want to make an issue of it. The Palin family has asked everyone to "respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates.”
All right, fine, so my first uncharitable thought was 'This from the party that entertained itself for four years by making ugly jokes about little Chelsea Clinton'? But that doesn't change the fact that the young woman is a separate entity from her mother and her mother's party, and she has a hell of a lot on her plate right now without the rest of us scrutinizing the political motives behind her actions. I think the respectful, feminist, and humane thing to do is leave her out of it.
With that said, Ann makes some terrific points about McCain's response to the "what if" question and the Right's response to the Palin family's various choices. That angle hadn't even occured to me.
Now I'm going to go nash my teeth at Rightwingers. Or, uh, do homework. That.
"Their decisions are seen by the antichoice Republican base as affirmation that Palin shares their values. But the underlying message that each woman had a choice is a validation of pro-choice values."
Love this Ann! And there was a similar post in reference only to Mrs. Palin's choice in keeping her fifth child on the community blog. Glad to see so others picking up on something I hadn't really considered. Thanks!
Would Mrs. Palin's choice to keep her fifth child be applauded if Mrs. Palin were a poor woman? Or a woman of color? Or would she just be criticized for burdening the system.
I just find it ironic that someone who supports abstinence-only education's daughter became pregnant. I wish Bristol all the best.
I think more than anything, this proves that the right to choose has become ingrained in our society. If choice wasn't considered a usual option, then McCain, Palin, et al. wouldn't be using the language of choice.
I hope people understand what I'm trying to say here -- it would be just as easy to say 'Bristol came to the decision on how to deal with the situation on her own.' without invoking choice.
From the Palins' statement: "We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates." Riiiiight. This from a woman who forced her pregnant teenage daughter to endure public humiliation and scrutiny by deciding to join the ticket?
It seems to me that a more relevant issue is Sarah Palin's support for abstinence-only sexual education. Clearly this is an education policy that doesn't work even for it's own supporters.
I too wish Bristol all the best, but she would have been better served if she had received comprehensive sex ed. It would have kept her from having to make any sort of "choice" in the first place.
Their decisions are seen by the antichoice Republican base as affirmation that Palin shares their values. But the underlying message that each woman had a choice is a validation of pro-choice values.
Ann,
Not only is this true, but the very privilege that allows them to make this decision and be happy about it is completely lost in the narrative. The whole idea that these guys are so proud of their daughter for keeping the baby and so proud to be grandparents, completely obscures that this family is completely financially capable of doing all these things, and probably doing them well. The bravery and commitment their daughter shows here is not just a matter of personal strength, but a result of her social position...just like Jamie Lynn Spears'. Shit, there's no reason these families can't hire nannies while the young mothers go out to finish high school and college. Roughly 99.9% of Americans don't have that privilege, so to express pride in this choice or pretend it's a sign of support for pro-life politics is silly and blind to the context in which certain decisions are possible...
Oh the IRONY! Governor supports abstinence-only sex education. Governor's daughter 17 pregnant. Perhaps if Palin had supported comprehensive sex-ed, her daughter wouldn't be pregnant when it will undoubtedly be damaging to her political career.
(As unfair as it is, we all know the fundies are going to consider this as a failure on her part and the consequence of her audacity to put on shoes and leave the kitchen.)
not to feed into all of the 'faked pregnancy' rumors about sarah palin...but none of this adds up to me. if you look at the timeline and the events that occurred leading up to sarah giving birth, as well as the wierd fact that her daughter hasn't been in school for 8 months and now is pregnant? just seems a bit bizarre.
if it is true--best of luck to bristol. i can't imagine having to endure the public scrutiny she's going to go through.
This is a big slap in the face to their abstinence only education (if that is what she supports).
However, in reading this post I have finally come to understand how the right and left/feminists view choice.
Choice for the right means rasing the baby yorself or givig it up for adoption. It is not that they are "anti-choice" they just don't believe abortion should be one of the choices.
Choice for feminist means keeping the baby or terminating the pregnancy. I know that many feminists support adoption but when most feminist talk about choice they are talking about the right to end a pregnancy prematurely. They often forget that their is a third choice that can be made.
Something relevant, courtesy of my dad:
McCain's people claim he knew. Right. Turns out he didn't even send somebody to check the clips on Palin from the newspaper where she was mayor. As somebody said, he spent less time vetting her than is spent vetting a potential assistant manager at Wal-Mart.
HardCandy,
I absolutely see adoption as a choice. Though I see it as a secondary choice that fits under the broad category of "carrying the pregnancy to term." In other words, I think every woman has the right to choose whether to terminate or carry a pregnancy to term. And if she decides the best thing is to carry it to term, she then has a choice whether to raise the child herself or give it up for adoption. I wholeheartedly support each individual woman's choice to do any of the things listed above.
Sarah Palin isnt Hillary Clinton.
It couldn't be more obvious on the issue of choice.
Learn the differences, vote smart.
www.SarahPalinISNTHillaryClinton.com
HardCandy,
I would disagree with your statement that feminists forget that adoption is an option, and instead argue that most appreciate the constraints on adoption the way anti-choice people do not, at least in their rhetoric.
Anti-choice people love to say that there are tons of couples waiting to adopt, but this is only true for white, healthy babies. This means that many pregnant women know that if they "put their babies up for adoption" their children will most likely end up being wards of the state. Also, if a woman finds out that her baby is not going to be healthy, the chances of someone adopting that special needs baby are slim.
Also, anti-choice people completely ignore the repercussions of being pregnant, even if you do put the baby up for adoption. Some people would lose their jobs and their ability to make a living. Sarah Palin believes that rape victims should have to carry to term. So a fourteen year old who is raped should have to endure all that comes along with being pregnant at fourteen? Having everyone assume she is sexually active or telling the whole world that she is raped?
Feminists know and believe that adoption is a good option for some. Bristol Palin, being white and having government health insurance, is a good example of someone that could work for. But too often, the people who have the priviledge to control an adoption proccess are the same people who have the means to have the child, and the anto-choice movement just ignores everyone else.
MM, I totally agree with you on every point you made, and I'd like to add one thing: Society can be very hostile towards pregnant women who are giving their children up for adoption. Last week's This American Life from NPR had a piece on a woman who was putting her child up for adoption, and how the people who found out about it were openly hostile towards her (I highly suggest everyone listen to it, date 8/25 and about 27 minutes in). It seems like women who give up their children to adoption are treated even worse than women who abort. Abortion can be as secret as you want, but if you make the decision to adopt you have to tell your family, your coworkers, your friends, and random acquaintances who want to know when you're due, and may wonder, afterward, why you're childless.
Excellent article, though.
I was just reading about this over at CNN.com's Ticker blog. A lot of the comments boil down to either "She wants to be VP and she can't even run her own household," or "How is she going to care for a special-needs infant, a pregnant teen daughter and a grandchild with such a demanding job?" I absolutely think we should point out the irony of a pro-life, abstinence-only politician getting bitten in the ass by her own totally-unreflective-of-reality views. But I can't help but wonder if those people would be making such comments about, say, Senator McCain, if one of his younger daughters were in the same situation. That idea that it's the woman who's still primarily responsible for raising the kids, regardless of the demands of her job, is still deeply ingrained.
Teenagers getting pregnant out of wedlock happens all the time. I am not making comment about that. What does pose a problem here is the fact that Ms. Palin is an extreme right wing candidate who has been portrayed as the ultimate in Christian principles; maybe her selection was to play into the Christian right. Her church, the Pentecostal church says very clearly that sex before marriage is a sin. Therefore, Ms. Palin's daughter is a sinner? The right wing of the Republican party will try to make this go away by saying "at lease she is carrying it to term". Like Rush Limbaugh who somehow wasn't doing "drug drugs", they are going to say this young woman "did the right thing". I wish Bristol well, she's going to need it. The hypocrisy we are about to witness is breath-taking.
I too find it quite ironic that a child who is undoubtedly a product of abstinence-only education turns up pregnant. But what inflames me is what the hypocrisy of what the conservatives close to Palin and her supporters are saying: "La dee dah, we're all sinners, oops, Bristol screwed up, but la dee dah." What happened to the slut-shaming rhetoric they're so fond of spouting? Or does is that kind of talk only reserved for the children of LIBERALS? I mean, obviously James Dobson isn't going call the VP nominee's kid a slut, but you know what I mean?? How different would the language be if one of Obama's daughters revealed she was pregnant?
I am soooooo sick of conservatives...
Teenagers getting pregnant out of wedlock happens all the time. I am not making comment about that. What does pose a problem here is the fact that Ms. Palin is an extreme right wing candidate who has been portrayed as the ultimate in Christian principles; maybe her selection was to play into the Christian right. Her church, the Pentecostal church says very clearly that sex before marriage is a sin. Therefore, Ms. Palin's daughter is a sinner? The right wing of the Republican party will try to make this go away by saying "at lease she is carrying it to term". Like Rush Limbaugh who somehow wasn't doing "drug drugs", they are going to say this young woman "did the right thing". I wish Bristol well, she's going to need it. The hypocrisy we are about to witness is breath-taking.
Teenagers getting pregnant out of wedlock happens all the time. I am not making comment about that. What does pose a problem here is the fact that Ms. Palin is an extreme right wing candidate who has been portrayed as the ultimate in Christian principles; maybe her selection was to play into the Christian right. Her church, the Pentecostal church says very clearly that sex before marriage is a sin. Therefore, Ms. Palin's daughter is a sinner? The right wing of the Republican party will try to make this go away by saying "at lease she is carrying it to term". Like Rush Limbaugh who somehow wasn't doing "drug drugs", they are going to say this young woman "did the right thing". I wish Bristol well, she's going to need it. The hypocrisy we are about to witness is breath-taking.
@ SaraLaffs17:
My sentiments exactly. I just got an email, on a support Obama thread no less, from a guys who's wife was apparently "very offended" that Palin clearly wasn't taking her "role as a mother very seriously?" Um...I call bullshit.
Those comments would absolutely not be made about McCain, or any other male politician, if in a similar situation. Becuase it's not their job to take care of the kids remember? Gross.
Slightly OT, but one thing that bugs me is this constant "At least she's consistent! She had a Downs baby and decided to carry to term anyway".
First of all, what evidence is there that she knew in advance?
Second of all, seriously WTF? Like Downs children are this horrible blight on society that *should* be aborted? The language surrounding this issue is pissing me off seriously.
As for her daughter being pregnant, first of all HAHAHAHA! The irony amuses me enormously. Palin is a proponent of abstinence only education and her own daughter is pregnant? Hilarious. Not for the daughter of course, but the irony is delicious.
This really seems to me to be interesting timing. Covers up the possibility that she hid a previous pregnancy for her daughter nicely, doesn't it? Maybe she should open her medical records and put the rumours to rest, no?
The hypocrisy is amazing. Truly amazing.
The thing I really wonder is why McCain would pick Palin with all this going on. Isn't it going to piss off his base of religious wingnuts? Are they taking a dive and setting it up so that it can all be blamed on Palin? Honestly, wtf? This is baffling. The only thing I can think of is oil. Oil + Alaska. Something funny going on.
feralmann: The hypocrisy you are ABOUT to witness? Read through all these comments and you will find a huge amount of hypocrisy already.
It is not hypocritical for anyone to speak in terms of choice, even if they are pro-life. Choice is a legal reality, even for those morally opposed to it. No hypocrisy there (except the pro-choicers who seem to suggest she has not choice).
There is a huge assumption that she is the product of abstinence-only education. That may be true (I heard she may have been home-schooled, but I do not know), but how does that raise the issue of hypocrisy. If she had been raised under feminist doctrines, she would have been taught that birth control is an option, but she should not feel compelled to use it. As far as we know, she knew that, did not use, it, got pregnant, and decided to keep it. It seems like there is a lot of feminist shaming going on here for the sole purpose of condemning abstinence only education.
Furthermore, the slut-shaming talked about so much on this board is so twisted. It demonstrates a true lack of understanding of the views of the religious right. Saying this is a sin is nothing more than stating a particular standard to live up to. But, they also have a standard of redemption, which some people here view as hypocrisy.
Finally (and I could go on), the suggestion that this is any way a reflection on Ms. Palin is ludicrous. Under feminist doctrine, the actions of her daughter are completely her own. Ms. Palin has no legal standing to even BE AWARE of her daughter's pregnancy; her daughter could have aborted without her parents or the father even knowing.
The hypocrisy is here, on this blog.
-Jut
I'm glad that Obama took the high road on this topic and told people, his supporters included, that we should not be debating the personal issues of politicians. (He said, very unequivocally, that the personal life of Bristol Palin has no relevance on what kind of governor or VP Sarah Palin may potentially be).
While I'm 100% for comprehensive sex education, I am not sure that this case in particular highlights the cons of abstinence-only education. We have no idea if Bristol and her partner used contraceptives. For all we know, the condom could have broke. Point is, we have no idea.
And we are not entitled to know. I agree with Obama: we should leave Bristol alone. We should leave Sarah Palin's parenting out of this. We have no business passing judgment on her as a mother or questioning the decisions she made as while pregnant with her last child. We also have no business questioning whether or not she should have accepted the VP nomination in the face of her daughter's pregnancy and inevitable media spotlight - we were not privy to their conversations and we don't know how Bristol feels about this. And we are not entitled to know.
I do understand the anger about the seeming hypocrisy of the right wing ("My family has a choice, but you don't"). Let's celebrate the fact that they have a choice, because we've been fighting for it. Let's keep fighting - not to put them down - but so they come to realize that having reproductive choices is indeed a right that ANY woman, including their own daughters, should be able exercise without fear.
What does Sarah Palin want to do for America? What policies will she support? As a representative of our country, how will she approach tricky international issues? Will she be a good leader for our country?
These questions are the only ones fair for debate. Let the real discussion continue.
I think it's particularly interesting how pundits are claiming that Palin's choices as a mother are the way that voters should judge her as a potential leader. Pro-choicers have to skirt a fine line between protecting the privacy of the Palin family and understanding that she's a nominee that is dangerous to the feminist movement.
http://theory2life.blogspot.com/2008/09/whats-feminist-to-do.html
2 little things:
About McCain's comment on what would happen if his own daughter got pregnant -- maybe this is just me, but shouldn't it be HER choice what should be done? I'm not knocking talking it out with your family, if you're comfortable with that, but the decision is ultimately the decision of the person who is pregnant. So, yeah, I'm taking issue with the "we" in "a family matter [i]we[/i] have to decide."
Also, adoption is an option/choice, yes, but it is VERY true that women who give up children for adoption in this country take a lot of flack. Hell, I'm adopted. I've talked to my mom (the woman who raised me) about it, and she swears she could never ever "give her child away", in this horrified, disdaining voice that really blows my mind. I love my mom and all, but I wish she'd cut out the harshing on my birthmom (the person who carried me around for 9 months). I'd think more gratitude, less horror, would be in order.
John McCain and Sarah Palin don't believe women have a right to choose. It's absolutely absurd for the campaign to emphasize the fact that Bristol "made this decision," and then push for policies that take away that choice.
Yeah, that pretty much says it.
I have some other thoughts on some of the new conspiracy theories surrounding Palin, but they're all more or less summed up by that line. Great stuff, Ann.
Once again I am amazed. Men don't have to rain on our parade we do that ourselves. If one is a single issue voter most likely they will not vote for Sarah. Most women are not single issue voters.
If you want to know what Sarah is about read the latest Time article. This is her stance on being pro-life:
"She is Christian and pro-life, but also a supporter of birth control: she's a member of Feminists For Life (FFL), an anti-abortion, pro-contraception organization. In 2002, she wrote a letter to FFL stating that she had "adamantly supported our cause since I first understood, as a child, the atrocity of abortion." She supports the teaching of creationism in public schools, alongside evolution. "
Jut: "Finally (and I could go on), the suggestion that this is any way a reflection on Ms. Palin is ludicrous."
Several of us have pointed out here and (I believe) on other posts that it's unfair to hold Palin responsible for her daughter's actions, especially since a male politician would likely not be held to the same standard. But this news does have relevance with respect to her stated views on choice. Basically, Palin thinks the government should get to overrule my (and my doctor's) decisions, while she asks for privacy. I don't know about her own track record, but her party has an abysmal history when it comes to funding family planning, day care, etc. for women without access to private health care due to geography or economic status - while her affluent family will have no trouble caring for this unplanned baby.
I certainly hope we're able to walk the delicate line between criticism (in the dictionary sense) of Palin's positions and criticism (in the popular definition) of her family. But it's not hypocritical to ask the questions.
Really great points about the language of choice vs. life. And as far as its actually being a choice at all -- This is a girl who grew up in a pro-life, conservatively religious culture. Her mother opposes comprehensive sex ed in schools -- or "explicit" sex ed, as she called it when asked. My guess is that Bristol was never made fully aware of all her options or didn't see them all as equally available to her. Whether or not she was actively pressured to carry this pregnancy to term, or to marry the father, it's hard for me to believe that she made either decision with the clearest possible view of her ownership of her body and sexual/reproductive choices. I really hope that this was her call and that it works out for her.
(And if McCain is going to claim that he already knew about the pregnancy when he asked Palin to be his running mate, then they both really ought to express a little remorse for having dragged her into the national spotlight at a time like this. It would've been difficult enough for her to go through as a governor's daughter. And I doubt she was consulted about possibly wanting to maintain some privacy.)
When I read about this this morning, a part of the statement was something along the lines of, "We're obviously sad that our daughter now has to grow up faster than we ever wanted her to." (Strangely, I can't find it now....) I thought that was an interesting line, very telling: Palin doesn't believe in comprehensive sex ed, which teaches kids age-appropriate information about sex, but is fine with girls like her daughter becoming mothers at such a young age?
I agree with some above who have said that this shouldn't necessarily be a way of evaluating Palin's abilities. I said as much in a post that's on the community page right now. But there are circumstances where personal decisions do apply, as Kathryn pointed out to me there, and I think this is one of them. I also think Ann handled it quite well here, keeping it out of some of the gross sexism that we see elsewhere.
Here it is: "Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned."
Great post, Ann. And thanks for linking to Cara's post too. The hypocrisy in talking about the "choice" both women made to continue with their pregnancies when they would deny all of us the same choice just boggles my mind.
Drew Westen over at HuffPo has a good column today that addresses Palin's opposition to abortion even in the case of rape and incest. He says:
"the position she and others on the right have articulated gives every rapist the right to pick the mother of his child. That position is tantamount to a Rapist's Bill of Rights, which privileges the rights of rapists and child molesters over the rights of their victims. Those are McCain-Palin's "family values," and they are not mainstream American values."
Such hypocrisy.
She is Christian and pro-life, but also a supporter of birth control: she's a member of Feminists For Life (FFL), an anti-abortion, pro-contraception organization. In 2002, she wrote a letter to FFL stating that she had "adamantly supported our cause since I first understood, as a child, the atrocity of abortion." She supports the teaching of creationism in public schools, alongside evolution.
I don't know if you meant to, Debbie, but you gave me several reasons NOT to vote for Palin (As if I'd vote for McCain.) Membership in FFL and teaching creationism in science class.
This is off topic, and horribly beside the point but, has anyone noticed how unusual her children's names are?
Bristol, Trig, Piper, Track, Willow?
Just something to ponder...
Um, the choice she made could have been keep the baby or let it be adopted.
It is increasingly saddening that the measure of commitment to women for many is the willingness to embrace ending a conceived pregnancy in any or all circumstances. To the point where for some not only the first but the only alternative choice to keeping a baby that comes to mind is killing it.
D.C., I'm going to repeat this in the hopes that you just missed what MM and others have posted.
Keeping a pregnancy to term is not an option for all women. Many women don't have access to pregnancy leave and insurance and have to choose between their potential babies and their livelihoods. What are you going to do if you have a job but are making minimum wage, are out of sick and personal days, but you have prenatal doctors appointments to keep?
Plus, the increasing criminalization of women who don't deliver healthy babies (i.e. the crack baby "epidemic") could make women prefer an abortion than possible jail time if they deliver a drug-addicted baby. There's the stigma, that I think nightengale mentioned, of being known as a woman who gave their child up for adoption.
This is not a black and white issue and only the simple-minded think it's so simple.
Debbie, despite what the Time article may have said, FFL is not a pro-contraception organization. I'm quoting from the FAQ on their website:
What is Feminists for Life's position on contraception?
Feminists for Life's mission is to address the unmet needs of women who are pregnant or parenting. Preconception issues including abstinence and contraception are outside of our mission. Some FFL members and supporters support the use of non-abortifacient contraception while others oppose contraception for a variety of reasons. FFL is concerned that certain forms of contraception have had adverse health effects on women.
Our membership enjoys a broad spectrum of opinion that reflects the diversity of opinions among the American public.
We need to be clear in our understanding about the limits some in the anti-abortion movement would also like to place on access to contraception. "Non-abortifacient" means birth control that doesn't "cause" an abortion; that means one thing to me and another thing to others. It's a slippery slope.