Palin makes her stance on abortion clear
In case there was any question about Sarah Palin's stance on abortion, this clarifies it:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, speaking at anti-abortion group's dinner, criticized President Barack Obama for supporting abortion rights and challenged the idea that unplanned pregnancies are a nuisance that can be solved by abortion.She asked the crowd to keep working for the "culture of life" in America.
There was some question when Palin appointed a former board member of Planned Parenthood to the Alaska Supreme Court, but let's not be fooled by those moves. She's staunchly anti-choice.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Palin makes her stance on abortion clear.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13184
I suppose asking Gov. Palin to read "Our Bodies, Our Selves" is bit too much.
Staunchly anti-choice, but believes she made a "choice"? I don't understand this thought process AT ALL. Personal decision = choice = more than one option. Come on.
"Palin's Personal Choice"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/19/AR2009041901997_pf.html
Basically, certain anti-choicers of the "Feminists" 4 Life ilk misunderstand the essential nature of the concept of choice, and borrow it in this misunderstood form.
Specifically, they want women to adopt their own priorities and sense of right and wrong when deciding what to do about a pregnancy, and think that such would still be considered that particular woman's choice in the same sense that pro-choicers use the word.
It's basically the abortion-rights equivalent of the rapist/rape apologist who says "why don't you say yes (when being forced to have sex), and then it won't be rape?" It's the expectation that the woman subvert her own desires in favor of accepting someone else's, and participate in its camoflage as "her decision." It's the idea that the problem would be completely solved if women would shut up about there being a problem---the simplistic, careless, and solipsistic worldview of someone for whom our concerns in a given direction are so invalid or unimportant that they might as well not exist.
All the clueless talking heads in the world cannot change the fact that it IS a nuisance---far more than a nuisance, in fact---to some people and at some times.
We are human beings here---we have our own diverse wants and desires and likes and dislikes and wishes for our lives, and not everyone wants or likes or desires a pregnancy or to bring children into the world---to say nothing of various practical concerns like money or health.
It takes a special kind of asshole to blithely declare that a group of people's opinions on something that greatly affects them do not exist, or can be waved away by her contrasting opinion, projected over people whom she refuses to know.
And, what, is she suggesting that pregnancies CAN'T be solved by abortion? 'Cause, um. Obvious?
Yeah, I was on the Huffington Post and there was this male pro lie person who said that, he was willing to vote for:
1. to end abstinence only until marriage education and allowed on comprehensive education to be taught,
2. state and federal funding for gyno exams for all teenage girls to menopause women,
3. birth control on demand without parental consent
so long as abortion is ban in all situation except immediate death for the mother. He continues by saying that it was not a religious viewpoint, that he whole heartly support all three options but both side had to make a compromise.
He keep on saying that he support the first three options but that the prolife group does not trust the pro choice side. He then ask that do we have a deal? When people commented and said no there is no deal even through they support the first three options, he asked why they want to denied our female populations healths option in order to allowed abortion to exist, even through he supports all three options.
Here is what he said:
I will vote for the following three provisions if you will vote for the final one.
I will support comprehensive, age appropriate sex education beginning in grade school.
I will support taxpayer funded gynecological visits and associated healthecare for all women from age 12-menapause.
I will support taxpayer funded birth control (on demand, without parental consent) for all females age 16 and older.
Now, your comittment: YOU will oppose and criminalize abortion in ALL circumstances except cases of imminent , irreversible physical danger to the mother.
Do we have a deal?
How would you interpret this? Do you think that this person supports these three options regardless of the legal abortions or is he lying through his teeth.
Thanks for the tired refrain. Try not to put too much thought into your response.
So, why no deal? Do you reject all the proposals? Do you NOT want education, healthcare and birth control for girls and women?
What is the "no deal"?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/mikefina?action=comments
I think it's possible that he does support those three options, but he also doesn't understand or accept all of the reasons why abortion needs to be legal.
This woman makes my head hurt. Isn't she the same person who CHOSE to have her son, despite his disabilities?
Sometimes I think too much and am a bit too logical, is there a pill that these conservatives take to stop the thinking and logic? Can it be used recreationally?
They took the blue pill. ;)
There's a huge discrepancy between the Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, and the Sarah Palin, potential GOP national candidate. In Alaska (I've only lived here 2 years) she used to be somewhat bipartisan. Not much, but certainly not as extreme pro-fundamentalism and bigotry as she is now where she wants the support of the national evangelical movement. Unfortunately her flirting with the national extreme right has also meant that Alaskan politics are at a stand-still, because she's no longer trying to get the support of the general Alaskan population but use her governorship to get support from the national far right. Alaska really needs to get rid of the governor who's not interested in being a governor. Her position as governor is used for national campaigning.
interesting. When I saw her speech I thought I heard her say how she had a choice. Only her and her doctor knew. She knew the child would have downs. She said repeatedly how she thought about it.
In which case Palin, whether she likes it or not, is pro-choice. Pro-Choice means if you don't want to have an abortion you don't have one.
Palin's problem, and it's a problem a lot of people have, is that she thinks that everyone ought to make the choice she made. It's a particularly ironic situation to listen to someone on one hand enjoy the benefits of having a choice and then going on to work to deny that to others.
This bugged me too. She basically said she thought about how having an abortion would have been better for her circumstances, and then decided against it for moral reasons.
To me, this an argument for choice, unless you believe wholeheartedly in also making other people's moral decisions for them, which I guess she does.
I don't think there's every been any question that she's anti-choice. I think there's some legitimate question about how flexible she's willing to be in her political life, and from what I can tell it's highly situational. I've been following Alaska politics pretty closely for a few years now (since before she was elected governor) and I think she's pretty incoherent about policy stuff. Sometimes she does something surprisingly okay, but not that often (I thought she did the right thing in backing down on the Juneau senate seat appointment, but my G-d the crap that she pulled to get to this point ... ), and I think that she's probably most accurately characterized by small-town cronyism and personal ambition.
Anyway, I'm surprised that you think there was any question about where she stood. If you were familiar with her before last summer you know she frequently made common cause with people she disagreed with about various things. She's doing it less now that she's spearheading the Culture Warrior wing of the GOP, but historically she's been pretty practical.
Palin's stance on abortion couldn't be clearer. Pro-choice for members of the Palin family, anti-choice for everyone else.
She's consistent. Same as her stance on earmarks, governors named Palin can have earmarks, all other governors get no earmarks.
Oh man, thanks for clearing that up, Sarah.
When I was following the election for my opinions column, I actually looked at all of the candidates' (prez and vice) pages to see what their views on abortion were. I think we need to look at everything factually. I think we need not be so concerned with someone's beliefs (because they will exist, even when we disagree), as whether or not those beliefs are coming from a sound place, or a place of criticism. while i do find palin to be a bit far right for my taste, analyze the speech of a barack obama interview that was displayed on his site during the election. i do not agree with the way he has handled the abortion topic, simply because he did not made his intentions clear in that interview. in it, he says that we must fight to lower abortion rates, and yet he votes for abortion. for me, those two do not go together. we could get into illegal versus legal abortion, but that would show how unclear his interview was. it's all about what the candidate is trying to convey or appear as, versus their actions. personally, i do not believe either candidate would be appropriate in such a position of power.
I don't see any inconsistencies between what Obama said and how he votes. One can want abortion to be completely safe and legal, while at the same time wanting it to occur less frequently, particularly through the access to contraceptives and quality sex education. How on earth are his intentions not clear in this way, and how on earth can the desire for fewer abortions coupled with the desire to keep abortion legal not be seen as consistent? That just makes no sense.
well i can say that Obama has been inconsistent. while Senator of Illinois, where I reside, he voted "present" 7 times on important women's issues, such as parental notification. 3 of the 7 were said to have been supported by Planned Parenthood. No explanation has been given for the other 4 times. I'd say that is more than enough evidence of inconsistency for me. This is exactly why I did not vote for him in the primaries, only in the general election. It helps to do some research into their voting history, as jacki009 mentioned.
The beautiful thing about Feministing is that they all are very clear on one point: that no woman should ever be POTUS until some far off merger of planets allows for the perfect woman to fall to earth and overcome their objections to this woman or that. None of the folks here went for Hillary, so that says it all, frankly.
Obama can give us a anti-choice chairman of the Democratic party and this does not say to the writers here that Obama is playing games with choice. Frankly Palin putting a pro-choice woman on the supreme court of her state is Very telling. Bush gave us Souter but talked the talk.
But yes, i see how terrible Hillary or Palin would be. Just God awful for a woman to be potus. Feministing has shown me that men RULE.
More like women should be appointed by the merit of their ideas rather than what sex they are, just like men...
I agreed. I voted for Obama in the primary because I didn't like Hillary's decision to vote for the Iraqi war but I still like her because she is a very qualified woman to serve as the first female president.
Sarah Palin on the other hand had policies that I don't agreed with and I have the right to not vote for her on this.
Moreover, the hate all feminist women from IWF, Concern women of america and feminist hate groups always talk about how a woman's place is to be a mother and good wife first. It should be her first priority. That is why they hate feminist because a feminist does not always think that her only goal in life is to be a good mom and wife. althrough there are feminist housewives.
Judging from Sarah's inability to supervise her children because the eldest son is in the military to avoid being in trouble and the eldest daughter just gave birth to baby out of wedlock, Sarah fails as a mom. So I don't know why the feminist hate groups still like her.
Hillary is a good mom and wife since Chelsea is a great person and she stayed with Bill even through he cheated on her. I think the feminist hate groups should support Hillary and Michelle Obama.
A conservative woman who puts her children and husband before her own needs cannot look at Sarah Palin lacks of parenting skill and still support her. Sarah had failed to put her children needs first and any conservative woman is a hyprocrite if she votes for a failed mother.
I wouldn't vote Sarah Palin any more than I'd vote for Phyllis Schlafly or Ann Coulter, and for much the same reasons. Given a choice between a man who supports egalitarian policies and a woman who supports misogynist policies, I'd pick the egalitarian man every time.
This isn't the same as "picking the man because he's a man". We are no longer in grade school; it isn't "boys' team vs. girls' team". Do grow up, please.
What I want to know is if she was “prolies” then why did she even think about aborting her pregnancy? The word abortion should not even enter her mind because she wants to censor that choice by banning it. So why did she even considered it? Why did the idea of abortion enter her mind even through she identified as prolies. Many prolies people opposed all abortions.
above comment: "More like women should be appointed by the merit of their ideas rather than what sex they are, just like men..."
Just like men??? Who ARE you kidding. men like Obama get elected b/c they are men, not b/c of their ideas. Obama took Hillary's ideas and sold them as his own and counted on anti-feminists like those on this site to back him up with silly talk like this.
Obama would NEVER have voted against the war if it had counted. (see Fisa, and Kaine, and Warren) But women who VERY much want to vote against a woman use excuses as those above to deny power to women. And shark fu wont' use the n word but slanders women everywhere with the B word. this site really is anything but a feminist site. It is male adoration at its height.
Bitter much?
So it was her idea to vote against the initial invasion of Iraq but I guess he voted that way first and she didn't want to be a copycat?
you know, I was for Dennis Kucinich in the primaries, but unfortunately for me (read: all of us), he pulled out of the race the week before Illinois' voting day because of what the media was doing to him (not inviting him to campaign debates, no media time, etc) so I had to make a different choice. It was difficult at first to me, judging by their campaign platforms, because they were 90% the same! The difference everyone wants to point out is that Hillary voted for the Iraq war. Let's keep in mind that everyone in Congress was receiving disinformation at that time. But I digress. The feminist issue that called it for me was Obama's record on voting "present" on women's issues in Illinois. Hillary never had to make such a distinction - she has been a huge supporter of women's issues, no question about it. So, Jill B, don't generalize - because I VOTED FOR HILLARY. I still feel very critical of Obama. Boo on him for not standing against the illegal wire-tapping, and boo on him for thinking twice on prosecuting those who ordered illegal torture. He is now 'thinking maybe' about it, but I'm not going to hold my breath on anything actually happening. I really doubt it, however much I am going to hope for it. I'm still going to thank my lucky stars every day though that it is him in that WH and NOT McCain!! End rant.
I would like her to define "culture of life". And maybe find me some medication for the aneurysm she has caused in my brain.
I guess we can just be thankful she's not part of the White House?
This isn't intended to sound harsh, but if you could possibly clear up your first section of your paragraph about Palin, it would be helpful. I'm not entirely clear what you mean by having her beliefs "come from a sound place".
Her beliefs on abortion don't appear to be coming from a sound place to me-- in fact, they seem generally inconsistent. The story of her son is a perfect example: if she considers the birth of her son a choice (as she has so publicly declared it), that means she must have had the option of NOT giving birth to her son. However, Palin is staunchly anti-choice, thus she has no reason to champion her giving birth to him as such. According to her own beliefs, it was the only possible outcome.
Lastly, I personally don't see an inconsistency between Obama's desire to lower abortion rates and a willingness to vote for abortion. (However, be warned that I've not seen/read the interview you're referring to. Maybe a link?)
Pro-choice does not automatically equate to pro-abortion. Just because a person is willing to acknowledge that it is a woman's right to choose whether or not she has an abortion does not mean he or she believes abortion is always the right course of action. Providing affordable and accessible methods of contraception and birth control is one feasible way of lowering the abortion rates, yet it provides no contradiction to the pro-choice stance.
Sorry! That was supposed to be in response to jacki009.
Worst part: I go to college in Evansville.
I find this quote most fascinating:
"So we went through some things a year ago that now lets me understand a woman's, a girl's temptation to maybe try to make it all go away *if she has been influenced by society to believe that she's not strong enough or smart enough or equipped enough or convenienced enough* to make the choice to let the child live"
Three comments:
1) Maybe she isn't "influenced" by society. Maybe she isn't equip to handle the baby. Like, say, a 9 year old or something. I dunno.
2) Maybe I just don't want to have a kid. As unsexy as that sounds, I like having that option. It's one of those options that men take all the time and no cares about that because it all falls on the woman.
3) I must admit, I'm taken in by her folksy, next door neightbor image, but at the same time, I still can't imagine why she's wouldn't think pro-choice would be the more compassionate option.
It really bothered me during the election how Palin was lauded for choosing to have her son although she knew he had Down Syndrome. As if all of us who are pro-choice would just run out and abort any baby who does not meet society's definition of perfect.
I think that you’re disgusting to command that my free speech should be silence because I disagree with her “choice” and her support for bans to all abortion. I have as much rights as Sarah Palin, and I shall not be silence because some women are offended that anyone dears to critique Saint Sarah. You’re disgusting, you really are. What is the matter with you anyways?
Saint Sarah has the right to disagree with me by advocating the banning of all abortion but if I dare to critique her, than a evil jealous bitch? For your information, it was Sarah who went around using her special need child as an example that she is not a part of the abortion loving feminist who will kill their babies every chance they got. You are very disgusting and ignorant of what happen during the election.
You will not scare nor imitate me into worshipping Sarah Palin that is not how I feel. She is not the second coming of Jesus Christ, the savor of the Universe, and the next Ronald Reagan. Stop this Saint Sarah worshipping, please.