So, let's see if I have this right: teen pregnancy is okay—"beautiful," in fact—as long as no abortion occurs and as long as there is a shotgun marriage. In addition, becoming a parent at 17 or 18 is preferable to a bit of accurate sex education and preferable to using birth control.

A full seven years ago, E.J. Dionne wrote, "It's better for unmarried teens to avoid premature sex than to use contraception, but it's better to use contraception than to get pregnant." I guess the revision we are asked to swallow is, "It's better to get married as a teen than to use contraception," even though 60% of teen marriages fail, and 80% do when the bride is pregnant.

Once again, we have a press-worthy pregnancy—17-year-old Bristol Palin. As one of my children used to say, "I have questions."

1. Why has this event not lead to a huge focus on the benefits of teens not getting pregnant in the first place? The best choice for teens is to delay sex (which apparently did not happen here), but the next best thing is to use contraception. Why is that not THE main topic? In my view, the plan that has been announced is LESS attractive—less desirable—than primary prevention.
   
   
2. Why is this pregnancy apparently okay—or at least off limits—just because a shotgun wedding is planned? Do we all really think that as long as teens get married there is no problem? Is that the best we can do?
   
   
3. Why is no one talking about the putative father who himself says he is not interested in kids? Babies and children need devoted fathers. Do we have one in the making here? When both parents actively seek and welcome a pregnancy, the future prospects of their children are much enhanced.