Once again, we have a press-worthy pregnancy—17-year-old Bristol Palin. As one of my children used to say, "I have questions."
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
Perhaps there is no discussion of anything other than the accepted "old-fashioned" way of dealing with it because that's how the GOP would like it to stay?
Why bother talking about promoting contraceptives, rather than abstinence (that has been proven to not work when taught in schools as opposed to teaching contraceptive measures), when you have a prime example of what the GOP would like people to do in the case of an unplanned teenage pregnancy RIGHT THERE in front of the whole nation.
Voters age 30 and over are still very familiar with the concept the immediate answer to unplanned pregnancy being a shotgun wedding, and perhaps the GOP is counting on that. *shrug*