Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Questions for Sarah Palin

If I could ask Sarah Palin one question, it would be: “What is the capital of South Ossetia?” This would be a highly unfair question, as I don’t know the answer myself. In fact, like practically everyone else, including many people who have shared their wisdom about South Ossetia (or is it East Ossetia?) on TV gab shows and op-ed pages over the past couple of weeks, I had never heard of the place until a couple weeks ago. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see how Palin deals with the question.

If I could ask two questions, my second question would be this: Gov. Palin, do you agree with the Republican platform plank on abortion? It reads, in part, “we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.” At the moment, it is clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections DO NOT apply to unborn children. What would it mean to make clear that they do?

Well, the Constitution guarantees all "persons" something called “equal protection of the law.” Much of the important constitutional litigation of the past half-century has been over the meaning of those words. They can’t mean exactly what they say. The law obviously distinguished between, say, criminals and innocent people, or soldiers and civilians. So what forms of official discrimination are forbidden by the 14th amendment and what forms aren’t? The easiest example has been racial discrimination. Discrimination by race is why the 14th amendment was enacted.

Legislation, of course, can’t “make clear” anything about the Constitution. Only courts can do that. But courts can be influenced by Congress, so what would it mean to apply the protections of the 14th Amendment to “unborn children.” It would mean that no law or official policy could discriminate between fetuses and post-birth human beings. The test is simple: Could you pass a similar law discriminating between blacks and whites? No? Then you couldn’t do it for fetuses

So, to take the easiest example: all abortion would be flatly unconstitutional. It would NOT be a matter left to the states, as many right-to-lifers claim to want. Can a state pass a law saying it is OK to kill black people, although it is not OK to kill white people? Then states can’t pass a law saying it’s OK to terminate a fetus. Many right-to-lifers want to shut down abortion clinics and possibly prosecute the doctors who perform abortion, but stop short of wanting to prosecute women who obtain abortions. They say such women are actually victims, not perps. But if the Republican Party platform has its way, that distinction will be unconstitutional. A woman who arranges for a doctor to terminate her fetus would have to be treated just like a woman who hires a gunman to kill her born child. And if that woman lives in a state where she could get the death penalty for hiring a gunman to kill her child, the state would have to apply the death penalty under otherwise similar circumstances to a woman who aborts her fetus. That’s what “equal protection of the laws” means.

None of this is speculative or exotic interpretation. It is basic first-year-law-school stuff. Yet the same language has been in the Republican platform every election year for decades, now, and it has never been taken seriously by anyone, including the people who wrote it. It’s just there to pacify the crazies. But, in fact, it accurately captures what the world would be like if we decided as a nation that fetuses are human beings and adjusted our policies accordingly. Every Republican running for office, not just Sarah Palin, needs to be asked whether this is a world he or she wishes to live in -- or, more important -- wished to force all the rest of us to live in.

By Michael Kinsley  | September 1, 2008; 12:06 AM ET
Categories:  Kinsley  | Tags:  Michael Kinsley  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: John and Sarah's Uninvited Guest
Next: Gustav's Politics

Comments

I love you man.

Posted by: James King | September 1, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

Aside from your unnecessary dig about the capitol of South Ossetia, which has nothing to do with your main point, you raise some good legal questions. Here are some ethical questions that I'd love to hear Mr. Obama answer:

1. When performing a late-term abortion, how can it ever save the life of a mother to turn the baby around inside the womb, deliver it feet first and insert a sharp object into the base of its brain just to avoid a "legal" birth? Wouldn't it be safer and quicker for the mother to just deliver the baby?

2. How do you reconcile burning a fetus with salt (something I wouldn't do to a slug on the street) with your opposition to harsh interrogation (torture)techniques like water-boarding?

3. If a premature baby is viable outside the womb, why can't you say that same baby deserves the right to life inside the womb?

4. Why did you vote to deny babies who survive abortions the equal protection rights granted by the 14th Amendment?

5. How do you feel about government agencies and Planned Parenthood targeting low income areas (including African Americans) for abortions?

6. What is it about abortion that makes you want to die on that hill? Really! Why not adoption? Or even sterilization for God's sake (That's ridiculous, I know - and some lib commenter will bend my words out of context - but is abortion any less ridiculous? Or has it become a cruel and unusual normality?)

7. As dogmatic as you are on abortion, how do you know that you are not on the wrong side of this argument, the way that the slave-owners were in the 1800s?

Mr. Kinsley, you seem to be stuck on the legal questions, when it is the ethical questions that matter most. Laws can be rewritten, but murder will always be murder and human life will always be sacred. Every anti-war protester would agree with that. Even Mr. Obama.

Or maybe not.

Postscript: I find it amusing that you are going after the vice-presidential candidate so harshly, when the presidential candidate holds basically the same views. I wonder why that is. . .

Posted by: Jenn | September 1, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/

Posted by: David | September 1, 2008 2:16 AM | Report abuse

Thank God, Sarah Palin and JoHn McCain are not lawyers. No need to worry about ..."basic-first-year-law-school stuff".

I believe our country suffers from too many well schooled lawyers

Posted by: James | September 1, 2008 2:16 AM | Report abuse

I would have thought that the author of this pathetic piece would have succombed to aids by now.
what a disgusting diatribe from a sanrky, silly quiff of a man.

Posted by: J Harrinton | September 1, 2008 2:32 AM | Report abuse

Geez! The so-called self righteous Christians are so quick to wish ill on others. Look what is happening to the Republican convention after they wished rain on Obama's acceptance speech.

Posted by: Veronique | September 1, 2008 2:53 AM | Report abuse

Mrs. Palin's son has Downs syndrome. He has one extra chromosome, 47 instead of the normal human 46. Mathematically speaking, his DNA is more different from a standard human than a chimpanzee's is.

Since he is less human than a chimp, should he be denied A14 rights, too?

Should those with non-standard DNA be treated as animals? Or as property?

Posted by: Meitenot | September 1, 2008 2:53 AM | Report abuse

Thank you! This column helps point out the inconsistency and lack of sincerity in the pro-life movement that makes it so hard to understand. I meet more and more women who've had abortions, currently use birth control and yet identify themselves as pro-life becsue they think its a valid ideal with no thought of the legal and ethical ramifications of what they're supporting. I have had two friends in the past four years become pregnant and tell me, "I believe abortion is murder so I decided to have a miscarriage instead." Both men and women need to really think about what they're voting for before they take a quaint Kantian stand on these kinds of issues and attempt to make those beliefs law.

Posted by: IH16 | September 1, 2008 3:09 AM | Report abuse

Thank you! This column helps point out the inconsistency and lack of sincerity in the pro-life movement that makes it so hard to understand. I meet more and more women who've had abortions, currently use birth control and yet identify themselves as pro-life becsue they think its a valid ideal with no thought of the legal and ethical ramifications of what they're supporting. I have had two friends in the past four years become pregnant and tell me, "I believe abortion is murder so I decided to have a miscarriage instead." Both men and women need to really think about what they're voting for before they take a quaint Kantian stand on these kinds of issues and attempt to make those beliefs law.

Posted by: IH16 | September 1, 2008 3:09 AM | Report abuse

Thank you! This column helps point out the inconsistency and lack of sincerity in the pro-life movement that makes it so hard to understand. I meet more and more women who've had abortions, currently use birth control and yet identify themselves as pro-life becsue they think its a valid ideal with no thought of the legal and ethical ramifications of what they're supporting. I have had two friends in the past four years become pregnant and tell me, "I believe abortion is murder so I decided to have a miscarriage instead." Both men and women need to really think about what they're voting for before they take a quaint Kantian stand on these kinds of issues and attempt to make those beliefs law.

Posted by: IH16 | September 1, 2008 3:09 AM | Report abuse

Thank you! This column helps point out the inconsistency and lack of sincerity in the pro-life movement that makes it so hard to understand. I meet more and more women who've had abortions, currently use birth control and yet identify themselves as pro-life because they think its a valid ideal with no thought of the legal and ethical ramifications of what they're supporting. I have had two friends in the past four years become pregnant and tell me, "I am pro-life and believe abortion is murder so I decided to have a miscarriage instead." Both men and women need to really think about what they're voting for before they take a quaint Kantian stand on these kinds of issues and attempt to make those beliefs law.

Posted by: IH16 | September 1, 2008 3:11 AM | Report abuse

It would appear to me that you are one of the crazies.

Posted by: S | September 1, 2008 3:15 AM | Report abuse

I'm sick of these "pro-life" hypocrites. Maybe they should pass their law and live with the consequences. That's the only way the stupid can learn.

Posted by: MNJAM | September 1, 2008 3:16 AM | Report abuse

Ask Sarah if she knows how to find Washington on a map? Then ask, of which country is it the capital city?

How about: Which language is spoken in England? (You must not give Sarah any hints.)

If you are expected to attend a hockey game or visit Europe which item will receive your priority? (PS it is OK to tell her where Europe is and what it 'is'.)

Posted by: Robert James | September 1, 2008 3:21 AM | Report abuse

If I could ask McCain a question it would be: Why did you choose someone who does not think global warming is a large concern?:

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126139.html

I just watched an hour long sycophantic infomercial put on by CNBC interviewing Sarah Palin on why we desperately need to expand oil and gas drilling in Alaska.

WHY is it so hard for americans to see that it is time to seriously get off oil before our dependence REALLY bite us on the a**?

Posted by: BillR | September 1, 2008 4:09 AM | Report abuse

What a brutal punch that was.

A court that could bring you Dred Scott could do anything.

Maybe the pro-lifers can start angling for a communist society where fetuses and people are declared property of the state.

Man, that must really gall them that corporations are granted 'personhood' under the 14th.

I wonder if there is anybody named Feedus A Fetus?

Posted by: K Ackermann | September 1, 2008 4:35 AM | Report abuse

Conservative Authoritarianism: varying forms of sexual, physical, psychological sadism such as: Compulsory pregnancy. Compulsory child birth.

Meanwhile: no health care for mom or child, no birth control, no sex ed, no child care, no paid parental leave, no living wage, no benefits, no social support, no safety net, no help for struggling families, parents, children AND unending cycles of chronic family violence, child abuse, unemployment, multi-level stress, PTSD, drug abuse, unending poverty and crushing oppression of the mind body spirit soul.

Yeah: that sure sounds like what Jesus would want.

Posted by: Pro-life until they're actually born | September 1, 2008 4:40 AM | Report abuse

Frankly, I'd ask Sarah Palin why did she chose to build a 2000 seat sports centre in a town of 5000 in the midst of 2000-2001 recession. The price tag was about 15 million. This is what I understand to be three of their annual budgets (maybe, I'm wrong on the budget there, since I don't know muni finance that well).

It's not a vain question: as a mayor, she managed to increase both debt, taxes and operational expences (the centre operates at a loss of about 1mil/year with a city on a 5-mil budget). I have to say that the debt is actually being repaid with the icrease in taxes, which is good; but, effectively, this sounds like her own bridge to nowhere to me. I don't want to do character assasination here, but I just want to make sure I understand the logic behind her biggest executive decision in what is being branded as an executive part of her career.

Posted by: Andriy Tanatar | September 1, 2008 5:12 AM | Report abuse

There are a lot of questions I would love to ask Senator Obama which fit right into your questions. However, I already know how he will answer - It is above my pay grade.

Posted by: Gene Guffey | September 1, 2008 5:13 AM | Report abuse

And the third question could be whether she's imitating Julia Roberts as Erin Brockovich - http://www.ukquad.com/erinbrockovich.JPG

Posted by: Ruthmary | September 1, 2008 5:41 AM | Report abuse

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/31/145838/319/386/581332

I would ask the questions:

Who is the Daddy?

What is Sarah Palin's opinion on Teenage Pregnancy and under-age sex?

What is Sarah Palin's opinion on Sweeping an embarasing mess under the carpet?

Should a mother of a teenage pregnancy mom be so callous as to prevent her daughter from loving her child because it embaresses grandma and may affect grandma's political ambitions?

Posted by: walker1 | September 1, 2008 5:44 AM | Report abuse

Vociferous, erudite Communists\Democrats love Death and Lies believing them to be Life and Truth. The word "hypocrisy" cannot be applied to their subhuman system of belief. Hypocrisy is for humans.

Posted by: Jordan | September 1, 2008 6:22 AM | Report abuse

Whats the deal with these pictures?
http://hottiesinthenews.blogspot.com/2008/08/sarah-palin-hot-pics-you-cant-afford-to.html

Posted by: Steph | September 1, 2008 7:32 AM | Report abuse

You have the right to bear arms. You can't pack heat if you are in the womb. You can't give a fetus a 44 magnum.

Posted by: gunguy | September 1, 2008 8:01 AM | Report abuse

Pro-life until they're born: Thank you!
The one consistent thing we've seen from this past 8 years is the complete disregard for all human life past the womb: lying us into war that has ended so many American and Iraqi
lives and destroyed and crippled so many others. Torture. Attempts to roll back habeus corpus. They're not human beings unless or until the Republicans say they are!
Were their no pregant women killed in Iraq?
If you don't care about them, how about their fetuses. No, this is the most anti-life crowd who has ever been in charge of the White House. God will judge.

Posted by: Pro-Human Being | September 1, 2008 8:05 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Kinsley

I'm a citizen of India where abortions are illegal (except in early pregnancy for rape victims, or if the mother's life is in danger). While that doesn't prevent illegal abortions (I believe India and China are at the forefront of killing female fetuses), I'm personally anti-abortion.

That doesn't prevent me from noticing how stupid your article is. I mean you yourself observe that a soldier and a civilian should be and are treated differently in law and then proceed to state "The test is simple: Could you pass a similar law discriminating between blacks and whites? No? Then you couldn’t do it for fetuses" without any reason for the claim. Rest of your article is based on that claim of course.

To see how stupid that claim is let me elaborate. A child of age ten for example can not be allowed to drive on a highway. However by your logic even a viable fetus must have the right to a driving license (if it can pass the test of course, the thing is as far as I can see the whole idea is ridiculous) since an adult and the fetus must be treated equally under the law. A child can not be allowed to own a gun, but by your logic she must be. A child can chose to enter medical experiments, the way several adults routinely do. But by your logic they must be allowed to.

I mean it should be obvious that even a child ten years old can not have the same rights as a fully grown adult. Even fully grown adults of unsound minds do not have the same rights.

The right to life is a special right, doesn't require any exercise of judgement on the part of the owner of the right (actually puts tremendous responsibility on others) and, unlike several other forms of rights, doesn't restrict the rights of other individuals (for example the right to liberty of a know serial killer is at odds with other people's right to life). I would accept if you state that even pre-born fetus must have that right. However you do not make that argument, you go and make arguments that even children do not make.

Posted by: Vinayak | September 1, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

I was thinking that for the Vice Presidential debate, they should just give Biden and Palin a world map with none of the country names written in. Each would have a half hour to locate every country with whom the US has pressing business and to name the head of state along with a one sentence explanation of the possible conflict. They would then have 15 minutes each to highlight 10 of their identifications and to expand on their understanding of the conflict or issue. I'm sure that was covered during Palin's time as mayor of Wasilla and shouldn't present a problem.

Or maybe we could just focus the whole hour on the Constitution. That's okay, too. Either or.

I care more that the Vice President has a firm working understanding of the US and its enemies/allies and a firm understanding of the Constitution than how they stand on moral hot button issues. Being anti-abortion is not going to help Palin if McCain is incapacitated and she has to make a decision about, say, Pakistan. Or South Ossetia. Or anywhere else south of Juneau.

Posted by: BJA | September 1, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Palin isn't going to want to highlight the abortion issue during the campaign, because it'll just lead to more burning questions about her son/grandson that the campaign mysteriously still hasn't addressed. I think the McCain campaign is just going to ride on her anti-abortion reputation and hope it brings them votes in November. Pro-life is the only clear policy position that this VP candidate is bringing to the table. Apparently they hope this and the empty talking points (meaning with no substance) Rove is passing out to Republicans to parrot on the news shows is enough to "energize" staunch conservatives who have been totally turned off by the party. Even the word "energize" seems like a talking point that some hacks are repeating on the blogosphere. I mean really, what REAL person says "I'm energized by the pick of X candidate"? It was sad to hear Gov. Pawlenty repeat drivel about Palin's "executive experience" on Meet the Press. He's probably thinking, well not this year, but I'll tow the party line and try again in 2012. Otherwise, how could he repeat the talking points with a straight face? These days voters are savvy enough to recognize canned talking points for what they are and won't buy into a line just because it's repeated over and over again by people who don't even look like they believe what they're saying!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 1, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

To Jenn:
An "unnecessary dig about the capitol of South Ossetia?" This is the "governor of the only state that borders Russia" - you would think she'd be up on this stuff...

The GOP has ushered in the era of Supermarket Sweepstakes Candidacy - drop your registration in the box at the cash register, and you may win one of over 1,000 public offices!

Posted by: Catfish | September 1, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

A fertilized egg is not a person. People who say otherwise are irrational.

Fetal viability, and the protections afforded viable fetuses, are things that are important and worth discussing.

The people who think every fertilized egg ought to be extended 14th amendment protections are simply extremists.

Posted by: searp | September 1, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Tell me again what B.O. has accomplished?

I'm having trouble finding any concrete evidence of any change that he can point to and claim that he was solely responsible for.

I see posturing and steps taken that are self serving in his quest for the presidency.

Sarah can point to cleaning up Alaska politics, B.O. can point to pleading the case to state and city officials to benefit his slum lord mentor/finance committee member.

Posted by: B Ayers. | September 1, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

This guy just hates women!

Posted by: omnusra | September 1, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

How can questions be asked while Sarah Palin is kept in the Cone of Silence?

Where are the interviews, aside from PR appearances?

How is that Palin gets a free pass on scrutiny, yet everyone else goes through the primary process, including the debate process, to help people assess their qualifications?

Posted by: somerseten | September 1, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

This is all about men wanting to control women via the heretofore sacrosanct US Constitution.

Posted by: elaine1 | September 1, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Cone of Silence = Cover up

It's only a question of time before everyone finds out why

Posted by: Anonymous | September 1, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

It is highly ironic that Sarah Palin has been hailed for her "choice" to bring her fifth child into the world. Don't get me wrong, as a Catholic personally opposed to abortion,I congratulate her for that decision and admire her stand. My point is that she DID have a choice, but seems prepared to deny other women that same freedom.

Posted by: Richard | September 1, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Why do so many lefties default to religion-bashing when there is no evidence of religion in the posts they are addressing? Is that not bigotry?

Thanks, Viniyak, for the INTELLIGENT comments. Your post should appear alongside Mr. Kinsley's article instead of down here by all these rantings of crazed partisans who cheapen the seriousness of the debate. It wouldn't happen, though, because your logic cancels out his whole article.

Posted by: Grant | September 1, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

To borrow a line from another blogger; I keep wondering when Nobama is going to ask Alabama and Florida to help Gerogia fight the Russians? I mean we've got 57 or 58 states we can afford to lose a couple, right?

Posted by: SS | September 1, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

*******A NEOCONS DREAM********


As a Vietnam veteran and a Political Science major, I just can't wait to see do-do McCain as President of this declining country. Will he be holding hands with Palin as they pray on the White House lawn waiting for a sign from God?

Let's see, what will the agenda be?

1. give the Federal Government control over women's bodies and their ability to choose for themselves

2. infuse the government with more religion in every sphere so that we will eventually become a theocracy like Iran

3. minimize minorities, homosexuals, liberals. Set-up interment camps in strategic locations throughout the United States

4. build more churches, at least three per square mile. Capture apostates and convert them. If unsuccessful, send them to the interment camps

5. close all institutions of higher learning, except for Bible colleges, especially if located in the South

6. erode the rights of individuals further in a stealth manner gradually so that the ignorant citizenry of the United States won't realize what's happened until it's too late

7. create a commission to destroy all media that is unrelated and nonsupportive of the goal, ie, a religious theocracy of the United States

8. all future politicians and attorneys will have to have a religious education background and degrees from "approved" religious institutions

9. we will continue to remain aggressive, unilateral and beligerent in our Foreign policy, emulate the Romans and invade, destroy and conquer for the benefit of others

****ALL THE ABOVE IS A NEOCONS DREAM*****

Posted by: sanity | September 1, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Hey Robert James,
Let me ask you a question; which thumb are you sucking and which one is up you butt...I bet you answer that you alternate.

Posted by: ss | September 1, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Why do so many lefties default to religion-bashing when there is not a shred of evidence of religion in the posts they are bashing? It is bigotry plain and simple.

Posted by: Jenn | September 1, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

I am one of those people who believes that abortion is the killing of a fetus -- wrong and to be avoided. But, I also support the choice of a woman to choose because I am not so arrogant to think that I have an inside track on what is right. We have to make life and death decisions at many points in life - military service, capital punishment, vaccination, etc. - so I see this as another hard choice that I will not usurp for another person. That said, what troubles me about Sarah Palin is that she is being touted as a paragon of family values for having born her son to term, but no one seems to be asking "who's minding this little boy right now?" There has long been an argument made that right to life supporters are vocal in telling women what to do, but they are not out there adopting the unwanted children. Sarah Palin delivered a baby less than three months ago, and now she's embarking on the campaign trail. Once she had him, I fear, the political point was made and he can be turned over to the care of others. Let's be very careful about applauding this as a model for conservative family policy. The decision to have a special needs child (I have three) involves a commitment to providing the additional special care that the child will need to thrive. Sometimes, often actually, personal preferences and ambitions have to be put aside for the well-being of such a child. Apparently Mrs. Palin does not think so, and in embracing her choice, the conservatives appear to be denying the importance of engaged parenting. Does anyone else see a conflict in this? It troubles me.

Posted by: Naomi | September 1, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Yes indeed - ProLife until thery're born, then if they're arab or gay, nail'em to the stockades and fry their miserable ungodly asses! Yeah!

Palin = transparent effort to beguile right wing sheep into believing that the Republican parties monumental economic and foreign catastrophes can be swept under the dress of a neo-con gun-toting small town 44 year old
political wannabe.

Posted by: John Roman | September 1, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Sanity,

First, thank you for your service to this country and for defending our freedom of speech and all of our other freedoms that we, for the most part, unknowingly enjoy. Secondly, if think Mr. Nobama will be any better then you are very much mistaken...unless you like paying more taxes, more for healthcare, more for food, more for just about everything to support the bigger government that is here to take care of all the little babies that can't (won't)find a job! You sir need to wake up to the real danger...bigger government.

Posted by: ss | September 1, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

A well defined debate that will never reach the floor. The only issue is" who decides", and to take the responsibility of the person who must bear the consequences of their choice and condemn it via bureaucracy to arbitrary punishment is not the way of freedom. The government should have no right to force women to bear children nor force doctors to make medical decisions they know conflict with their knowledge and training. If individual living humans are to have rights then all including pregnant women are entitled. The notion that such rights can be abrogated by government enforcers is abhorrent to freedom and justice.

Posted by: Dale Netherton | September 1, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

The pro-life groups are in deed a very inconsistent in their beliefs. They are anti-abortion but they are supporting a president who has caused the death of over 4000 men and women of our military. They claim to be pro-life but support people who are against healthcare for all Americans. They said that morals are important but supported a group of people who have violated the very commands of the Bible itself. They said that they belief that all life is sacred but forget that death is indeed part of life. They are in all purpose hypocrites

Posted by: Terry | September 1, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/31/145838/319/386/581332

I would ask the questions:

Who is the Daddy?

What is Sarah Palin's opinion on Teenage Pregnancy and under-age sex?

What is Sarah Palin's opinion on Sweeping an embarasing mess under the carpet?

Should a mother of a teenage pregnancy mom be so callous as to prevent her daughter from loving her child because it embaresses grandma and may affect grandma's political ambitions?

Posted by: walker1 | September 1, 2008 5:44 AM

*********************

I am outraged that any responsible parent would let this vile rumor continue. The presses should stop and traffic should halt if your kids are being attacked like this. How about the rights of the born?

All Moms know what happened to Megan Meier because of lies on the internet. Sarah Palin should squeeze in defending her kids between her campaign stumps.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 1, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Pro-choice advocates (myself included) have long argued that decisions of this nature are between parents, family, and medical professionals. It is not my concern how Ms. Palin and her family determine to respond to a given pregnancy (perhaps excepting when such a decision demands greater social involvement or expense). Nor does it seem reasonable that persons who would make certain decisions for themselves demand that government adopt their position and enforce it upon those who believe differently. Other modern countries have settled and resolved their "abortion" debates along this line. What is hard to understand is why it's the Republican party (the one that wants to keep government out of people's lives) keeps this issue alive year after year. Unless cynically they wish to keep social conservatives aroused; nah, they wouldn't do that!

Posted by: Jazzman7 | September 1, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Terry, you are so correct in what you say here.

ss: thanks to the Republicans this country is now far worse-off than ever, the economy, healthcare, social security, medicare, infrastructure, jobs.

You can shut your eyes, but it won't go away.

Posted by: sanity | September 1, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

ss:
You are living with an enormous government system now. You will be living with it in the future, unless you move to Alaska and secede.

Posted by: sanity | September 1, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Here is what I have to say about abortion if you don't beleive in it don't have one.

The nonsense that people keep talking about is do you honestly believe that people have no problem with it. Of course not it is something that a woman has to think about. Moderation is the best way late term no of course not if a child can live on its own then it should if not then no. But this talk about it is something that these women want is nonsense.

If you want we could make all aboration illegal BUT now someone has to pay for the child. That someone should be the ones who are pusihing it I don't want to pay.

So sign away your life taking care of the child if you don't make enough money well you figure it out.

Posted by: Ant | September 1, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

As a former pro-lifer, I can tell you that pro-lifers are quite happy to force a woman to carry a pregnancy--but would sooner bathe in needles than fund free health care so she can survive the pregnancy. See, murdering fetuses is wrong, but letting poor women die from lack of prenatal/postnatal health access is totally cool. After all, it's her fault for being poor, and she's probably some immigrant anyway.

Posted by: shelly | September 1, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

To James- Our country doesn't suffer from too many lawyers. It suffers from uneducated people and people who feel that spending years in school and money to become a professional is not what the American Dream should be. Excuse those that don't want to work in factories for life.

Posted by: Nicole | September 1, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

The question I would ask Palin is, "given that you have a new baby with special needs, why do you choose to go on the campaign trail instead of taking care of that baby during this crucial time in its development?"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 1, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Pro-lifers need to get a life. There are plenty of American children languishing in group homes, foster care, If you want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnacies, count me in, so long as "family planning" and "sex education" includes advocating birth control. But leave my womb alone.

People who are so strongly against abortions shouldn't have them. Women who don't want a child shouldn't be forced to give birth to one.

Posted by: V_Mitchell | September 1, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

I oppose any anti-choice candidate. What Palin did or do not when she became pregnant is her business, not the government's. What also worries me about Palin is that she supposedly wants creationism taught in schools. The US is already seriously lagging other countries in scientific education. Give the republicans and their "values" candidates 5 years and we will be well on our way to becoming a banana republic.

Posted by: Elena | September 1, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

One three part question for Sarah Palin:
Since you admit that you "haven't thought much about Iraq"
a) Does this mean the thousands of American lives lost in this war are irrelevant to a confirmed pro-lifer?
b) Realizing that Alaska is geographically removed, shouldn't you, as governor of a US state or at least as an American care about a war we've been engaged in for 6 years costing all those lives and trillions of dollars?
c) Since purportedly we entered the Iraq war because of a very real threat to our national security, how do you compare your instincts and judgement as Commander-in-Chief to Obama who, as a member of Congress, opposed this war while you blithely ignored it?

Posted by: Chloe | September 1, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

The right wing also wants to extend the protection not just to the fetus, but even to the fertilized egg. This would make drugs that prevent implantation of the fertilized egg illegal and their use equivalent to abortion and murder. The fertilized eggs used for artificial insemination would be full citizens and their destruction would be a crime.

There are simultaneous efforts to criminalize family planning and to make family planning difficult by allowing doctors and pharmacists to decline care to anyone they choose. The net effect is going to be more unwanted pregnancies, more abortions, and more dangerous underground abortions.

Posted by: fletc3her | September 1, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Dear Sanity,
You captured it all. What are we going to do? If McCaine and his gang gain control (and they are ruthless), what to do? We can't move to the colonies and start a new country dedicated to freedom for all and democracy as our chosen form of government. We did that..and look at the sad mess we are in now. We already been usurped.

Posted by: Gustina Davis | September 1, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

So, can anyone tell me if all those Big O
Flags that the kool aid drunken Obamabots
were waving at their Marxist Socialist
Democratic Party Convention for their hero
Der Leader & Messiah Barack Hussein Obama
represent the New Nazi 4th Reich or are
they the New El Presidente For Life And
Messiah Barack Hussein Obama's Replacement
for the Real Presidential Flag,to go with
Obama's BIG O Phony Presidential Seal and
the Big O Obama One Presidential Jet?
NOBAMA EVER! NOBIDEN EVER! NO MORE DEMOCRATS EVER AGAIN!

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | September 1, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

I am really amazed at how quickly the left-wingers among us have stooped to the most vile personal smears imaginable. Isn't enough just to say that you disagree with Sarah Palin's positions and will not vote for her? Why do you feel the need to fabricate scandals and bring her children into it? Is this the "change we can believe in?" I guess Obama needs to smear his political enemies in order to bring the country together. I guess Obama needs to arrest reporters photographing his rich donors in order to make the world a better place. I guess Obama needs to silence those who disagree with him in order to improve America's standing in the world. What a joke you people are.

Posted by: Dave | September 1, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Sara Palin offers more of the same,wrapped in a pretty package,from the Republicans. A political choice to firm up their base of religious right wing nuts. Maybe if Governor Palin becomes Vice President she can finally take care of her ex brother in-law the state trooper! If right to life begins with conception,I guess the condom could be construed as pre mediated murder under a McCain/Palin administration.
Shame on you Senator McCain.Were you really looking out for the country or yourself with this pick? You did firm up my decision of who I am voting for.

Posted by: cindy | September 1, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Those are some great moral questions about abortion...which all ultimately lead back to the same moral question: what person could dare presume to substitute his or her judgment for the judgment of a potential mother considering these, and a host of other questions with her god? Having decided for her, do you financially, emotionally, and otherwise support the mother who decides to have a child she believes she cannot bear humanely? Or, is it enough to sit smugly by, feel righteous, and whine about crime and poverty being "their" problem?

Posted by: gw | September 1, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Jen,
You are thoroughly misinformed about Sen. Obama's position. Do some research. He has always said that IF someone makes that decision, then it has to be immediate prior to viability outside of the wound.

Answer me this:

Why do Abortions decrease under Democrats, but increase under so-called conservative Republicans?

Posted by: CommonSense | September 1, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

God Bless Jenn, and her 8 questions for Obama about abortion, we get it you hate abortion, what about the kids that make it out? what are your views on Poverty ? what have you done to fight for those here, let God take care of the fetus? ... Now To Mrs Palin thanks to The Republican Party (hence forth "TRP") the Party that gave us President Bush, Now brings us Mrs Palin another Ideologue, they Interpret God's word to contort to their views or does God mold them? Climate Change isn't man made, Science be Damned, Climate change is God's will. When will the "TRP" take responsibility for G.W. ? and his VP Chaney? for 8 years "TRP" with help from FOX News,and Right Wing Radio has lied to this Nation, twisted arms, carried the water for "G.W.". We as a Nation now Torture Innocent PPl, we Murder Innocent ppl all in the name of "G.W.'s" God? ..Are we really thinking that any good will come from electing another G.W. Bush in waiting. and don't get me started about the similarities on the Pilot Bush and the Pilot McCain. Borrowing from Obama's acceptence speech "Enough", Enough, Enough"

Posted by: steven I | September 1, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse


Governor Palin "got away with it" so far because people are either medically ignorant or unwilling to discuss "intimate/personal matters".

When "your waters break", that means the fluid which has protected the fetus inside the fetal sac, drains off from the uterus through the cervix and through the vagina. It also means that birth (or spontaneous abortion where the fetus is not yet viable) is IMMINENT: You HAVE TO go to hospital immediately. There is no way you can postpone ANYTHING (hold a speech, take an eight-hour flight, drive to a small town outside Anchorage..etc. etc....). When your waters break, that is already the first stage of giving birth: By definition, you can't just "hold it in".

So let's say the disabled baby is her sixteen-year-old daughter's, and let's also say that because of the risk of spontaneous abortion under the procedure of amniocentesis, Sarah or Bristol didn't have the fetus checked for congenital defects either, but just said they had., AFTER the newborn turned out to have Down's Syndrome or some other form of congenital abnormality (who exactly has diagnosed the newborn, and with what exactly? And why had nobody noticed Sarah's pregnancy, and how was she able to return to work so fast after allegedly having this severely disabled premature baby?)

Palin is already under investigation after allegedly having used her office to get back at her sister's alcoholic and abusive ex. If her daughter got pregnant (not having been taught anything about contraception "as a matter of principle"), that would have been too much...

While I'm at it, let's nail this canard about "Obama baby-killer" as well: When the fetus is already viable outside the womb ( = at 23 weeks or more), no responsible doctor would even consider performing an abortion. Before that, i. e. under 23 weeks, the fetus' inner organs, especially its lungs, are insufficiently developed for it to survive more than a few minutes outside the womb.: "Partial birth" is an ideologically-driven misnomer. A fetus under 23 weeks cannot survive outside the womb. Blame Nature. Of course it's "life", of course it's "human", but in its state of incompleteness, not having been carried to term or anywhere near, it can't survive. A few days ago also in this paper, there was someone who claimd that "4000 babies had already been saved after Bush's partial-birth legislation". I don't think that can be true, except in the sense that these fetuses would have been baptised, and therefore "their souls saved". Their bodies, being still much too incomplete to function outside the womb, would not have been. A fetus is not a baby, it's still only in the process of becoming one, and when aborted, by design or by accident, earlier than 23 weeks, it can't survive, and there is nothing modern medicine can do about that. You must accept that: It's a fact of life.

Abortion is the most ineffective and cruel form of birth control that there is, both for the mother and the fetus (who can feel pain from 5 months at the latest). So why not promote all the other, more effective and more healthy, forms of birth control: It can only ever be a question of doing the least harm anyway. But it must be for each individual woman to decide which one to choose. Late abortions (at 5 or slx months) are never a matter of choice, they're a matter of ignoorance and shouldn't have to happen at all. But when they do happen, see above about how old a fetus has to be to be developed enough to survive outside the womb (at 23 or 24 weeks, quite likely still with severe disabilities for being insufficiently developed. Later than that, it's a live birth anyway, and no doctor's ethics would allow them to kill it by design or by neglect. So the dilemma and the ethics question are entirely contrived: From a medical point of view, there isn't even an ethical dilemma, and never has been - "First, do no harm" - when the fetus is physically too immature to survive outside the womb, there's an end of it - all you can do is make its inevitable death easler. When it's already viable outside the womb, it's your duty as a doctor to do your best for its survival - that's it. When everybody knows, as a matter of course, how exactly to prevent unwanted pregnancies, there won't be any late abortions either any more.

If Sarah has heroically pretended to have been pregnant in order to shield her 16-year-old daughter from scandal and from messing up her future, that's all well and good; I might imagine circumstances in which I could have been tempted to do the same. But the elaborate web of dissembling and confabulation, if this is what she did to protect her daughter - and her weird denial of science and rationality in other fields - nobody needs any of that. And women, or for that matter ethnic minorities, are not by definition better people anyway. The knowledge acquired by being either, is useful on a different level, for recognising manipulation and injustice.

Posted by: Julia Iskandar | September 1, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin have enough education or experience with law to engage in the complex discussion you propose. John was near the bottom of his class in school and Sarah has a BS in broadcasting. Save the complex questions for the Democrats.

Posted by: Barbara McCall | September 1, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Rational people realize that the pro-life people have glommed on this emotional issue as a tool toward getting Roe Overturned. Remember most people are low-information and buy the fallacy that a woman would show up at her doctor's office in her last trimester and say "I've decided that I don't want a baby...yank it out and kill it! Now hear this: IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. Late abortion is exceedingly rare, and is very distressing to the mother and the Doctor.

One other point about late term abortions...there was the case of a child born without a brain, it lived because it had a brainstem which regulated breathing, and so forth, but my question is, without a brain, without what we call a soul, was this a viable child? Wouldn't it have been merciful for a late term abortion instead of letting the birth go forward?

The thing is, and this is why Obama said at Saddleback that such distinctions are "above his pay grade," The philosophical question should be: when does a collection of cells (initally), gain individual human rights...Obama's was a thoughtful answer, but it was certainly not as simplistic an answer as the "pro-life" people like.

Personhood, unfortunately, is a lot more complicated than saying that "life begins at conception." For me, I'd say that Life POTENTIALLY begins at conception. Personally, I don't like abortion; we should be dissuading young women from using it as a form of birth control (McCain does not support sex education in our schools, and this is not helping the matter, nor is supporting abstinance as the ONLY method of birth control), and babies are precious gifts when wanted, however, I value the life and the soul of the living person more, and that is the mother. Only a woman should make such a private, and painful decision IMO, and, if she is a believer, she will have to make peace with her god, But it is not my right to dictate what this woman will do with her own body. Period.

And I will point out the obvious inconsistancy of being "pro-life" with being pro-death penality. I won't get into a long religious discussion on the issue, but these stances are as confused as the Bible is on the issue.

What we need is more rational thought in the Country.

(BTW, if I were a conspiracy minded person, I would think that the banning of all abortion would de facto make young poor women, particularly white women, into brood mares for more affluent women having fertility problems..prehaps a "pleasant" side effect for some?)

Posted by: radical_moderate | September 1, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

I keep hearing people here talk about "choices," but that's only when it's the woman's choice. Men aren't included in this freedom. Once the egg is fertilized, his choices have ended, while the woman's has just begun. She can abort the baby, give it up for adoption, leave it at the fire department, or keep it. Choices, choices, choice. The man's choice: pay the mother a significant portion of his inclome to raise his child for at least 18 years, if not more, or go to debtors prison. PERIOD. Everyone will hound him, calling him a deadbeat for avoiding his responsibilities. What about HER responsibilities? Oh, that's right, women don't have responsibilities, just choices.

Posted by: Chris | September 1, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

For all the talk from Evangelicals about abstinence and morality according to their definitions, he we are with Palins daughter pregnant and unmarried. And whose child is the boy with Down syndrome?

Of course the Evangelicals will minimize it because it suits them to do so, as they spin everything, including the Bible, to suit themselves.

Posted by: sanity | September 1, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Chris: if you don't want women to have your babies, don't have sex. It's that simple you moron.

Posted by: I Support Women's Choice | September 1, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

So I guess that this announcement of Palin's daughter's pregnancy is supposed to squelch the rumors. But suppose she did cover for her daughter... what is one more lie, and what if -- wonders never cease in this case -- it turns out that they later allege that this newly reported pregancy ends up in an alleged miscarriage? If that raises any eyebrows it will be after the election in November anyway, right? For me, if the original rumors are credible, this well-timed "announcement" is not evidence either way. In the original rumor, people at the local health center would have had to have been in cahoots with the Governor -- and that could still be the case. I'm not saying the rumors are true, only that this announcement has no bearing whatsoever on their plausibility -- unless of course you for some reason believe this new "fact" -- but then why would you have believed the initial rumor? On the other hand, if they lied then, they are lying now -- and the "beauty" of it (for them) is that the truth of this new revelation is unverifiable, unless Bristol, unlike her mother, is actually showing signs of being pregant.

Posted by: frank burns | September 1, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

So, I'm a moron when I point out the glaring hypocrisy in your position. Ouch, that really hurt. What a clever comeback! I guess that beats a reasoned response as to why women have all the choices, while the man just gets the bill. If you use the lame argument that he should have kept his pants zipped, well, she should have kept her legs closed. There, now they're even as far as choices. After that, however, his choices have ended. I would be much more sypathetic toyour cause if you even CONSIDERED the man in this matter.

Posted by: Chris | September 1, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Kinsley is simply incorrect. Equal treatment under the law does NOT mean all abortions would be illegal. Just like equal treatment under the law still gives a police officer considerable latitude to use deadly force when necessary to preserve innocent life. The police officer isn't required to shoot black criminals and white criminals proportionately to achieve "equal protection."

In this country, deadly force in defense of human life is a recognized legal right and principle. So if a woman must have an abortion to save her life from serious illness, that would be considered deadly force against the fetus in defense of her own life, and therefore legal.

What applying the Fourteenth Amendment would prohibit is ELECTIVE abortions, where the mother decides to abort the child merely because she just doesn't want it.

Posted by: sinz52 | September 1, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

How low will the left-wingers go to smear Sarah Palin? Let's see.....John Edwards lied repeatedly about a love child with a woman who was not his wife, and that was not newsworthy enough for the mainstream media to investigate. Obama and his media suck-ups make me sick.

Posted by: Dave | September 1, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I used to like Kinsley quite a bit wehn he was on CNN Corssfire with Buchanan, until he made some idiotic comments about Sen CLinton. Like a lot of erstwhile liberals that I used to like, he became a worshipper of Nobama, and became a Clinton basher, and that was that for me.


Come to think of it, that was the same issue with a whole bunch of old liberal media people. For a long time, thoese people used to exhibit a skepticism, questioning ability, and a good sense in their head; when the ONE started walking on water, all these fools lost their balance, became devotees of so much conviction that they would put the religious right to shame.

Posted by: intcamd1 | September 1, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Responding to Naomi's earlier post... You voiced what I immediately thought...This baby is now 5 months old, is a special needs child and now, the mother is looking to run for VP, which is not a 9-5 job in any way, shape or form...She appears to be no different in wanting it "all" like any working parent attempting the same juggle, albeit with less money and influential pull to get quality child care and parental benefits, but whom she'll quickly decry as liberals and feminists.

Seems more like a "do as I say, and not as I do," scenario, smacking far too much of hypocrisy and opportunism. If McCain wanted a woman VP, there were far better candidates out there to choose from than this one.


Naomi wrote earlier...Sarah Palin delivered a baby less than three months ago, and now she's embarking on the campaign trail. Once she had him, I fear, the political point was made and he can be turned over to the care of others. Let's be very careful about applauding this as a model for conservative family policy. The decision to have a special needs child (I have three) involves a commitment to providing the additional special care that the child will need to thrive. Sometimes, often actually, personal preferences and ambitions have to be put aside for the well-being of such a child. Apparently Mrs. Palin does not think so, and in embracing her choice, the conservatives appear to be denying the importance of engaged parenting. Does anyone else see a conflict in this? It troubles me...

Posted by: SimpleObserver | September 1, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

I recommend that our moralistic-no-abortions-or-birth-control-ever politicians and citizens read "Morality Meat" by James Tiptree Jr. (actually the late Alice Sheldon).

If they can understand it, that is.

Once again, Mr. K, good on you.

Posted by: old enough to remember | September 1, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Micheal Vick is in prison for fighting dogs. In Illinois, live children who were supposed to be an abortion are left to die alone in a janitors closet. Something Obama clearly supports.

The world is all upside down anyway.

Posted by: Jim Williams | September 1, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

In response to Andriy Tanatar concerning the sports complex:
The reason is that we live in ALASKA and a bigger part of the year we are covered in snow, and cold and darkness. The sports complex serves more than just the town of 5000 - also many communities near Wasilla. Moms with little ones come there all winter for a safe, warm, light place to play. There's all kinds of stuff going on there all winter.
It's really frustrating for many of us here to read comments from those so far away and out of our 'loop' who really don't know the reasons why. Sarah's a good governor and most of us appreciate her work. Lisa S., Palmer, Alaska
PS: I'm not even a registered Republican and will probably vote for Obama, but I like Sarah.

Posted by: Codtan | September 1, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

This article is analytic and sucinct in its accessments relating to the abortion not involving the father of the fetus.
The Roe v Wade decision I believe applied to the particular claim rises to the forced capitulation to essentially the unwilling victim's impregnation by a felon and deviant that was himself a product of dysfunction and abuse in his childhood through adult live.
The abortion mantra is not new and was effectively employed to maintain an ethnic dominance, gender preferrence, and yes unfair domination by men and women who's customs do not consider equitable reality in todays commercial political gerrymandering or money for birth and death of this most helpless human to be.
Any woman can have an abotion at will. Many do ..... adulturers, prostitutes, politicians, any efeminant mindset closed to self destruction and immoral embarrisment by giving birth.
Abortions will never end, deaths will never cease.
Mr. Kingsley is right to access and provied a very godd analysis to the modern dilemma inequitable favoritism that trades a fact for fiction. A fact of forced intercourse causing unwanted pregnancy, a fact of unremittant multiple sex partnerships rising to unintended pregnancies, to abortions on demand. The modern political domination of men that have limited morality chasing electability to our majority femal voters to the demise of the minority voters - heterosexual men having mistakenly lowering their bar of self respectability to relationships predicated upon the increased availability of singular self esteem through congental relationships and affairs of disgraceful consequences.

Posted by: Eglobegus | September 1, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Is it not amazing that everyone is crying that she is NOT QUALIFIED to be PRESIDENT.

We must also note that KING OBAMA does not have the experience to be PRESIDENT EITHER.

Sure he has written several books, he is the darling of the MSM and the HOPE OF THE DNC to once again gain control of the White House. He is the hope of the bi-racial and black people of the United States to have one of their own in the White House.

Everyone screams racist.. if anyone mentions black. (Dean stands up and calls the Repuklicans 'the white party. AND nothing is said or done about his comments.)

We know that OBAMA and his WIFE spent 20 years in a Racist Church environment.. all in the name of CAREER or was it all in the name of their beliefs.

All his supporters are 'brainwashed' by the MSM (news, radio, TV) into thinking he is JFK and MLK rolled into one individual.

IF you look at old speeches of the TWO.. guess what... King Obama's speech style is NOW based on their style of speech. His wife's speaking is none more proper and NOT LIKE VIPER WRIGHT.

Folks, you have been sold a bill of goods from the MSM and the best personal advertising companies in America. These organizations.. look at the so called polls and statistical numbers and KING OBAMA is then molded into those polls.

He is anything but a 'typical' politician. He is a now become a man-made KING. The best that money can BUY.

If he asked some of his supporters to jump in the North Atlantic Ocean in the middle of a Wild Storm.. SOME WOULD DO SO.

You have to ask youself.. How and why would someone spend over 500 MILLION DOLLARS to become PRESIDENT of the United
States and not a penny of his money.

Remember He promises you everything, he will promise you anything that the POLLS suggest you want... and he will not be able to deliver 10 percent of what he promises. BECAUSE if he is elected HE WILL NOT HAVE TO KEEP HIS PROMISES.

BEWARE THE BLACK WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING.

Posted by: Miller51550@yahoo.com | September 1, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

This was a very interesting article, but I'm not sure I agree with this part:

"The test is simple: Could you pass a similar law discriminating between blacks and whites? No? Then you couldn’t do it for fetuses."

A racial group is a protected class and therefore any legislation that categorized on the basis of race would be subject to strict scrutiny.

Fetuses are not a protected class so states could legislate different punishments for killing fetuses versus independent people as long as there was a rational basis for such a law.

Am I missing something here? I feel like I should defer to the Harvard JD, but this statement that the two types of laws would face the same scrutiny just doesn't seem correct.

Posted by: Linda | September 1, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

THe CHOICE OF SARAH PALIN MAKES MCCAIN A MAVERICK?!!!! . . . . . GIVE ME A BREAK.

This choice of the goddess ( prettiest thing this side of Paris Hilton ) makes McCain a kowtower'er -- I mean, he bent down and kissed the big toe of Religious Radicals and Big Oil. . . . HOW MAVERICK IS THAT?????!

PALIN WANTS TO USE HER MORAL AUTHORITY to control ( at the point OF the policeman’s 38 cal. gun ) your private life. She also wants to keep us in bondage to Big Oil. . . . . Nice pick.

However, Democrats better be careful. Slap down a man for not understanding an issue and he deserves it. . . . . Slap down a woman ( especially a goddess ) and you're a bully. . . . . . . . A big question is, will America insist that Sarah Palin is untouchable?

Posted by: Coldcomfort | September 1, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse


Geez! The so-called self righteous Christians are so quick to wish ill on others. Look what is happening to the Republican convention after they wished rain on Obama's acceptance speech.

Posted by: Veronique | September 1, 2008 2:53 AM

Yeah, there always so quick to describe a disaster in blue states as god's punishment. If that's the case then god must really hate red states, he keeps pounding them with floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. Go god!

Posted by: Cynical Old Man | September 1, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I meant rational basis for the categorization, not rational basis for the law. Minor point.

Posted by: Linda | September 1, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Oh Mr. Kinsley. Let's make the race for the Presidency a game of gotcha. But then again, isn't that what journalists do who never have to live and work in the real world

Palin has a son going to Iraq and she knows full well what that means personally and politically.

The biggest worry on the minds of the average American is the domestic economy and the new global economy, which is taking away their jobs and jobs for their kids. I don't know how Obama's economic plan to increase taxes will solve this dilema? Palin's approach to return State taxes to citizens seem to work alot better.

I guess Obama, the empty suit, will continue to get a free ride from the media, as Geraldine Ferraro said, because he has some African ancestry. Oh well.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 1, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin has a degree in journalism. She does not have any post graduate education. I suppose (pay no attention to the number of houses I own) that it is elitism to wish for more in someone who may well end up being the most powerful person on the planet. What was John McCain thinking? I hear she's a quick study but she really has a long way to go from a month ago asking "just what is it the vice president does everyday?"

It really is time for a little Straight Talk. Who vetted Sarah Palin? No wonder no one wants to go to the GOP convention. This is, of course, a private matter for the Palins, Gerson and the GOP except they also believe they have license to insert themselves into the delicate matters of everyone else.

Aside from any cynicism with regard to the tangled web and it's failure to really dispel the rumours (a little independent and trustworthy DNA testing could probably do that), here's what really bothers me:

McCain knew of this and surely Sarah Palin knew of this. Both of them are would-be players on the national political stage with all its glare and the lack of privacy it brings to everyone connected with the candidate and still they thought that having Sarah Palin, despite a lack of other real credentials to succeed McCain if he died, as the VP candidate was a good idea.

Neither of them cared about the feelings of a 17 year and her privacy? Not to mention that of the baby's father! They decided it was OK to drag these two young people into the glare of a national spotlight. Even if these two are going to get married, this is still embarrassing for them (esp. if they are fundamentalist Christians) and they don't deserve this.

Posted by: Sara B. | September 1, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

You're forgetting something. Murder is illegal, but justifiable homicide is not. Self-defense, necessity, and extreme emotional distress are just a few examples of when it is not illegal to take a human life.

Pro-lifers want fetuses, which are in fact individual life-forms, to have the same status as "post-birth" humans. That doesn't mean that an abortion undertaken to save the life of the mother would be "un-constitutional"; just that you would need to demonstrate the risk to the mother's life in order to carry out the "procedure".

As for your inane question about Ossetia, how can you be sure that she doesn't know the answer? And if she does, then just how silly would you feel when she gave it?

Posted by: Stephen | September 1, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

A Better Combination

Regardless of race and sex, let’s look at the combination of McCain and Obama to see which is better.

McCain: a senator + a governor, who has administrative experience.
Obama: a senator + another senator, both have no such experience.

So the first combination is better. Therefore, I call on all Hillary’s supporters to vote for McCain. Besides, Obama squeezed out Hillary and didn’t even choose her for his partner.

Posted by: xlwoo | September 1, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

A fertilized egg = human being, according to wing nuts. OK, then.

Why are spontaneous abortions more common in nature than completed pregnancies? (I guess the biggest abortionist must be God).

Why are right to lifers (really Christianist anti-choicers) not bombing fertlity clinics that dispose of many fertilized eggs daily?

If you entered a burning fertility clinic and had time to save one crying 10 year old or a petrie dish of 10 fertilized ova, which would you choose to do?

The real hypocrites are the right wing christianists.

Posted by: Aqualung | September 1, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

In response to the following post:

Mrs. Palin's son has Downs syndrome. He has one extra chromosome, 47 instead of the normal human 46. Mathematically speaking, his DNA is more different from a standard human than a chimpanzee's is.

Since he is less human than a chimp, should he be denied A14 rights, too?

Should those with non-standard DNA be treated as animals? Or as property?

Posted by: Meitenot | September 1, 2008 2:53 AM

*************************

You bring up an interesting point, then fail to follow through on its full implications. I'm not attacking you, just wanting to take your point in a new direction.

Palin is a creationist, and wants it taught in schools. If she had it her way, the science of evolution would be dismissed as fool hearty nonsense. But, as you stated, downs syndrome is caused by an extra cromosome, in other words, a mutation has occured. Mutations are one of two driving forces of evolution, the other being natural selection. Those mutations better suited for their environment survive while the majority, like down syndrome, are less suited, do not survive.

So here we have a candidate who has a very blunt and indisputable proof of evolution in her own home and still stubbornly refuses to accept its reality. Anyone who has rational scientific explanations for something that has impacted her own life to such a significant degree, and still refuses to recognize it, sounds like someone who burries her head in the sand instead of accepting disquieting facts.

That alone, despite her stance on abortion, contraception, sex education in schools, disqualifies her to assume the role of successor to the presidency of the United States. We're a nation of higher education and progress, not a banana republic that practices superstition and religious fanaticism. At least, that's what we SHOULD be votubf for.

Posted by: aBigSAM | September 1, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Is masterbation also going to be outlawed, because after all it has the potential to be human someday! Extreme and comical but right in line with right wing dogma and hypocrisy

Posted by: Russell | September 1, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

The capitol of South Ossetia is Tskhinvali.

A president or someone who is a heartbeat away from being a President doesn't need that amount of detail unless it's relevant to high level foreign relations. Usually, they should delegate the technical parts of negotiations unless absolutely necessary.

But a journalist should be able to find such information within a matter of seconds with the internet, particularly if they are going to mention it as a question they would ask.

Posted by: Andrew Sylvia | September 1, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

I would just ask her why she said 'yes' when McCain asked to run. Does she feel ready, starting Inauguration Day, to be president of the world superpower?

My second question would be, "what is it you don't feel you're qualified for?"

Posted by: cw-la | September 1, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Abortion is a fact, no matter the law or the country, and it's performed either safely or, unfortunately, not.

Right wing nuts want to deprive women this choice, regardless of a woman's situation, including rape or incest. These blind to the facts antiabortion radicals ought to know that abortion (and birth control) is elective, not mandatory. Yet they act like it's a personal threat to them and further, by their radicalism on this personal issue, want to foist their rigid "belief system" onto everyone else, regardless of our beliefs.

Remember, this country still has freedom of (and from) religion, and government ought to stay out of the abortion issue, other than keeping it medically safe for any women who needs one.

Posted by: Rational One | September 1, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

The pregant 16 year old daughter just serves to highlight the complete irony and hipocricy of the situation.

What is more important is to EDUCATE the American people on what Sarah Palin stands for and how dangerous she is.

No matter what your party affiliation, I dont know many people that would think it would be a good idea to take Women's rights back to the Stone Age.

Sarah Palin wants to preach ABSTINENCE to Americas daughters when her own daughter has obviously been a victim of that failed guidance.

If God forbid, your daughter was ever the victim of RAPE or INCEST, Sarah would force her to bare the child, because she would BAN her right to a safe and legal abortion. and to add insult to injury--

SHE WOULD BAN THE DAUGHTERS OF AMERICA FROM ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTION!!

The women of America say--

OVER OUR COLD, DEAD BODIES!!!!


Sarah Palin---The REAL BRIDGE TO NOWHERE!

Posted by: John | September 1, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is nothing more than a new Monica Goodling for the Republicans.

John McCain, HOW COULD YOU pluck this hick out of Alaska that has 5 small children and a pregnant daughter and expect that she could be not only a functioning VP candidate, but comfortable in the big city of WA???

She was born and raised in a tiny town in Alaska, and needs to hightail it back there as fast as she can!!

Posted by: Katie | September 1, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I am a life long Republican, and cannot express how completely and thoroughly I am embarrassed by John McCain and this CRIMINAL decision to put this woman a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Words will never do it justice....

I will be voting for OBAMA because he is the only sane choice now.

Posted by: AJ | September 1, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Sarah Palin IS the bridge to Nowhere..

Posted by: davidkk | September 1, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Have you seen the NEWS LATELY??!!!

They have freaking police in riot gear and teargas fending off the protesters!

Nice to see basic human rights are being respected there...

WOW

Posted by: jiieee | September 1, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

There are such clear instructions given to us as Christians, and I'm sorry to say I do not know enough about the many other religions found throughout our planet, but I'm sure some of them must adhere to the same rule, that of all the rules given us concerning the rights and wrongs by which we live our lives, the one that we most mis-use is that of Free Will.

We are allowed by our God to make our own decisions,right or wrong, about practically every facet of our lives. He does not say if you have an abortion you will burn in Hell for all eternity. That decision is left up to you, your concience, and perhaps your family.

Our Founding Fathers were God-fearing men. They had seen the cruelties and injustices brought upon the people of Europe by the churches and courts governed by the Kings and men of the church. It was a fearful and prodigous umbrella. And so, along with many others they fled those cruelties and injustices to seek a land where they could live out their lives with fair and just governance and a free choice of religion.

Of course, we know how that story ends ... happily, after a long period of strife and struggle, yielding the document which was meant to guide those who came after them, to see that all were treated fairly and justly under the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

Now, the pundits seem to feel that the CONSTITUTION does not speak to our time ... that it is old fashioned in its concepts and ideals and treatment of todays people. NOT SO! Honor, decency, fairness, kindness, civility and so many other attributes that make a man a good man (or woman) are never outgrown or outdated.

Among all the many articles comprising the CONSTITUTION is one, perhaps one of the most important, the one that we call by the shorthand,"separation of church and state". This needs no explanation ... If you need to know more, read the CONSTITUTION. You may be surprised to find how the powers that be have misrepresented, to us, our nations most important and beloved document.

In the meantime, the government may not order any course of change that is not agreed to and voted upon by our citizens.

Posted by: Susie D..... | September 1, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Yeeeeahh-Nothing like a full force of police in Riot Gear at the National Republican Convention fending off protesters to give people the warm and fuzzzies for your party!

haaaaaaaaaaaaa this shyytt just cant get any funnier!

OBAMA will DECIMATE YOU MCCAIN!

Posted by: Greg | September 1, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Thank you John McCain! You really have done the impossible here.

You have made George W. Bush look Competent! Nice work.

Posted by: Mary atlanta | September 1, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S 'NOT EXACTLY'S'


> 1.) Selma Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. (Google' Obama Selma ' for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)


> 2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.


> 3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.


> 4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya . It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Obama, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone.

Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.


> 5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.


> 6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.

Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya , his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). From....and for more....go to.....

http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Ob ama_-_Arab-American,_only_6.25%25_African


> 7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.

4-3-08 Article 'Obama was 'quite religious in islam'' http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559


> 8.) My School In Indonesia was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).

February 28, 2008 . Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.' This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says 'Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts.'


> 9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could speak the language.


> 10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.


> 11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.


> 12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to b e Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.


> 13.) An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTLY, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.


> 14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My outlook on Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.


> 15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV,
> that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.


> 16.) Voting 'Present' is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.


> 17.) Oops, I Misvoted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.


> 18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.


> 19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.


> 20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it, or create it.


> 21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish.


> 22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.


> 23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.


> 24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens . You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.


> 25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.

> 26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.

> 27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.

> 28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.

> 29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel .

> 30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.

> 31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit th e vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.

> 32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.

> 33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.

> 34.) I Don't Take PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take loads of it.

> 35.) I don't Have Lobbysists - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.

> 36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.

> 37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.

> 38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it

Posted by: Simba | September 1, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone thought of asking her to spell potato?

Posted by: Ian McArthur | September 1, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

I for one have always personally been against the act of abortion however, there is a BIG difference between being against choice and pro-abortion.

Who in the world is pro-abortion? Instead of being so subjective and blinded by raw emotion, I wonder who is to take care of the millions of unwanted children if Roe v. Wade were overturned??

Any rational person should note the lack of "pro-lifers" out there adopting today's children and the hypocrisy in fighting to "protect life" in a womb while disrepecting life for those already born. Those very same people tolerate death row and openly advocate death and destruction by way of war.

As for Obama's comment about the issue being above his pay grade, PLEASE TELL WHO ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH thinks of him/herself as being above GOD?

There are some things that deserve to be left up to God and if there is a price to pay for having an abortion, LET GOD BE THE JUDGE! (Perhaps if the REPUBLICANS were NOT so busy throwing stones, they would have time to fix their dysfunctional families.)

Posted by: David | September 1, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

I for one have always personally been against the act of abortion however, there is a BIG difference between being against choice and pro-abortion.

Who in the world is pro-abortion? Instead of being so subjective and blinded by raw emotion, I wonder who is to take care of the millions of unwanted children if Roe v. Wade were overturned??

Any rational person should note the lack of "pro-lifers" out there adopting today's children and the hypocrisy in fighting to "protect life" in a womb while disrepecting life for those already born. Those very same people tolerate death row and openly advocate death and destruction by way of war.

As for Obama's comment about the issue being above his pay grade, PLEASE TELL WHO ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH thinks of him/herself as being above GOD?

There are some things that deserve to be left up to God and if there is a price to pay for having an abortion, LET GOD BE THE JUDGE! (Perhaps if the REPUBLICANS were NOT so busy throwing stones, they would have time to fix their dysfunctional families.)

Posted by: David | September 1, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

oh stop it! Everyone take your pillow and fluff it up and sleep on it.

Posted by: Kimmo | September 1, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Why is everyone starting to sound like a raving lunatic? Good idea, Kimmo. Good night.

Posted by: Gustina Davis | September 1, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

I don't even know where to begin. Teenage pregnancy glorified once again. What is the matter with these mother's that think it's okay for their young daughter's to have babies out of wedlock. Call me old fashioned, although I am only 46 years old. Sarah will be raising another child, as if 5 is not enough. John made a big mistake picking this one for his Vice Presidential running mate. You can't cotrol the country if you can't even control your own kids. What values have you taught them? You just lost my vote, John....and I was Republican all the way. I thought it was a stupid move to have her as your running mate, now I'm sure of it.

Posted by: Kelly S. | September 2, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

My questions would be does abstinence mean no sex education and no birth control for Sarah Palin? It's being reported she has been a govenor for less than 2 years and pregnant nine months of that time. If she does not believe in birth control it follows that she could be pregnant at least two times during her vice presidential office period. Having raised 3 children, with two of them in diapers at the same time, I remember that they required love, quality time and attention for their healthy development from the most important person in their life,their mother. I think I would have to consider a possible situation like this when I voted and I would not vote for her.

Posted by: Jeannie M. | September 2, 2008 1:07 AM | Report abuse

Hey, here's an idea: mind your own business.

Pro-lifers are such busybodies. Don't like abortions? DON'T GET ONE. Abortion is not a public matter. It's not your body, therefore it is not your domain. You're not the one that has to deal with making the choice or the fallout.

Besides, abortions are going to happen anyway. Abortion should be legal for safety purposes at the very least.

Posted by: jemwher | September 2, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

Kinsley, you're my hero.

Posted by: mo | September 2, 2008 3:34 AM | Report abuse

Despots almost always invoke the name of God. Read some of "you know who's" speeches in Germany and you will clearly see that God was on his side.

Posted by: sanity | September 2, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

The government and Evangelicals have absolutely NO RIGHT to tell women what to do concerning their preganacy. Only the woman, her husband or partner, her doctor and counselors should be involved.

All of the other nosy busybodies should butt-out, period.

Posted by: sanity | September 2, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans know they are losing and rightly so. These screwed-up Evangelicals and Neocons don't know left from right, up from down. They have NEVER seriously addressed the issues facing this country and the world because they are INCAPABLE of doing so.

They are all a confused bunch of nitwits who are more than ready to attack the Eastern educated liberals who are attempting to fix some of the damage they have caused since Bush was elected. They don't have a brain in their collective heads and are more than happy to sacrifice individual freedoms for their crazed ideology.

What a joke McCain and Palin are, as well as Rick Davis. They will crash and burn along with George, Dick, Condi, Gonzales and all the others who crashed and burned before this.

McCain is a do-do bird. And his running mate belongs in the outback.

Posted by: sanity | September 2, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Joe Biden would know the answer to question about the capital of South Ossetia. That's just another easy example of why Obama and Biden are a much more competent, qualified and capable pair to run this country than McCain/Palin.

John McCain said we should immediately make Georgia a NATO member. Under the treaties we have signed, we would of therefore been required to go to war with Russia in defense of Georgia.

Nice going there John on the foreign policy experience front. Yes, he has lots of experience, but is just simply too reckless to ever be allowed behind the wheel to drive this country.

Posted by: Unrepentant Liberal | September 2, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Michael- just as Constitutional history showed that "Dred Scott" was wrong when it was decided and that slavery was mala in se, not mala prohibita, Roe v. Wade will be similarly judged. We need a Kennedy in the White House- John F. Kennedy- and his appointment of Byron White. His dissent in Roe contains the classic line "The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries". Give me more "democratic" appointments like Justice White.
P.S. Senator Obama feels that you can discriminate between a "post-birth human being" and a "post-birth human being that is born as a result of a failed abortion". Share with us your legal wisdom as to why a law would even be needed to offer protection to an infant that was "born", regardless of the intention of the "mother" who intended the child to be aborted. On second thought, spare me your self-expertise on the 14th amendment.

Posted by: ej | September 2, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

What IS Palin's religion anyway? Would mainstream America want a leader who is a Jehovah's Witness or a Seventh Day Adventist any more than a Mormon or Jew? WHY IS THIS NOT BEING scrutinized, or even MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN THE MEDIA??? Given the fact that there is a very real possibility that she would end up as President, making policy decisions and administrative 'laws' that affect us all, this does not seem like an off-limits discussion to me. Obama's religious background certainly wasn't!

Posted by: What IS She | September 3, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

As for the 'when does life begin' question, my answer is "I'm not God, and neither are you". We are not now and never will be qualified to make that call. To claim to know something that is unknowable, and to build a body of law that affects humans-here-now around that 'knowledge' is crazy and dangerous.

Posted by: Who IS She | September 3, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Why hasn't Mr. Gerson come up with a new article to apply his Evangelical Republican spin to?? I'm waiting!!

I want to ridicule not Mr. Gerson PER SE, but the hypocritical gun-toting, meth using "religious right", you know, the people of this earth that are closest to God and believe in "His judgment" for people who have not followed his word.

The same ones who believe in separatism for the State of Alaska, you know what I mean! The same people who invoke the name of God, over and over, in public speeches and elsewhere, just as Adolph Hitler did in Germany before he began exterminating human beings.

Posted by: sanity | September 3, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

She's a fake selling snake oil with John McCain. Just wait and see if they manage to get elected!

Posted by: sanity | September 3, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

In defense of Sarah Palin, the leaders of
the Christian right have made it clear about how they define a Christian.

We don't care if you sin.
We are not bothered if you put your ambition ahead of the needs of your children. If you have lied or broken the law, we will look the other way. It all comes down to your stand on guns and fetuses. Vote the right way, and you have our blessing.

They are not concerned about actual issues, other than their issue, the establishment of a Christian Theocracy in the United States.

Posted by: sanity | September 3, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

it's interesting the Palin goes on and on about her "choice" to keep Trig and Bristol's "choice" to keep HarryHillbilly - but if they overturn Roe v Wade, what will they use to let them feel holier than thou and morally superior to everyone else?

Posted by: gilltots | September 3, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

also, the questions for Palin:

"2 weeks in, after McCain has choked on his cheek-flaps causing you to be appointed POTUS, NORAD detects a wave of missiles coming across the polar icecap towards the US. ETA is 3 minutes. Just prior to that you receive a call on the red phone from your 12 year old daughter informing you that she, too, is now pregnant. One of the missiles appears to be headed directly towards the podunk village in alaska where your daughter's igloo resides. knowing full well that your decisions in the next 3 minutes could affect the entire future of the human race and more importantly the fertilized egg in your daughters uterus, the question is this: what kind of cookies do you bake for your advisors while they figure out what to do?"

Posted by: gilltots | September 3, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

If I could ask Sara Palin a question it would be this - I have heard you would like to see creationism taught in public schools, if I am wrong I apologize, however if not which story from the hundreds of world religions would you have taught to the exclusion of the others? Why? How do you think the world as a whole would react to that decision?

Posted by: Gregg | September 4, 2008 3:36 AM | Report abuse

Does it not seem fair that if the state forces a woman to have a child, with all the responsibility that is associated with the raising of that child. The state should accept the fiscal responsibility to provide for that child until maturity. If we as a nation force a moral decision on a citizen, do we not have a moral responsibility as a nation for the outcome of that action. We decry welfare, why should we force our citizens into situations they may not have the resources, or capacities be those educational, social, physical, mental, or just a lack of general ability to deal with such a responsibility. Then we in all our righteousness judge the parenting of the citizen who we have forced into some sort of state induced servitude. It seems to me that choice and freedom are inexorably interlinked. How can we pride our freedom, and force our belief structure on others.

Posted by: Gregg | September 4, 2008 4:09 AM | Report abuse

The pro-life movement is full of men who feel underpowered by women's advances in our society over the last 30 years and women who feel guilty about their men so often being found wanting. The pro-life movement IS an "opiate of the masses" and has been on the rise ever since the social revolution of the 60's: an obsessive belief and reliance on religion and pro-life fantasy dogma as an antidote to displacement and helplessness. Obama is one of many who understand this. But he wants to help do something about it. It wasn't meant to deride or belittle, but to recognize a deep-seated problem.

Posted by: Katman | September 4, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

The pro-life movement is full of men who feel underpowered by women's advances in our society over the last 30 years and women who feel guilty about their men so often being found wanting. The pro-life movement IS an "opiate of the masses" and has been on the rise ever since the social revolution of the 60's: an obsessive belief and reliance on religion and pro-life fantasy dogma as an antidote to displacement and helplessness. Obama is one of many who understand this. But he wants to help do something about it. His comment in San Francisco wasn't meant to deride or belittle, but to recognize a deep-seated problem.

Posted by: Katman | September 4, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Thank goodness we still have wacko right to lifers to push their beliefs down our throats and deny our individual freedom. Raise your kids to believe in Creationism instead of history and science - somebody has to flip burgers for a living and it may as well be your kids. Teach them to hate unbelievers and murder those they oppose and I'll be happy to send them all to the gas chamber for the murderous idiots they are. But stay out of my life and my family's life.

There is no basis in the Constitution or the history of America for you or any other neo Nazi having the right to force your bizarre beliefs on my family. It was Thomas Jefferson who said, "America is NOT a Christian nation or a nation of any other religion." It was the U.S. Congress, peopled by the founders of our nation and the officers who fought the revolution who in the early 19th Century confirmed this in an international treaty, as a matter of law, stating that, "The United States of America is not a Christian nation or a nation of any religion."

Posted by: Ben Feing | September 4, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Why is Sarah so wonderful cause she chose to have a baby and not end life. There are a lost of mothers out there that have chosen life over death. At this time in United States we need some one who will fight for our jobs and health insurance not who wants to control if we want to end life. I'm a woman and i dont believe in abortions but i think if u have been raped then i feel there is a choice. And I feel women can do the same jobs as men but if she is such a loving mom as she says then go home to your baby that needs u 24 hours a day u are not the only woman in the world that has had a baby with problems so why are u so great. And one more thing Alaska was trying to separate from the US why would u want to be VP of the states where u no longer wanted to be apart of.

Posted by: sassy | September 6, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company