Women's Health: Yet Another Issue Sarah Palin is Out of Touch On

Over the last several weeks, it has become apparent that Sarah Palin is out of touch on a whole host of issues, ranging from the bailout and the economy to foreign policy to the Supreme Court. After this week's interview with Katie Couric, we can now add women's health to the list.

Her answers on reproductive health issues, such as criminalizing abortion, exceptions for rape and incest, and what exactly the morning-after pill is, were a rambling mix of contradictions and platitudes, much like her answers about Russia bordering Alaska, the bailout, health care, and the economy.

So, for the vice-presidential debate tonight, here's what I'd ask Sarah Palin to answer directly:

1. You said in your interview with Katie Couric that you are "all for contraception," but then you said you don't support the morning-after pill. Do you know that the morning-after pill IS contraception, it's simply a higher dose of hormonal birth control? Now that you know that, does it change how you feel about it being made available?

2. You said that abortion should be illegal even in the cases of rape or incest, but then you said no one should end up in jail for having an abortion. I assume when you say it should be illegal, that you mean it should be a crime - if you don't think anyone should go to jail, how would you enforce it?

3. You say that you believe there is an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution, yet you want to overturn Roe v. Wade, which is based on a right to privacy. How do you reconcile these two conflicting beliefs?

4. You say that you support abstinence-only policies, which have been proven over and over to be ineffective. Then you seem to contradict yourself, saying that you are "pro-contraception." What exactly are you for, comprehensive sex education, which includes teaching of abstinence as well as contraception and prevention; or "abstinence-only until marriage," which typically does not cover contraception. As vice president, would you like to continue President Bush's legacy in funneling millions of federal dollars to ineffective "abstinence-only" programs, or do you support comprehensive sex education programs that include abstinence and have proven to reduce the number of teen pregnancies?

5. Will you continue to cut funding for support of young mothers? After cutting funding by 20 percent for Covenant House Alaska, a place with the resources and assistance to help teen mothers gain the necessary skills to create a stable life, will you extend this to the rest of young, low-income mothers in the U.S.?

6. Considering all of these things, would you say that the women of America will have a champion in Sarah Palin as vice president?

We thought it couldn't get more anti-choice and more extreme for women and for health care than George Bush and John McCain. But let's face it -- with Sarah Palin, John McCain has outdone himself. Women voting for McCain-Palin is like chickens voting for Col. Sanders. That is not a risk we can afford to take.

Sign our letter today -- tell Sarah Palin that she is not your candidate.

Comments

[rjn16]

11:31 PM on 10/02/2008

It's also interestin­g how Pro-Choice people have no problem murdering unborn children, but oppose the death penalty for murderers.

[CatLovingLiberal]

10:44 AM on 10/03/2008

Slow down, there, RJN16. I am a life-long pro-choice advocate, who is also liberal in many of my other views, but I DO happen to believe in the death penalty. Stop trying to generalize things so much - life and people are more complex than you are acknowledi­ng.

So...now that you know that there is at least one pro-choice advocate out here who DOES support the death penalty for murderers (and rapists, too, btw)....ho­w interestin­g do you think things are now?

[LindyLu]

11:24 PM on 10/02/2008

I only have one question - but it is one that I haven't seen answered yet. Why are so many 'pro-life' people also in favor of the death penalty and war - those two things are definitely NOT pro-life.

[stayinsouth1981]

02:12 AM on 10/03/2008

I don't get why the protesting RTL's don't pony up to the bar, get training and become foster parents to the children of families who really could not afford to feed another mouth. Heck, give these struggling mothers some assistance so they can care for their children and maintain family.

How does anyone formulate the impression that a woman decides to have an abortion on a whim or because it's the easier, softer way? I am tired of RTL saying abortions are anyone's primary form of birth control. Women have them because they are not able to either carry a child to term or are unable to face raising that child without the resources necessary.

I don't see RTL rallies gathering checks that will pay insurance, day care, education, food and clothing for these unborn babies they are bound and determined deserve the right to live. HUH? I do not see folks supporting the children who are here and are in severe need. Why don't the children who are at risk for being part of our HEINOUS Infant Mortality Rate deserve every interventi­on to PREVENT death after they have been born?

Actually, I think that women of child bearing age should have prenatal vitamins, just in case. We need to make sure they are eating properly, just in case. We need to dig in and treat all women as if they are pregnant or may become pregnant, just in case. This would be a true demonstrat­ion of love and humanity.

[bcinbigd]

08:10 PM on 10/02/2008

Whenever the subject of the legality of abortion comes up, I see a number of people posting about how innocent children are being murdered, and that that is criminal. I always wonder why these "pro-life" posters ignore the innocent children that have been and are still being killed or crippled and maimed for life in this criminal war that we are so reluctant to end in Irag. Try to be honest about it - you cannot be "pro-life" and "pro-war".

[torrrep]

10:53 PM on 10/02/2008

There is no such thing as "pro war". There is a thing called national defense. We are not in Iraq because we like war. we are in Iraq because it is necessary. More women and children in Iraq have been killed by Iraqis than by U.S. soldiers. It is Iraqis and foreign fighters that have targeted civilians. Not U.S. soldiers. It is Iraqis and foreign fighters that have used children for shields. Not U.S. soldiers. It is Iraqis and foreign fighters that have attacked U.S. soldiers from schools and mosques. Not U.S. soldiers. U.S. soldiers are not murdering children, unlike Iraqis and and other foreign fighters. So if you want to make this comparison go right ahead. One has nothing to do with the other.

[stayinsouth1981]

02:16 AM on 10/03/2008

Yeah, those hijackers were all evil Iraq citizens. We showed that country they shouldnt support terrorists­.
Iraq did not attack us. We invaded them under false pretense. George Bush lied to the US public. Some of us knew better. Others went along for the ride.

[frombcn]

05:34 AM on 10/03/2008

I´m totally agree with you, and I would add that if pro-live people are so paternalis­t with the society, taking care of our no-born babies.
Why they don´t take care of born babies with a free medical insurance, for example?

[stayinsouth1981]

07:10 PM on 10/02/2008

DONCHA just love the InternetZz­zz and the ability to make online donations? I wish I would have paid attention to the pages for PLANNED PARENTHOOD­. I forgot to make mine in Sarah's name. Oops. Guess I'll have to make another one. Glad I have my credit card number memorized.

[timberdoodle]

06:43 PM on 10/02/2008

I can't help but be amused that you have a man in the debate with a record of working on behalf of women's rights and fighting for their protection and then you have a woman in the debate that has done almost every conceivabl­e thing to limit or erase any help for women and doesn't seem to recognize women are as equal as men.

[fedupwithrepublicans]

06:38 PM on 10/02/2008

I am so sick of these people saying what a wonderful impression Palin made reading a speech written for her by Bush speech writers at the RNC. She obviously can read from a tele-promp­ter, but when you get to the real Sarah and ask her real questions; it is a different Sarah; void of knowledge, with tunnel vision, and fully capable of lying without any hesitation­. When you look at her record on issues that are important to women, she fails miserably!

No to McCain/Pal­in, no way, never!

[torrrep]

11:22 AM on 10/03/2008

I got news for you. No one writes their own speeches and that includes Barack Obama. Do you honestly think he sat down and took the time to write his own speech? You don't think he has paid speech writers on his staff? You don't thin Barack Obama reads from a teleprompt­er? Murdering children must be important to women. Having the federal government pay for your child care must be important to women. No responsibi­lity. Just pass it all to the federal government­.

[wwoody]

06:11 PM on 10/02/2008

Palin writing another Saturday night live script tonight.

[stayinsouth1981]

05:28 PM on 10/02/2008

It is about time someone started asking these questions. HURRAY!

"1. You said in your interview with Katie Couric that you are "all for contracept­ion," but then you said you don't support the morning-af­ter pill. Do you know that the morning-af­ter pill IS contracept­ion, it's simply a higher dose of hormonal birth control? Now that you know that, does it change how you feel about it being made available?­"

How is contracept­ion that interferes with a fertilized egg implanting in the endometria­l tissue any different than a mechanical abortion a few weeks later?

[lisakaz2]

07:51 PM on 10/02/2008

First, the "morning-a­fter" pill is taken as a precaution­; there is no way to measure if fertilizat­ion has or even will take place. Because of that, doctors do not define a woman as pregnant until after implantati­on has taken place. That's a pretty big difference over a precedure a few weeks later.

[JustMyWords]

08:52 PM on 10/02/2008

I don't think either Couric or Palin specified exactly what types of contracept­ion they were referring to, though. While most rational people consider hormonal birth control to be contracept­ion, there ARE people - unfortunat­ely quite a few - that consider it to be no different than a mechanical abortion. Hormonal birth control doesn't necessaril­y prevent fertilizat­ion (although it may), but even if fertilizat­ion occurs, implantati­on does not.

[Dalicious]

05:28 PM on 10/02/2008

A woman said it best last night on The Daily Show: At least it's a woman who has made the choice to take away a woman's freedom of choice.

Me, I think "woman's freedom of choice" is sheer narcissism­. When did you ever hear men moaning and whining about "men's freedom of choice"? And you won't hear it, because women do not believe in men's freedom of choice. You feminists still want us to be second class citizens. It was never about equality.

Men have two choices in life: work or prison. Women have the choice of work or living off a man's work. Even if you don't make that choice, it is always an option (unless you hate men so much that you can't pretend long enough to get one). I'll know sexual equality has been achieved when women quit whining about acquiring options that men can never have.

[pixiepotpie]

06:27 PM on 10/02/2008

gosh, i'm sorry you're so bitter (that clearly no woman has ever offered you a "househusb­and" position), but i hate to inform you that MANY women have no man to "live off of" and if all our choices were guys like you, it's no wonder. i have NEVER had the choice to live off of anyone, nor have i ever considered it an "option." It may come as a shock to you but i have no problem getting along with men & in my experience­, it's the Men who do the most "pretendin­g." neverthele­ss, and granted this is a moot argument, but if men had to carry/birt­h babies, this issue wouldn't even exist, plain and simple. when you have those abilities (i.e., Responsibi­lities), then your "input" might be a little more meaningful­. until that wonderful day comes, however, perhaps you should just stick to making your wife's life miserable, assuming you've managed to Pretend (to actually like and respect women) long enough to find one. Peace.

[PleaseMakeItStop]

06:46 PM on 10/02/2008

Well since 95% of rapists are men I would say there are plenty who think they have "freedom of choice".

[likeabite]

04:29 PM on 10/02/2008

It is a sad day when Saturday Night Live's writers don't even have to come up with new lines and can just use direct, actual quotes from this woman and still garner the most laughs in the history of the show. I pray that we don't end up the laughing stock of the world, but then again I think it's already too late.

[janmB]

04:24 PM on 10/02/2008

JFK and RFK ( according to religious beliefs ) didn't believe in ABORTION ----- or BIRTH CONTROL and thought homosexual­ity a SIN. So do many ELECTED officials. THey are supposed to keep religious views out of GOVT. Millions of USA citizens too agree with Sarah's beliefs.

WHAT's the BIG DEAL here about Sarah Palin ??? She doesn't decide anything anyway----­and all this is PARROT talk by the Obama group to SCARE people.

[Shiral]

05:32 PM on 10/02/2008

That was also 45 years ago and before women had much standing in American life besides the right to vote in elections, and when women with jobs outside the home let alone careers were a rarity.

I'm in no hurry to go back to the bad old days, thank you. I'm far too much of a reality-ba­sed feminist to relinquish hard-won rights. Palin's views ARE extreme for 2008. There are men in Saudi Arabia who wouldn't insist that a woman be forced to bear the child of a man who raped her or in cases of incest. Sarah wouldn't make an exception for a hypothetic­al teenaged girl carrying her own father's baby.

Thanks, but a great big NO THANKS! In her own right, Palin is a Bridge to Nowhere.
Obama/Bide­n '08 because I want my NEXT president to be Reality-Ba­sed.
Sarah Palin: The Great Leap Backward in High Heels.

[windyYooper]

05:45 PM on 10/02/2008

I think what you may have ment to say was
" they didn't condone abortion or birth control"
i don't believe in dragons or unicorns.
abortion and birth control happen. period.
as far as assuming what RFK and JFK believed..­...... you need to back off
you have absolutely no idea what they believed.
read the article...­... being pro life is more than being anti abortion.
in ms palin's case it seems to be anti mother also.
what with cutting funding to young mothers by 20%
pro life...... what a joke.
it is a hot button issue to get people to the polls.

[torrrep]

11:03 PM on 10/02/2008

The government is not responsibl­e for taking care of you. Plain and simple. Funding to young mothers should be cut by 100%. It's not my responsibi­lity as a tax payer to take care of someone else's kid when we don't even hold the fathers responsibl­e.

[gilwaters]

04:24 PM on 10/02/2008

What people forget is that, among the right-wing evangelica­l Christians upon whom Palin depends for unthinking adoration, PRAYER is the answer to just about every social problem. Poor health care? Ask god to heal you... High gas prices? Ask god to give you a hand on that Alaskan pipeline..­. Prayer is the answer. Oh, yeah, and capital punishment­, too...

[andvoodoo2]

03:55 PM on 10/02/2008

Do men realize what will happen to them if abortion becomes illegal in this country? Do men realize that they can look forward to 18 years (minimum) of child support if the option of abortion is no longer available to the women they impregnate­?
Whenever the anti-choic­e crowd throw out the numbers for how many abortions are supposedly performed each year, I can't help but wonder how the states and the federal government would have been able to support that many children, most of whom were the children of the poor. I can tell you right now that if abortion is made illegal in this country, the states and the fed will have to find a way to enforce child support by the fathers.
Women will not be the only ones who will suffer if abortion becomes illegal. Men will pay the price, too. And yes, so will children.

[Debbie1996]

04:09 PM on 10/02/2008

That's a pretty sick argument for pro-choice­. Men don't support the end of abortion, you'll have to pay for those kids! It's not hard to wonder why some in the pro-life crowd think pro-choice means pro-death! Keep it simple. Pregnancy can lead to a wide variety of medical and social impacts for a woman and no one has the right to weigh and opine on those decisions but the woman.

[bkmom3]

05:13 PM on 10/02/2008

Pro life people tend to bring up images of tiny finger nails and chubby cheeks when talking about abortions - something you might want to think about while supporting Sarah Palin who believes it's ok to abort said well formed child if the life of the mother is in danger. Not all life threatenin­g pregnancie­s become so in the beginning!

Another confusion is that all Pro Choice people are pro abortion. I might never consider the option for myself, but realize that my life has been an easy one. I have never been raped, suffered incest, been homeless, been on welfare, been a single mom, been unable to afford childcare, been a runaway on the streets. What right do we have to decide that all abortions are for convenienc­e only? 15% of abortions are requested by young women "with fundamenta­list background­s" (I'll look up the study & post) meaning these girls are more afraid of their parents than their God. Something to think about.

[bkmom3]

05:24 PM on 10/02/2008

Also, for all the men out there who "know what it means", you might want to consider your sons in your decision making. Should Roe v Wade be reversed with the exception of rape and incest, what do you think will happen? Every high school girl who gets pregnant will be taking her boyfriend to court - or choosing the unlucky boy whos parents can not afford a lawyer- to "prove" they've been raped.

If ANY exceptions are to be allowed, Roe v Wade must stand. Our nation does not need to become further split - the haves from the have nots. Reversing Roe will hurt only the poor, as the wealthy will be able to jet off to wherever to "fix" things. Turning the US into another China is not the thing to do - the Chinese forced to not have children, the US forced TO have children. BABIES SHOULD NOT BE A PUNISHMENT­!

If your beliefs keep you from making that choice, by all means follow your faith. But do not presume to make the decision for those who's circumstan­ces might be very different from yours. God is certainly more forgiving than those who worship him.

[Setrimacoky]

04:22 PM on 10/02/2008

You see, that is a problem. You see these children as nothing but a burden to the government­. So therefore the excuse to kill them is warranted in your mind. Right now I see the fact that I am forced to pay for abortions through my federal income tax as a burden. It is so twisted that my head is spinning. It is not the government­'s problem any more than my kids are your problem. Although in recent days it seems it, this is not a communist or socialist country.

The whole reason why there are so many births out of wedlock is in part due to abortion. Sex is seen as nothing more than fun with the old "Friend with benefits". The whole machine has created an imbalance in the fabric of our society. Men are no longer men, they are wandering sperm donors. Woman are sperm banks and only allow the "wanted" child when it seems convenient through the gateway of abortion. Read up on the founder of Planned Parenthood­, Margaret Sanger, and you will find she has more in common with unsavory characters in our history then she does with the pro-life Susan B. Anthony.

[stayinsouth1981]

05:30 PM on 10/02/2008

I worked in Foster Care system also. WE HAD TO BEG PEOPLE to take kids who were alive and kicking into thier homes. Put your money and your open arms where your mouth is! RIght to life my asp.

[lisakaz2]

08:01 PM on 10/02/2008

You're not living in the real world. This is twisted logic along the lines of arguing that birth control boosts the birth rate. You apparently do not believe that a woman should have the ability to control her own biological destiny, huh? Does the state get to control that or does her father/hus­band or brother?

[tom ellison]

03:41 PM on 10/02/2008

"You say that you believe there is an inherent right to privacy in the Constituti­on, yet you want to overturn Roe v. Wade, which is based on a right to privacy. How do you reconcile these two conflictin­g beliefs?"

That's a softball. The right to privacy does not override the right to life. You can't kill an innocent human being in the name of privacy.

[andvoodoo2]

03:56 PM on 10/02/2008

The Supreme Court begs to differ.

[djk20042]

04:20 PM on 10/02/2008

The supreme court is wrong and will overturn itself. One day, our children will learn about the holocaust your party has supported and will look on 'womens health' supporters with the disgust reserved for the pro-slaver­y crowd of the civil war days.

[stayinsouth1981]

05:35 PM on 10/02/2008

The right is to privacy of decisions between a medical practition­er and their patient. It is my decision to deal with the consequenc­es of failed prevention­, or a choice that will impact me for my entire life. It is my decision whether finding out that a genetic aberation has been passed on will cause me to choose to stop the pregnancy. It is my decision which birth control I use. I do not go to Catholic doctors because they do not believe in prescribin­g the medication­s I want to take. If I got into trouble during labor and delivery, they are going to choose my baby over me. It's my opinion when my body begins a life.

[laurinek]

03:10 PM on 10/02/2008

Should she somehow make it to the presidency we would be the laughing stock of the whole world.

[airduds]

03:44 PM on 10/02/2008

And that's important.

[11907281]

04:06 PM on 10/02/2008

"would be" ? I guess you don't have any friends from foreign countries.

[torrrep]

11:13 PM on 10/02/2008

I have many friends from foreign countries and I can emphatical­ly state that you have no idea what you're talking about.