Monday, October 20, 2008

While we're on the subject of Palin . . .

I had intended to include the video above in my last "Fair is fair" post, but it didn't flow with the rest of the content.

So I decided to make this a separate post.

Palin has stated, clearly, that she is "pro-life." But what, exactly does that mean, from a policy perspective? Isn't that the question we need to be asking and need to hear her talk about?

We see how she has lived out her convictions as a private person. I am very happy to see her commitment to uphold the life of her son and grandchild.

But we're not considering whether to ask her to be our nation's wife. We are considering whether to ask her to be our nation's assistant chief executive, someone who will help push for the passage of laws and someone who will establish legal policies.

So how does she reply to Couric's questions concerning legal issues related to life?

Couric asks, "If a 15-year-old is raped by her father, you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion. Why?"

And, following up: "Ideally, you think it should be illegal for a girl who was raped or a victim of incest to get an abortion?"

Pay attention to her answers! They are no different, as far as I can see, from the most merciful "pro-choice"/"pro-abortion" politicians' answers! If you can discern a difference, I would appreciate hearing your analysis.

. . . But then, after handling Couric's questions, on their face, as well as she can, Palin takes the offensive and frames her own question: "If you're asking . . . kind of foundationally, here, Should anybody end up in jail for having had an abortion?" Please pay attention to her answer to that question, as well!

It sounds to me as if she has no legal or policy plans in mind that are any different from what the law of the land proclaims right now.

Oh, but Couric couldn't leave well enough alone. Following up, she asks: ". . . How do you feel about the 'morning-after' pill?"

Palin: "Well, I'm all for contraception and I'm all for any preventative measures that are legal and safe and should be taken, but, Katie, I am one to believe that life starts at the moment of conception and . . . "

Couric jumps in, "Ergo, you don't believe in the 'morning-after' pill?"

Palin: ". . . I would like to see fewer and fewer abortions in this world and, again, I haven't spoken with anyone who disagrees with my position on that."

Couric: "I'm sorry. I just want to ask you again, 'Do you condone or condemn the "morning-after" pill?'"

And Palin's reply (again, perfectly in line with every so-called "pro-choice"/"pro-abortion" politician I've ever heard): "Personally--and this isn't a McCain-Palin policy . . . personally, I would not choose to participate in that kind of contraception."

So, first, notice, she has no policy or legal answers. And, second, she provides no more reassurance about what her policy stands might be than what all the "pro-choice"/"pro-abortion" crowd can offer.

The differences we might expect to see under Palin as chief or assistant chief executive are, at best, differences, merely, of semantics and emphasis, aren't they?

ETA: Check out So how would I have responded to Couric's questions?
blog comments powered by Disqus