Palin-genesis: Parental supervision suggested

Kos wonders:

Does O'Reilly really want to maintain that the difference between Jamie Lynn and Bristol is that the Spears daughter was "running around unsupervised"? Because if O'Reilly insists that Bristol, to the contrary, was supervised, then how exactly did she get knocked up? It would follow that ... yeah. Gross.

Of course she supervised. Palin believes in abstinence-only education, so how else could her daughter have learned the basic anatomy, biology, and mechanics necessary to conceive a child?

More like this

Josh,

I'm just curious as to how your know Palin supports "abstinence-*only*" education. I've been trying to find the source for that statement.

FtK, according to her answers on the '2006 Eagle Forum Alaska Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire' Governor Palin does indeed support "abstinence-until-marriage education"
and reject actual sex-education. A copy can be found at http://www.washblade.com/2008/EagleForumAlaska.pdf and several other places.

By Oscar Zoalaster (not verified) on 10 Sep 2008 #permalink

That question and comment is ambiguous. There is a big difference between supporting "abstinence until marriage" and "abstinence *only*" sex education. Most people I know who support abstinence until marriage have few arguments against birth control methods being taught as well.

What is unacceptable to most of us is administering BC at school clinics or in class.

The Kansas school board was accused by KCFS and others of supporting abstinence only classes here in our state, but when I emailed those folks about my concerns on this stance, they stated that what was really being discussed was "Abstinence PLUS" classes.

There is a big difference between the two, and Palin should not be accused of supporting abstinence ONLY classes unless they is evidence that this is truly what she meant and whether she pushed to have that taught in Alaskan public schools.

FtK: Abstinence-plus is not the same as abstinence-until-marriage. Abstinence-plus is comprehensive sex ed. The KS board conservatives favored abstinence-only, which is functionally synonymous with abstinence-until-marriage.

Distributing condoms is an entirely different matter. One can teach students how to use condoms (comprehensive/abstinence-plus) without giving them away for free. The latter does increase condom use, thereby preventing teen pregnancy and STD transmission. Is there some reason why you want to put kids at risk, beyond some general feeling that it's icky for teens to have sex with each other? Because honestly, there are a lot of people I wish wouldn't have sex either.

Josh, you tricky little guy. Your wording is a hoot...

"The KS board conservatives "favored" abstinence-only", making it sound as if they were pushing AO sex ed on our KS public schools. They weren't.

Most conservatives will say they "favor" abstinence because they don't want their kids to suffer due to what can happen when making poor choices. BUT, the board did not suggest that KS schools teach abstinence only sex ed. Don't try to mislead, luv.

Oh jeez FtK, they tried to remove accreditation from schools that didn't present abstinence-only classes. Abstinence-only and abstinence-until-marriage are synonyms. When people challenged the policy, it was moved to a nonbinding section of the regulations.

If you intend to discuss well-documented events from recent history, it behooves you to get them right.

Josh, that's pure bullshit. I emailed board members personally, and they told me point blank that they were NOT suggesting abstinence *only*. You'll need to provide me with the documentation that suggests that board members "tried to remove accreditation from the schools that didn't present abstinence-only classes".

By the way, you need to brush up on your geography...it would "behoove" you to get it right.

Back up your claims with evidence, Josh. Provide me with the smoking gun...the documentation that proves your point.

FTK: First, your response to my post on Palin's national security credentials is disturbing. Do you really think that being able to see Big Diomede from her home state qualifies Palin to make national security decisions? To address the conflict between Russia and Georgia? Honestly?

In any event, googling "abstinence-only," Kansas and accreditation gives me this story http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11856589/">:

One board member wants the new policy to go further and require abstinence-only courses. We need to send the correct message, Kathy Martin said.

Under her proposal, a school could lose its state accreditation if it did not offer nine weeks of instruction on abstinence until marriage at least once in grades 6-9.

As I've said repeatedly, abstinence-until-marriage is synonymous with abstinence-only in terms of sex-ed curricula. That's why the story uses them synonymously, and why the US House of Representatives stated:

Under the Bush Administration, there has been a dramatic increase in federal support for abstinence-only education programs. Also called abstinence education or abstinence-until-marriage education, these programs promote abstinence from all sexual activity, usually until marriage, as the only way to reduce the risks of pregnancy, disease, and other potential consequences of sex. The programs define sexual activity broadly and do not teach basic facts about contraception.

As I've stated many times now, abstinence-only is synonymous with abstinence-until-marriage. Everyone knows it, including the government and the press. The Board knew it. Now you know it. What you do with that information is your own business.

Josh: quote "Under her proposal, a school could lose its state accreditation if it did not offer nine weeks of instruction on 'abstinence until marriage' at least once in grades 6-9."
Nine weeks? That's a lot of "tut-tut"ing, "tsk-tsk"ing and saying "Don't do that". I wonder if you can skip the course if you're already pregnant...

quote "Under the Bush Administration, there has been a dramatic increase in federal support for 'abstinence-only' education programs."
The secret, you see, when you fail is to fail harder. That's when the *majik* happens and Doug Henning goes from being in the box to being in the chicken costume, poodle haircut and all.

Josh, it's impossible to know what was included in the program they were supporting from that article alone. You certainly wouldn't need 9 weeks of instruction to tell the kids "don't have sex - wait until you're married". There had to be much more to the program, and I already know that birth control methods were included in the program because I asked the board members myself. I certainly don't rely on some ambiguous article in a newspaper to give me the details of the program.

Birth control methods *were* included the program they proposed. I asked Abrams myself. He assured me that it was *not* an abstinence *only* program.

Well, I've shown you documentation, and all you've given me is vague recollections of a conversation you claim to have had 3 years ago.

I documented my claims. Now it's your turn.

An article from msmbc is your "documentation"?? lol Try again...maybe a Topeka source or something from the KBOE website stating that they were proposing abstinence "only".

I've seen endless articles from all over the nation state that the board was proposing to take evolution out of the curriculum and replace it ID. We both know that was an out right lie. Neither claim is true. No doubt, your article above was another example of spreading false information.

FtK, every article from the time said the same thing. It's time for you to document your claim, or admit you are wrong.

I have more documentation, but I don't like the game you're playing, of forcing me to document everything while you can slide by on vague assertions and parochial dismissals of national reporting on the events at issue. Document your claims or admit your error.