I find it ignorant and insulting to think that some women will vote for her just because of her vagina. I am hoping that women in general are not that stupid and maybe if they look at some of the facts they will see she has no place being Vice President of a country that so desperately needs to start taking care of it's own.
I can understand if your personal choice is to not believe in abortion. I can't understand if you want to revoke the right for a woman to choose, even in the most horrific of circumstances.
I don't understand if you want no choice and then decide to cut funding to programs to women who decided to have children from these unwanted pregnancies.
I grabbed this from a new group on Facebook titled Intelligent Women Against Sarah Palin. (you can join the group if you are a facebook member.)
Read Here:(this link is to the blog about it) (the tidbit link brings you to the Washington Post)
Obviously, from the perspective of a progressive, there is much to dislike about Sarah Palin's politics. But this tidbit in today's WaPo strikes me as particularly offensive:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live.
After the legislature passed a spending bill in April, Palin went through the measure reducing and eliminating funds for programs she opposed. Inking her initials on the legislation -- "SP" -- Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million. Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers.
If you can't learn in school anything other than absinence. You don't have a mother. You are 16 without a job. Your friend rapes you. You get pregnant. You can't get an abortion. The one place you could get help no longer has funding. What do we do with our teens then? How is that promoting FAMILY VALUES? Aren't we all part of one big HUMAN FAMILY?
I believe in personal responsibility, but if you take away the education necessary for personal responsibility WHAT ARE WE LEFT WITH?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 40
Sarah says Choose life, even if her own daughter were raped. (Nov 2006)
According to an April 2008 article in Education Week, Palin signed legislation in March 2008 that would increase public school funding considerably, including special needs funding. It would increase spending on what Alaska calls "intensive needs" students (students with high-cost special requirements) from $26,900 per student in 2008 to $73,840 per student in 2011. That almost triples the per-student spending in three fiscal years. Palin's original proposal, according to the Anchorage Daily News, would have increased funds slightly more, giving intensive needs students a $77,740 allotment by 2011.
Education Week: A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special needs to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.
Unlike many other states, Alaska has relatively flush budget coffers, thanks to a rise in oil and gas revenues. Funding for schools will remain fairly level next year, however. Overall per-pupil funding across the state will rise by $100, to $5,480, in fiscal 2009. ...
Carl Rose, the executive director of the Association of Alaska School Boards, praised the changes in funding for rural schools and students with special needs as a "historic event," and said the finance overhaul would bring more stability to district budgets.
According to Eddy Jeans at the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, funding for special needs and intensive needs students has increased every year since Palin entered office, from a total of $203 million in 2006 to a projected $276 million in 2009.
Those who claim that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent are looking in the wrong place and misinterpreting what they find there. They point to an apparent drop in the Department of Education and Early Development budget for special schools. But the special schools budget, despite the similar name, isn't the special needs budget. "I don’t even consider the special schools component [part of] our special needs funding," Jeans told FactCheck.org. "The special needs funding is provided through our public school funding formula. The special schools is simply a budget component where we have funding set aside for special projects," such as the Alaska School for the Deaf and the Alaska Military Youth Academy. A different budget component, the Foundation Program, governs special needs programs in the public school system.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
Good grief, this is the 21st Century, why is abortion even on the ballot. It is a woman's choice and has never had nor will it ever have anything to do with politics. It's utterly absurd.
You made excellent points about family values and lack of programs and real help for those who will need it if they want to keep their baby and survive economically for the next year or two.
It's interesting that in the same election one capable woman loses and another emerges triumphant - supposedly because of her youth and her sex.
Personally I don't know of one woman who would vote for Palin because of her sex.
It's too early in the campaign to decide for or against - let's see how Biden and Palin shape up in the coming weeks.
Thanks for the info, Sarah.
We have to do what we can for teen mothers. It is an epidemic in this society and has created a sub class of young mothers and their young children. In many cases, the young mothers are coerced or convinced to have sex with an older male who can be seen as a child abuser. The issue is quite complicated. It appears that Bristol Palin had sex with one of her peers. I have to wonder if they would have made the same choices if they were aware of birth control methods. Sarah Palin is quite backwards with all of her accomplishments as a mayor and governor. She is scary as well because she would have all of her backward ideals imposed on the rest of society.
The Washington Post’s Paul Kane reported late yesterday that “Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms.” The far-left Huffington Post repeated the story this morning. To support this contention, Kane pointed out that “Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million.”
Covenant House Alaska is a faith-based, not-for-profit agency which provides a variety of services to troubled teens, including a home for teen moms. Although the work with adolescent mothers is only one component of their work, Kane focused on this aspect of their work due to the revelation that Governor Palin’s teen daughter is 5 months pregnant.
In Alaska, the governor is allowed to reduce spending allocations in the service of sound management and fiscal accountability. To prove his contention that Palin slashed funds for teen mothers, Kane produced the Alaska 2008 budget with Sarah Palin’s line by line adjustments. It is true that lawmakers allocated 5 million to Covenant House Alaska and that Mrs. Palin cut that allocation to 3.9 million dollars. However, what is misleading about the Post headline is that the allocation of 3.9 million is three times more than Covenant House Alaska received from government grants in 2007. According to records on the Covenant House Alaska website, the organization received just over 1.3 million dollars from grants in 2007 and nearly 1.2 million in 2006. Even with the reductions, Governor Palin signed a budget which provided three times more funds than the organization received in 2007.
Thus, the Post report is misleading on two counts. One, the funding in question went to an organization which engaged in many different services, including work with teen mothers. There was no funding exclusively earmarked for pregnant teens.
Two, the report leaves the impression that the Governor reduced existing funding levels, when in fact, the Palin-approved budget allowed a massive expansion of funding for this worthy faith-based organization. The organization’s total revenue for 2007 was just over 3 million dollars and so the 3.9 million approved by Palin and the Alaska legislature was a huge increase.
Viewed within the context of prior expenditures, it becomes clear that Governor Palin increased funding for social services which benefit kids, not “slashed” them as the Post reported. However, it also appears clear that she is not afraid to exercise some measure of fiscal discipline, even when the reduction targets those of similar ideology. Covenant House wants to expand housing capability and as a part of their marketing makes a clear religious appeal saying,
Just as Christ in His humanity is the visible sign of God’s presence among His people, so our efforts together in the covenant community are a visible sign that effects the presence of God, working through the Holy Spirit among ourselves and our kids.
I cannot figure out why this context was not provided. It is clear that Governor Palin did not cut funding. It cannot be a cut in funding when you get a raise, even if the raise was not as great as originally contemplated.
http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/EWThrockmorton/11581311/
Hel-LO! (Perhaps repeating the point via the use of semaphore flags might help... I dunno...)
Ms. Palin IS "scary"... It's that NRA membership card she covets so dearly that makes her so... That and the fact that, like MOST overly-ambitious, self-righteous Right Wing politicians, she places $$$ over PEOPLE and people's LIVES... Read the "yea/nay" list of the issues that she does and does not support... The only things she DOES support (by her own admission) are "the right to transfer funds and real property over state and national boundaries" (Oh, goodie!!! More "outsourcing" and money laundering for big money corporations!) AND "drilling in the Arctic"! WON-DER-FUL... (and, yet, so TYP-I-CAL...)
People better get a heads up about this female Frankenstein before its to late.
I would not vote for someone just because...however, after RESEARCHING both candidates and their plans for the future (ie taxes, Iraq, etc....I have a son that HAS to do this for his gov't class, so I'm lucky...and he can't vote), I like McCain and Sarah Palin...she has about as much experience as Obama.
FYI: Neither tax plan will be beneficial to us...we're middle, middle income.
That said I think there are too many important issues going on in this country to elect a junior senator for president.
http://friendsofdanh.gather.com.
Our goal is to help you further your exposure and to support other gather members.
"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality." - George Washington.
Go ahead, attack President Washington if you must but I'm sticking with him.
I'm going to have to see the research statistics before I buy into-- women who are against abortion are also against birth control. Sounds like horse hockey to me.
Carla,
Palin extremist views?? That about as far as one can stretch a pantie hose, especially when talking about an issue that is misnomered "a woman's rights" issue. Abortion as a "women's right" Now that IS an extremist view.
You pro abortionist always divert the issue and cloud the discussion with your fear that RvW is going to be overturned, That will never happen in America. A more justifiable position on abortion however is inevitable and necessary for a civilized society. There are deep moral and civil and ethical issues that have been totally sidestepped in Americas quest to avoid responsibility for folly and our country is suffering for it. If you would frame the discussion with some propensity to a rational use of abortion incorporating all the minutia of complicated issues it involves instead of whining about some non existent fantasy "right" you might find a more receptive audience for debate and maybe we could all reach more rational administration of this life changing/ending issue.
My problem with the two of them is that they've both said they want to take steps to overturn Roe V. Wade, which I think is a big mistake. This is supposed to be a FREE country, so women should be FREE to choose whether or not they want to have abortions. If that right is taken away, you'll see more of the back alley illegal abortions in the unclean seedy places where everyone's life will be at risk, not just the baby's.