samboct -> RE: Palin imposed fees on sexual assault victims. (9/15/2008 9:05:17 AM)
|
Anybody see the piece that Jon Stewart did on Palin's support of her daughter having a child out of wedlock? (OK, this is from memory...) His comment was that on Palin's expressed viewpoint- "The family stands behind Bristol's decision to have this baby." was bang on. Decision implies choice- and choice is what would be removed from the equation if abortion becomes illegal-which is Sarah Ps viewpoint. So if Sarah P. gets her way (she's anti-abortion), the statement becomes, "Yes, my 17 year old daughter is going to have a baby because that's what the gov't says." The rest of you folks- well, if you're too poor to go to Europe to have an abortion- who cares what you think? It seems that the picture of who she is gets a little clearer when you tie it in with the story on rape kits. There's more than a whiff of the old- "If she wasn't askin' for it, she wouldn't have gotten raped." in this decision to make women pay for their own rape kits. I suspect that this attitude goes a long way to explain the number of rapes in Alaska. In both cases, Sarah P. comes off as cruel, heartless, and unable to see how her decisions could affect someone else. She took for granted her choice in whether or not to support her daughters decision to have the baby- a choice that she would remove from others if she had her way. In terms of rape kits- she hasn't been raped- so what's the problem? I'm beginning to see where the sobriquet of "Sarah Barracuda" comes from. Sam
|
|
|
|