"We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby."
Gov. Palin wants the decision to "have" the baby to be much easier -- that is, if her daughter or anyone else's daughter is not willing to break the law. The wording is important. It is not "keep" as in not give it up for adoption. It is "have."
It is unclear if Palin would be "proud" if her daughter did not break the law. This would tend to be a low barrier, though in various cases, somewhat sadly, it is a significant one. It is the very fact that abortion is legal, that it is truly a "decision" whether or not to abort (the issue in Roe, not being pro-abortion), that truly warrants her being proud.
For instance, one chooses to follow Jesus Christ. It is not compelled. In fact, most think one can not truly be compelled to follow Jesus Christ. Such an act of conscience is a matter of individual choice. Thus, a believer can be proud that their children truly honors it.
I guess Gov. Palin is pro-teen, since she wants it to be much easier for unwed pregnant girls to choose to give birth. In the process, their parents need not to be proud. Avoiding a prison term is not really a big reason to be so.
Some don't want all this focus on Palin's personal stuff, but misguided stances on social issues helps the Democrats as much as anything. Still, to take a small but telling point on something else, here's a bit of b.s. alert reporting. Just what applause line did she have that was not misleading, untrue, or just generally nasty?
---
* Jacob Weisberg wonders why the Republicans, the same crew who trumps passion and vitriol over reason, isn't more pragmatic about a core issue. You know, more like us reasonable sorts. How patronizingly naive sounding.
BTW, his bit on how Quayle was "entirely" right about Murphy Brown (damn her for not aborting her unplanned pregnancy and/or not marrying her casual absentee baby daddy!) is charmingly typical of Slate's misguided contrarism. Oh, heck. Idiot.