Sarah Palin adds another grandchild to her list of hypocrisy

She’s against comprehensive sex education. She’s against contraceptives being available in schools. She cut funding for a program that helps teen mothers. She set up her daughter – who admitted abstinence is not realistic after having a child of her own – to be a spokesperson for abstinence, making hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process.
And now? She has another out of wedlock grandchild on the way:

In a not so surprising turn-of-events, the news that Sarah’s son Track is expecting a baby with his wife Britta was just released Thursday.

Pictures of the new bride posted on Facebook show that she is rather obviously expecting, while her marriage took place just two months ago.

The quick ceremony prompted many to ask whether Britta was pregnant, but supporters of conservative Sarah became extremely upset, continuing to argue that the new couple was not expecting. It certainly seemed like a shot-gun wedding, and today it was finally confirmed that the pregnancy came before the marriage.

You know, I wouldn’t give a flying diddly about this if Palin wasn’t trying to shove her beliefs down everyone’s throats. I think people should have all the sex they want regardless of their marital status, and that said status shouldn’t matter if you want to have a child.

It’s one thing to force abstinence only education on the public when study after study has shown it to be ineffective. When you’re anti-science like Palin, I can understand that things like facts wouldn’t change your mind. But when you can’t even use your method effectively in your own family, you think that would be a sign that maybe this shit doesn’t work.

But you know what I think is the really scary part of this story? That it’s more important to have shot gun weddings to save face instead of using a fucking condom. You’re going to make a life commitment to someone because you accidentally knocked them up? Really? And these are the same people arguing about sanctity of marriage. The same people who won’t let same sex couples who love each other get married.

Yep, that’s a great system of morals.

This is post 9 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.


  1. says

    These self-appointed arbiters of sexual morality need to realize something: being abstinent is 100% effective; teaching abstinence is far from it.

  2. says

    What I really want to see is someone in Congress come forward and say, “Unless I’m behaving the opposite of the way I vote, my sex life is none of your damned business.”

  3. says

    By which I mean, we also need to leave officials’ personal lives alone where they are NOT trying to inflict such policies on the public.  I agree with everything Jen said about Palin.  Just trying to clarify.

  4. WhiteJM says

    The ignorance that comes from abstinence only education is staggering.  I mean sure I was exposed to it in church all the time, but I learned about birth control and other issues of sexuality in school. Once I met people who grew up in abstinence-only counties I realized that those without proper sex education are just being fucked over for no reason.

  5. Surgoshan says

    As I understand it, these shotgun weddings aren’t viewed as shameful; they, somewhat after the fact, sanctify the premarital sex that came before.  It’s only when a wedding doesn’t follow that it becomes sinful.  And the fact that a baby is happening just confirms that they’re fruitful and God is saying “This wedding should happen, and *now*.”  In other words, “It’s only bad when *you* do it.   When we do it, it’s holy.”There’s a great deal more hypocrisy and doublethink going on than is apparent at first glance.

  6. the_Siliconopolitan says

    She’s against comprehensive sex education. She’s against contraceptives being available in schools. She cut funding for a program that helps teen mothers.

    Of course!Without those things she’d have to wait to have grandchildren. And some people dream of becoming grandparents. My mother certainly seemed to want that pretty badly (but hated being called mother-in-law).

  7. Conrad says

    I think it’s a mistake to confuse rapists and guys as a group. That being said — yes. It’s a sad truth. =(

  8. GregFromCos says

    Is it really so surprising? Why should sister Bristol be able to cash in on all the free cash due to having a child out of wedlock, and being the child of such a pro-abstinence parent.  He just wants what he deserves! :)Have any of her children gone to any form of college yet? That is the most interesting thing in this saga to me.

  9. says

    What I do find fascinating in events such as this is the sheer amount of mind screw that will inevitably follow, when a simply irrealistic way of thinking, such as this – and any other – crashes with reality. And has to be explained away.Of course abstinence-only is the best (in effective as in moralistic terms) method of family planning. Tragic accidents such as this are, of course, only caused by human error, never a flaw in the system … or perhaps only an example on how we all are just fallible human beings – therefore we need moral guidance, therefore god (american-evangelical flavor).Difficult question: Would a the shaman of the belief be better of believing his own preachings or not? A cynical con artist probably could faster and more efficient come up witzh excuses, why the baby-fairy graced her daughter in spite of fervent prayer – but a self-immunized zealot should be more convincing and believable …

  10. says

    The right-wing just doesn’t have the same goals as the rest of us when it comes to teens and sex.  We want to prepare kids for a lifetime of informed, pleasurable, responsible sex.  They don’t.

  11. Jen Peeples says

    Isn’t Track the one in the Army. If so, he’s doubly stupid. Condoms are available for free at any Troop Medical Clinic. When I was a company commander, I kept a large box of them in the orderly room and encouraged soldiers (male and female) to take one more than they thought they’d need. That way everyone had at least one.

  12. says

    I think it’s time to consider the possibility that the desired result of their policies is more unintended pregnancies leading to marriage.  Conservatives tend to believe men and women are completely opposite of each other, and thus marriage just as an act of pure will for everyone is hard for them to wrap their minds around.  I think they really view marriage as something that occurs under duress.  The ideal is a woman holds out for marriage, causing a desperate and horny man to propose just to get some sexual relief, or, if that can’t happen, an unintended pregnancy should force the situation.  Of course, the reality is that single motherhood is on the rise, because in real life, people marry because they want to, not because they have to.  The conservative argument addressing this is that government largesse allows women to have children without having to depend on men (as if all single mothers are on welfare), and so a little starvation would fix the problem.  The realities are more complicated, but evidence demonstrates that part of the rise in single motherhood is that feminism has changed women’s expectations.  In the past, women stayed with wife beaters, cheaters, drunks and louses because they believed that was their lot in life.  Now they leave.

Leave a Reply