POACHEDonline

Why can’t we mention that Sarah Palin’s daughter got preggers and isn’t getting rid?

This must be a liberal blog, you’re thinking; three lines in and there’s unequivocal indecisiveness. Well by that mark, the Republican Party are going liberal too. At least on some things. Like teen pregnancy. Conveniently. Tuesday’s papers reported how party supporters - dominated by the religious right who preach no sex before marriage - are rallying round Sarah Palin and brood, with some even going so far as to say that the revelation has endeared the Alaskan senator, a largely unknown figure before McCain’s endorsement, to voters who now see her as an ordinary American facing the everyday challenges of parenting teenagers. Amongst these Bristol Palin’s defence amounts to the ever handy conservative fall back refrain, ‘at least she’s keeping it’. This applause for heroic stoicism seems more than slightly superficial, however, not least because the ferociously pro-life Mrs Palin has stated publicly that even if her daughters became pregnant through rape she would force them to continue with the pregnancy, making it highly unlikely that abortion was an option for the seventeen year old, regardless of her own thoughts on the issue. As it stands, the soon to be father, Levi Johnston, a self-described “redneck” who doesn’t “want kids”, is due to marry Miss Palin in the near future (Mrs Palin herself eloped with her high school boyfriend, Todd). So that’s alright then. And, as my housemate pointed out, who cares anyway what her and her hick boyfriend got up to behind the moose sheds? According to both McCain and Democratic hopeful Barack Obama, nobody should. In fact we are being told that we shouldn’t even discuss it. The families of Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates, we are being told, are ‘off limits’. Begging the questions, where, and since when?

Answers: nowhere and never. Pressuring the media to keep mum over Bristol’s pre-wedding bump is especially absurd in a political scene that devotes huge amounts of energy, and disgusting amounts of money, to marketing their politicians as worthy of their office by virtue of their whole ’story’, from birth (or even before) to now. In speech after debate after speech the onus is on candidates leading from the front, by example. As an important indicator of the consequences of such leadership, according to the focus of the campaigns, their domestic harmony is an integral part of this. Obama, who has publicly condemned drawing Sarah Palin’s children into the political spotlight, parades his very young daughters around the Democratic circuit, most recently at the National Democratic Party conference, where one piped up ‘I love you daddy’ in front of a crowd of 75,000, luckily with microphone in hand. Obama is often criticised for failing to connect with ‘ordinary’ Americans. Perhaps instead of this saccharine display he would have been better off getting his youngest to whinge a bit about not getting her favourite Bratz doll on her birthday. As it was, the message was clear and deliberate; a well loved father (or mother), able to raise (train?) stable, confident, articulate, children will be able to translate that private success into a public one for the nation’s young and old alike. It is a model to which the Republicans traditionally adhere even more zealously than the Democrats, positing their candidate as the nation’s father and repeating the phrase ‘the importance of family values’ like a mantra, second in holiness only to the joint firsts of nationhood and a belief in god. Bill Clinton’s lack of concern for his family, demonstrated by his extra-marital affair, very nearly got him impeached, (not his laying waste to Serbia, or his failure to secure peace in the Middle East) and almost certainly helped grease George W. Bush’s path to the Presidency, on a platform of, yes, you’ve guessed it, bringing good old fashioned family values and god back to the White House.

Dirty Nappy Democracy

Yet never before in this fight to champion family values have the Republicans, or the Democrat Party for that matter, found so much compassion for unwed teenage mothers. It is painfully clear that for both parties this sudden rush of empathy has nothing to do with moving their ideological goalposts, and everything to do with their quest for power, making current displays of understanding particularly putrid in their hypocrisy. The Republicans, traditionally vociferous in their opposition to any domestic situation outside the order of marriage, kids, then death, come off worse by saying it doesn’t matter because it instantly seems they are saying that it doesn’t matter because she’s one of ours. Would Sarah Palin and her daughter be treated so well by the GOP if they were poor anonymous Latinas (who have the highest teen birth rate of all major ethnic groups in the US)?

That is not to say that Bristol and Levi should be hounded or humiliated by anyone at all, least of all politicians and the media (who finger wag at other people’s children enough). Or that Sarah Palin should be vilified as a terrible mother because her daughter has disregarded her right-wing, fundamentalist Christian stance on sex, and children - even if Bristol and Levi marry before the birth, Mrs Palin’s pro-life position affirms life begins at conception - before marriage. And arguing that if you can’t convince your immediate family of the merits of your political beliefs how are you going to convince a nation of 305 million, is not only too simplistic, it seriously misses the point. Just as the Palins should not suffer unduly because of this revelation, neither should the Alaskan governor gain political capital out of what can not have been anything other than a mistake, however much joy, as Mrs Palin was quick to point out during her speech on Wednesday night, that mistake might eventually bring. Every developed nation in the world is trying to cut its teen pregnancy rate, including the United States. While the latest figures show that the number of American teenagers becoming pregnant dropped 38% from 1990 to 2004, the US still has by far the highest teen pregnancy rate amongst industrialised nations.

But what’s wrong with being a young mum? Lots according to The National Campaign To Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy (NCPTP), a privately funded organisation, founded and operating in the US, that monitors sex education programs. Its website states, ‘if more children in this country were born to parents who are ready and able to care for them, we would see a significant reduction in a host of social problems afflicting children in the United States, from school failure and crime to child abuse and neglect.’ Kids Having Kids, a 1996 report by the Robin Hood Foundation, an organisation targeting poverty in New York City, showed that compared to their non-pregnant peers teen mothers were 60% less likely to complete high school, with only one-third receiving a high school diploma. Included in this report are findings from another paper (Jacobsen and Maynard 1995) highlighting the fact that ‘80% of young teen mothers received welfare during the 10 years following the birth of their first child; 44% of them for more than 5 years.’

Poverty - Keep It In The Family

These depressing statistics have barely changed in the decade since they were published. The vast majority of America’s teen mothers currently end up living on state handouts. The cost of this situation is three fold. Firstly to the parents (although generally this equates to the mother singly), who, with only a basic education and a child to raise, are subject to severely restricted job prospects, consequently limiting their chances of professional fulfilment or financial independence. Secondly to the child. ‘The poorer outcomes associated with teenage motherhood also mean the effects of deprivation and social exclusion are passed from one generation to the next.’ This is the assessment of Nottingham City Council, which in 2006 had the third highest teenage conception rate in the UK. That ’special relationship’ between America and Britain sees the two countries interests dove-tailing again; the UK has the worst rate of teen pregnancy in Western Europe.

The final cost of teen pregnancy is to society. In the US the costs incurred by the state because of teenage fertility - including welfare and food stamp benefits, medical care expenses, lost tax revenue (teenage childbearing affects the parents’ work patterns), incarceration expenses, and foster care - runs to an estimated $6.9 billion dollars annually. And even after all this the full price of becoming pregnant too early (generally defined as before the age of 17, the same age as Bristol Palin) isn’t fully calculated unless the increased physical risks to both mother and baby are also taken into account. Research by Dr Heather Dryburgh for neighbouring Canada’s National Statistics Agency cites a 1999 report stating that, ‘[c]hildren of teenagers are more likely to have low birth weights, and to suffer the associated health problems.’ Dr Dryburgh’s report continues, ‘[p]regnant teens themselves are also at greater risk of….anemia, hypertension, renal disease, eclampsia and depressive disorders. As well, teenagers who engage in unprotected sex are putting their own health at risk of sexually transmitted infections.’

Dummies, Or Pacifiers?

Naturally governments and health professionals are keen to prevent this horror reel of consequences perpetuating. The vast majority of experts agree that the best, most reliable way to avoid teen pregnancy and its many associated problems is by delivering a comprehensive sex education and by the provision of contraception. What does Sarah Palin support? Teaching abstinence-only in schools. An extensive study authorised by the US Congress in 1997 and published last year revealed that abstinence-only sex education programmes failed to keep children from having sex. On contraception, its effects at encouraging teens to take pre-cautionary measures before having sex are zero, although the report goes on to say that an abstinence-only education did not decrease condom use amongst sexually active young people. Talking about the study’s findings to American newspaper The Washington Post Sarah Brown, executive director of the NCPTP, said the results support those of previous studies. “The most effective programs are those that say abstinence is the best choice but birth control and protection are also worth knowing about.” Martha Kempner, an official at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, echoed the need for more that just an abstinence-only syllabus. “Comprehensive education means teaching about abstinence and a myriad of other topics [including] contraception, critical thinking, one’s own values and the values of your family and your religious community.” Kempner’s final assessment is unequivocal: “Abstinence-only was an experiment and it failed.”

Palin is not alone in her support of this failed programme. Placing her in the second most powerful seat in US government would serve to galvanise those in favour of continuing this dangerous experiment in ineffective education on America’s children. Of course, Governor Palin can afford to ensure that her daughter and future grandchild receive the best medical care available at all stages during and after pregnancy. Bristol Palin will not be forced to live on meagre handouts from the state, and with money for home tutors and child care it is unlikely that having a child will stop her from continuing her education or pursuing a career, if she wishes. Nor will she watch her child enter into a cycle of poor opportunities and future poverty. As much as they try to sell it to voters, pregnant or not the Palin’s comfortable lifestyle does not represent that of the majority of the American public, least of all teen mothers. Instead of trying to gag discussion about Bristol Palin’s unintended pregnancy, the annoucement should be used as an opportunity to grill politicians on what they intend to do to stem this growing problem amongst the general population. In the immortal words of Salt ‘n’ Pepper, its time for Americans to demand of their politicians, ‘Let’s talk about sex, baby.’