While we're waiting for John McCain to come out from behind
Sarah Palin's skirt, I'd like to raise a couple of issues.
First,
Roe v. Wade. I get the impression the most strident Roe opponents -- those who shriek loudest about the decision -- have no idea what it actually says, so let's start by taking a peek at what's there:
The opinion of the Roe Court, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
Note that the decision rests on a foundation of privacy -- something that
Sarah Palin demands for her own daughter, but would take away from all the other little girls in the country. She's maybe never actually even read the decision she's so adamantly determined to overturn. But then again, ignorance never does stop a fanatic, does it?
Yeah, so anyway, Sarah Palin likes her kids
ignorant and knocked up, and she wants to repeal Roe.
This means that Sarah, if presented with a woman who just found out that the child she is carrying has
Tay-Sachs disease, wouldn't have her choose between getting an abortion or carrying the child to term, only to watch helplessly as her beautiful baby goes from healthy to mentally disabled, blind, deaf and unable to swallow, then finally becomes paralyzed, before dying by the age of five. Instead, Sarah would
make that decision for her, without regard to the woman's financial situation; or whether she is equipped to deal with the emotional devastation of such an experience; or her ability to cope with the medical needs of a child who has such profound problems. In fact, she would make this decision on her behalf without knowing a single thing about her circumstances. Sarah would opt for the latter situation, and not even offer her the first option (even if the pregnancy resulted from a rape).
To be clear, I am not advocating for a woman to choose either option over the other. What I am doing is arguing that
all women should be able to make that choice for themselves -- just like Sarah Palin did when she
chose to continue her pregnancy after she found out her youngest child had
Down Syndrome.
But back to the woman Palin is forcing into gestation... Would Sarah do anything to address her child's special needs, as she claimed at the convention? Well, the jury's still very much out on that question, since Sarah has not been a governor long enough to have much of a record when it comes to action on health care. But since she's signed onto the
McCain/Bush/Republican platform, it's safe to assume she'll be supporting the status quo when it comes to American health care (
at best).
And then
there's this (
more here). Sarah Palin belongs to the
spiritual warfare movement (go see the movie
Jesus Camp if you haven't already and you'll get a peak into Palin's world) -- which more and more, is making Christian fanatics look a lot like Islamic fanatics.
The
Third Wave may be kind of spooky, but it's also really dangerous. These people see the world in very black/white, christian/not christian terms, and it's that kind of simplistic thinking that got us involved in Bush's stupid war to begin with -- a war, btw, that was supported by Palin, who even subscribes to
Bush's theocratic view that
the Iraq war is a "task that is from God."
Now, John McCain may be with Bush
90% of the time, but Sarah Palin
appears to be with him 110% of the time (if you saw any of her
interview with Charlie Gibson, you may have noticed that she even mimics George's word-fog style of speaking which features lots of words, but doesn't necessarily have a clear point).
I really don't think we want to go there. Eight years of simplistic, slow-witted leadership has been more than enough. I don't care how much you'd like to hang out with these people, or how thirsty you are for a beer in their company, that doesn't mean that they have what it takes to lead this country in the right direction. And if you like the fact that they're just like you, think about whether or not you're truly qualified to run this country -- really, don't you want to put someone who's extra smart in charge? Ideally, someone who is smarter than you and me? There's nothing elitist about not wanting stupid leaders.
If we need change, then we're going to have to start with a fresh approach. And that is clearly not what these guys would give us.
