A "teachable moment"

Ruth Marcus writes that Sarah Palin's support for "abstinence-only" sex education is fair game:

It's naive to imagine, in the anything-goes Internet era, that Palin's daughter's pregnancy would go unremarked upon. It's also mistaken, I think, to expect it. Like it or not, Bristol Palin's pregnancy is intertwined with an important public policy debate about which the two parties differ and on which Sarah Palin has been outspoken.

Which brings me to the teachable moment: What should teenagers be taught about sexual activity and contraception? By whom? What access should they have to condoms or other forms of birth control? Specifically, is abstinence-only education enough?

The 2008 Republican Party platform acknowledges that "each year, more than 3 million American teenagers contract sexually transmitted diseases, causing emotional harm and serious health consequences, even death." It expresses support for "efforts to educate teens and parents about the health risks associated with early sexual activity and provide the tools needed to help teens make healthy choices."

Then it adds, "Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases."

Yes, but talking about abstinence turns out to be easier than abstaining. More than 60 percent of high school seniors report having had sex at least once. The message that every family should take from Bristol Palin's pregnancy is: It can happen here. (via Kinsella)

Many of the attacks against Palin have been way over the line, and only serve to make her look like a more sympathetic candidate. (According to Byron York, evangelicals at the GOP convention - many of whom became evangelicals because of family crises, like unplanned pregnancy - are rallying around the nominee.) But that doesn't mean she should get a pass on this issue.

Of course, a Presidential candidate's position on sex education - or the theory of evolution, for that matter - really shouldn't be an issue, since schooling is a matter best left to the states. Indeed, here in "socialist" Canada, we've somehow gotten by without a federal department of education. But that's another post...

Damian P.

Posted by damian at September 2, 2008 01:54 PM