Palin's statements date to her 2006 gubernatorial run. In July of that year, she completed a candidate questionnaire that asked, would she support funding for abstinence-until-marriage programs instead of "explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?"Palin wrote, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign.""Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."
Sure, she initially said in a 2006 gubernatorial questionnaire that she supported abstinence-only education. BUT she changed her mind a couple of weeks later. Just like she changed her mind about global warming. Yet again, excercising CHOICE.
I guess that isn't good enough for haters like Kim Gandy and Cecile Richards. Or even Leslee Unruh, president of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse and campaign manager of the Vote Yes for Life effort. Spews Leslee: "I don't think it's clear. It seems disjointed to me."
Surprisingly, a couple days later (and perhaps after a fulfilled prayer request for her soul) she clarified her hate language and said this: "I support her in every way."
Way to get back on track there, Leslee.
No comments:
Post a Comment