Sarah Palin and the Abstinence-Only Lie

MikeL has decided to repeat this lie in the comments below, and very coincidentally, Violet addresses this lie (and others) One More Time. Go read.

Here’s Sarah Palin on contraception and sex ed:

“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.”

I put that right at the top of the post so you wouldn’t miss it.

The Letterman embroglio is giving the faux feminists another opportunity to spread lies about Sarah Palin. According to them, Palin is some kind of hypocritical purity queen, and as such, she and her family are fair game:

By dragging Willow into the dust-up, the Palins are again able to divert attention away from the real issues involving their oldest daughter. Bristol is an 18-year-old unmarried mother who is going through baby-daddy drama. As such, her life mocks the family values conservatives such as her mother preach.

First of all, Sarah Palin doesn’t preach anything. As for what she believes, look at the top of the post! See? See the words, “I’m pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues”?

For the record, this bleeding heart liberal had exactly the same view of contraception and abstinence as Sarah Palin when raising my daughter. I told her that waiting was better because sex really does complicate things, but if she couldn’t then practice safe sex and use contraception.

8 thoughts on “Sarah Palin and the Abstinence-Only Lie

  1. Just for the record, I wasn’t lying — that’s what I had read months ago during the campaign and took it to be fact. Apparently it’s not accurate. I gladly retract anything that is not accurate. (It doesn’t really change the substance of my post, though.)


  2. “The question is, why?”

    I probably thought it was from a trustworthy source.

    Why would I believe what you posted? Unless there’s some reason to think someone’s lying/mistaken, we generally take people at their word.


    1. You don’t have to believe me. That’s why I provide links. So you can do your own research. One of the lessons I learned in my one and only journalism course was level of sourcing was key and finding ‘primary’ sources was the gold standard. Hence, believing someone who relayed something they heard (or read) from someone else isn’t nearly as good as getting it directly from the original source. It’s something I really try to do with this blog and in my life. Go to the source.

      And not because the person who told you something may not have been correct. They very well may be. But, they may have missed a detail, or left something out. It’s also a good idea to ask oneself, “Does the person giving me this information have an ‘agenda’ and a possible motive to withhold pertinent details in order to get me on their side?”


  3. On the bright side, Mike, uncritically spreading defamatory rumors about Sarah Palin would seem to qualify you for a column in The Atlantic Monthly. It certainly worked for Andrew Sullivan.


  4. By the way, claiming you can’t be dishonest because you’re really just incapable of critical thought doesn’t sound like much of a winner to me.


    1. LMAO! That’s exactly what I was thinking. There’s a term I use with my students: the I’m a Dumbass Defense. Critical thinking is so basic and so easy today, yet I’m constantly shocked at just how few people actual do it.


Comments are closed.