Palin (now) backs parental consent abortion bill

[babylonsister]

:wtf:

Palin says bill would protect children

ABORTION: Parents would have to give consent for girls under 17.

By LISA DEMER
[e-mail]

Published: February 27th, 2009 12:16 AM
Last Modified: February 27th, 2009 12:16 AM


Gov. Sarah Palin on Thursday threw her support behind a controversial bill that would generally require parental consent before girls under age 17 could get an abortion.

She called a press conference Thursday and surrounded by a dozen lawmakers including state Rep. John Coghill, R-North Pole, and Sen. Donny Olson, D-Nome, said:

"Wherever you fall on the abortion issue, right or left, this legislation is about family, and it's about parents' rights and protecting our children, and it's supported by legislators on both sides of the aisle."

She said she's throwing her support behind Coghill's House Bill 35, which backers are calling "parents' rights" legislation.

The measure may have trouble in the state Senate, where Senate President Gary Stevens said months ago that "far left and far right issues" would be off the table for his coalition of Democrats and Republicans.

more...

http://www.adn.com/news/politics/story/704234.html

[YOY]

1. Gotta scream about children and families!

Gotta scream about children and families! Gotta scream about children and families! You can't be against me and for children and families!!!

[babylonsister]

2. But she's changing her tune. Makes me wonder why. nt

[YOY]

3. Marketing to a broader demographic methinks.

She lost out by being too "Steriotypical staunch conservative" among woman who actually pay attention to politicians voting records on women's issues. She failed to capture the "Hillary crowd"...primarily because she's not fit to shine Hillary's shoes. I think she's trying to maneuver just those issues (and probably little else) for that 2012 bid.

She still needs to throw in her "families" bit for the conservative ass monkeys.

Just a thought.

[Kansas Wyatt]

4. Most still won't like her, and she will piss off her base.

The fundies must think the Rapture is upon them now.

[YOY]

5. She's really almost all they have.

Aside from Fuckatree.

[dysfunctional press]

6. i'm surprised that she wwas ever against it...

isn't the repuke stance always about making it harder for anyone- especially minors, to get an abortion?

[babylonsister]

7. She never approved of abortion, even for rape victims.

She believed in abstinence, until it became a joke after her daughter got pregnant.

So this is a switch.

[Political Tiger]

8. Forcing young girls to have babies

How Republican of her!

I wonder .. if a parent forces a child to have a baby she does not want .. is the parent then responsible for that baby for the next 18 years? They should be!

[havocmom]

11. pssst, mebbe we should remind the GOP that parental consent requirements

will mean young women of color will also need to get consent. That might be the one thing that makes an impression on the RW control freaks.

I do believe at least half of their need to control other women's wombs stems from the fear that if white birth rates drop, white supremacists go extinct.

[havocmom]

9. So, she who is proud of daughter making choice to have her baby

is now ALL for taking all choice away from others?

I am so tired of this attention whore, fancy pageant walkin', clothes horse, tax avoiding pResidential wanna-bee.

[firedupdem]

10. She really wants to be President....last year a 12 yr old rape

victim needed to carry to full term and now she's behind this bill. She thinks she's going to get some more support and at the same time lose her fundy base. She's running around like a chicken with her head cut off.

[babylonsister]

13. And she's showing how strong her convictions are - not! nt

[rug]

12. Interesting. Therefore she believes the abortion to be legal and okey-dokey.

[Javaman]

14. palin: still proving she is a moron. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

15. She isn't really changing her tune.

She's still adamantly opposed to abortion, but the fact is that it's legal here to get one. The legislature earlier tried to pass a bill saying that teenagers had to get parental consent, and the the state Supreme Court ruled that the law as drafted was unconstitutional. This new bill has been reworded, apparently, to try to get around the Supreme Court ruling.

Basically the battle is between parents' rights and the potential mother's rights. I personally don't see the need for parental consent. If a girl isn't talking to her parents about this, there must be a darn good reason (incest, fear of extreme punishment, being forced to bear a child that she doesn't want, etc.), so I think her rights should be protected.