A story from the LA Times indicates that Palin might not be as pro-abstinance education as we keep hearing she is.
Palin's running mate, John McCain, and the GOP platform say children should be taught that abstinence until marriage is the only safe way to avoid pregnancy and disease. Palin's position is less clear....
In July of , 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."
Does "explicit" include homosexuality? Probably.
That said, my guess is that it's mostly referring to the idea that sex ed classes are instructing kids on how to do it, like it's Driver's Ed or something. I've heard conservatives espouse this, though I don't really understand it.
And, as I've mentioned, Governor Palin has never done anything to promote abstinance-only education.
Yet another reason why leaving Bristol alone is both the right and the pragmatic thing to do.
But hey, Palin is a backwoods Christian and we all know what they are like. So maybe y'all can just jump to some more conclusions and keep going. Why let the facts get in the way?