# Sarah Palin slashed funding for teenage moms **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 3, 2008, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887 "2008-09-03T16:47:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/21 "2008-09-03T17:59:53Z")
> [@ArizonaTeach](#): > > She didn’t slash a thing, and you’d know that if you did a little Google research yourself. In 2006, they received [just over a million dollars in state funding.](http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=justgive&npoId=332976) In 2007, Palin authorized $3.9 million. Explain to me the slashing. Now, a budget of $5 million was **requested** , but when I get a raise that’s less than I wanted, I don’t say my salary was slashed. > > This makes a nice diversion from your mysogony (although you throw that in there for good measure), but it has the same result. Hypocritical liberal egg on hypocritical liberal face. > > Oh, and **Renob** , we now have an entry for “irony” in the **Dio** dictionary along with his unique definitions of racism and feminism. This dog is not going to hunt. She did not write the bill. She just tried to gut it as much as she could possibly get away with. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/22 "2008-09-03T18:05:03Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > Again, you seem to think that if I believe something is a good thing then I have a obligation to support government funding for it. Sorry, you may think that forcing your neighbors to fund your preferences is morally OK, but I happen to think that if I support something, I should fund it voluntarily. There are two distinct levels of hypocrisy involved with this psoition. The first is that it is impossible to care about “unborn” babies if you don’t care about born babies. The two positions are not logically compatible. The latter contradicts the first. The hypocrisy involved in public policy is that if you want to use the government to force little girls to have rape babies (as Palin does), then the government has to take _responsibility_ for those babies. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/23 "2008-09-03T18:08:59Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > This is only hypocrisy if Palin seeks government funding for her grandchild. Unless, of course, you can provide a cite showing that she’s opposed to the teenage mother’s own family supporting the kid, which is all the Palins have said they’re going to do. Ready? Go. Well, there’s always the fact that not all families of teenage parents can absorb the cost of raising another child. But I guess in a world where you’re not rich 'til you hit $5 million dollars, that wouldn’t be as apparent to Ms. Palin. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/24 "2008-09-03T18:09:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There are two distinct levels of hypocrisy involved with this psoition. The first is that it is impossible to care about “unborn” babies if you don’t care about born babies. The two positions are not logically compatible. The latter contradicts the first. No it doesn’t. There is an expectation that a mother will have a baby and then care for it. Nothing hypocritical about that at all. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/25 "2008-09-03T18:10:43Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Explain to me how there is any hypocrisy whatsoever in Palin’s actions. The fact she had a teenaged daughter knocked up doesn’t mean anything. As long as Palin and her daughter are keeping their hands out of the public coffer, it’s perfectly consistent with their fiscal philosophy. I don’t think she would have acted any differently had she known that at the time of the bill. Frankly, I’m surprised she gave budgeted $3.1 million their way. Her own daughter has nothing to do with why I’m calling her a hypcrite (I’m just sayingher daughter’s situation is ironic, not hypocritical). I’m calling palin a hypocrite becuse she wants to use state money to force little girls to have rape babies, but then wants the state to take no responsibility once the babies are born. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/26 "2008-09-03T18:22:04Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > No it doesn’t. There is an expectation that a mother will have a baby and then care for it. Nothing hypocritical about that at all. That presumes that the mother will be _able_ to take care of it. It’s hypocritical to force women to have babies they _can’t_ take care of. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/27 "2008-09-03T18:26:36Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That presumes that the mother will be _able_ to take care of it. It’s hypocritical to force women to have babies they _can’t_ take care of. I believe one of the standard answers to this is that you give the baby up for adoption if you can’t take care of it. I don’t see the hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/28 "2008-09-03T18:28:19Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Well, there’s always the fact that not all families of teenage parents can absorb the cost of raising another child. But I guess in a world where you’re not rich 'til you hit $5 million dollars, that wouldn’t be as apparent to Ms. Palin. You seem to have missed the first few words of my post. I’m not saying it’s the right course of action, I’m not saying I agree or disagree. I’m saying that it’s not hypocritical to cut and/or not fully fund programs like these and then say you’re supporting your kid when she’s having a baby. It’s just…not. No matter how much some people want it to be. Palin chose to provide an organization that helps young mothers who have given birth less money than they had requested. Then, when she found out her daughter was going to have a baby, she said she and her family would support her daughter. It would be hypocrisy if she now started searching out government money for her daughter. It would be ironic if she booted her daughter out of the house, then her daughter got turned down by this organization because they didn’t have enough money to help her. Until either of those things happens, it’s not hypocritical and it’s not even ironic. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/29 "2008-09-03T18:32:20Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That presumes that the mother will be _able_ to take care of it. It’s hypocritical to force women to have babies they _can’t_ take care of. I believe one of the standard answers to this is that you give the baby up for adoption if you can’t take care of it. I don’t see the hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/30 "2008-09-03T18:40:14Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I almost can’t believe I’m defending Sarah Palin, but **Dio** ’s factual distortions drive me insane. > > Explain to me how a 2,500% increase in funding is “slashing.” > > Explain to me how there is any hypocrisy whatsoever in Palin’s actions. The fact she had a teenaged daughter knocked up doesn’t mean anything. As long as Palin and her daughter are keeping their hands out of the public coffer, it’s perfectly consistent with their fiscal philosophy. I don’t think she would have acted any differently had she known that at the time of the bill. Frankly, I’m surprised she gave budgeted $3.1 million their way. Ditto. And I’m a rabidly pro-choice Obama Mama. Dio, once again, you’re hurting your (our) “side” by your tactics, not helping. [QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Her own daughter has nothing to do with why I’m calling her a hypcrite [/QUOTE] Well, then why the hell did you mention her in your OP? > [@](#): > > I guess only her own kid deserves to be supported when she gets knocked up. Everyone else’s kid can sleep on the street. It’s not hypocritical to support anti-choice, be anti-abortion and also anti-government funding for young mothers. It’s stupid, it’s ill-advised, it’s evil, perhaps, but it’s not hypocritical. Using that word and sticking to it so vehemently insures that this thread will be about how you are wrong, not about how Palin’s anti-choice, anti-assistance stances are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![ArizonaTeach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/45deac/32.png) [@ArizonaTeach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArizonaTeach)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/31 "2008-09-03T18:40:44Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This dog is not going to hunt. She did not write the bill. She just tried to gut it as much as she could possibly get away with. I know that admitting that you’re wrong would send you back to the 5th dimension for 90 days, but you still haven’t explained how such a dramatic increase is slashing. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/32 "2008-09-03T18:41:50Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > You seem to have missed the first few words of my post. I’m not saying it’s the right course of action, I’m not saying I agree or disagree. I’m saying that it’s not hypocritical to cut and/or not fully fund programs like these and then say you’re supporting your kid when she’s having a baby. It’s just…not. No matter how much some people want it to be. > > Palin chose to provide an organization that helps young mothers who have given birth less money than they had requested. Then, when she found out her daughter was going to have a baby, she said she and her family would support her daughter. It would be hypocrisy if she now started searching out government money for her daughter. It would be ironic if she booted her daughter out of the house, then her daughter got turned down by this organization because they didn’t have enough money to help her. Until either of those things happens, it’s not hypocritical and it’s not even ironic. I hope the world doesn’t implode, because I completely agree with all of this. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/33 "2008-09-03T18:42:59Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I believe one of the standard answers to this is that you give the baby up for adoption if you can’t take care of it. I don’t see the hypocrisy. And if a woman can’t bring herself to do that, she and the kid are on their own? ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/34 "2008-09-03T18:43:27Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This dog is not going to hunt. She did not write the bill. She just tried to gut it as much as she could possibly get away with. I think Palin is hilariously unqualified for the White House, and I think a McCain presidency would certainly solidify the damage of the last eight years if not make it dramatically worse, but, dude, you ain’t got no traction on this. Let it go. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/35 "2008-09-03T18:46:07Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > And if a woman can’t bring herself to do that, she and the kid are on their own? Just because the government doesn’t take care of them doesn’t mean they are “on their own.” There are private organizations, families, church groups, etc., that are out there to help take care of women in these situations. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/36 "2008-09-03T18:47:21Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Well, then why the hell did you mention her in your OP? I mentioned it as an ironic aside, not as a central point. > [@](#): > > It’s not hypocritical to support anti-choice, be anti-abortion and also anti-government funding for young mothers. It’s stupid, it’s ill-advised, it’s evil, perhaps, but it’s not hypocritical. Using that word and sticking to it so vehemently insures that this thread will be about how you are wrong, not about how Palin’s anti-choice, anti-assistance stances are wrong. It is plainly hypocritical to say that the government should take responsibility for babies before they’re born but not after they’re born. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/37 "2008-09-03T18:48:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > And if a woman can’t bring herself to do that, she and the kid are on their own? Hopefully with the support of her extended family, churches, charity, whatever. I’m firmly pro-choice, but I don’t really see anything wrong with the ethical stance of pro-lifers. I personally believe abortion is one of those issues that is not clear-cut and, thus, should be left up to the individual’s standards of morality or ethics, but I don’t see anything hypocritical or inconsistent in the pro-life stance. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/38 "2008-09-03T18:50:29Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It is plainly hypocritical to say that the government should take responsibility for babies before they’re born but not after they’re born. Ah, the miracle of generalising. The standard before birth is the responsibility of “stopping it being killed”. The responsibility after birth is also “stopping it being killed”. The standard is being kept, and there is no hypocrisy. The same responsibility is being taken in both cases. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/39 "2008-09-03T18:55:43Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Her own daughter has nothing to do with why I’m calling her a hypcrite (I’m just sayingher daughter’s situation is ironic, not hypocritical). I’m calling palin a hypocrite becuse she wants to use state money to force little girls to have rape babies, but then wants the state to take no responsibility once the babies are born. Which doesn’t seem to be accurate. One thing a Governor does as part of her job is to make budget decisions about how state money is spent. The article I read criticizing her didn’t mention that this was actually a huge budget increase for that particular program. {I would like a cite though} If that’s true the criticism is misplaced. No responsibility would be _No Money_ That’s not what happened is it? It would be interesting to know who was behind the proposed budget and whether Palin’s vetos were a compromise between no funding and some funding. Schools always ask for more than they need so they can get more don’t they. As it stands , if there was actually a big budget increase the criticism doesn’t fly. IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2008, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887/40 "2008-09-03T19:11:04Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I mentioned it as an ironic aside, not as a central point. > > It is plainly hypocritical to say that the government should take responsibility for babies before they’re born but not after they’re born. Much as I want to agree with you on this I don’t really agree with you on this. I think one can take the stance that it is wrong to kill someone without suggesting you have some responsibility to that person’s welfare beyond that. As such I do not think it is “hypocritical”. I agree it is lame and I find it a glaring flaw in the conservative right’s purported position of love thy neighbor and other “christian” values and dearly wish they poured their energy into responsible prevention of teen pregnancies and adoption and so on as they do into telling women what they have to do with their bodies but that is just me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-slashed-funding-for-teenage-moms/461887.md?page=3)