As a follow-up on Sunday’s discussion of Bristol’s pregnancy, I thought I ought to talk about this Los Angeles Times article, which discusses statements by Governor Palin which seem to suggest that she is “pro-contraception,” or at least pro-condom education, which is astonishing. For one thing, if she really does feel that way, I think that’s a good sign, and, for another, it shows that she disagrees with McCain on a pretty fundamental issue, because he’s all about the abstinence-only.

So here’s the thing. I think that abstinence should be taught in sexual education programs. It is the 100% guaranteed way to avoid getting STIs, including pregnancy, the worst STI of all. That said, I am fundamentally opposed to abstinence-only education, because I believe that people need to have all the available tools to make educated choices. (Hey, there’s that “choice” word again.) All manner of birth control/STI avoidance tactics should be discussed, along with their failure rates, so that kids can make their own decisions about what is best for them.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of young men and women (some of whom, in my opinion, are a bit too young), are engaging in sexual activity. That fact is not going to go away, and rather than punishing people for it, we should be talking about it. I know that sexuality is tied up in values for a lot of people, and I certainly respect kids who abstain for religious reasons, and who do manage to remain true to that personal pledge, but denying educational opportunities to others seems a bit unfair to me.

Which is why I was stoked to see that Palin (at least theoretically) supports condom education, because condoms are a terrific tool to avoid STIs and pregnancy. If you’re only going to teach kids about one option in addition to abstinence, condoms are definitely it, in my opinion. And I’m glad to see that Palin (at least at one point) recognized this.

What’s less clear is whether or not Palin supported the distribution of condoms, in addition to discussion of how to use them properly. Depending on where one is, condoms can be easy or difficult to obtain. Sometimes they are readily available through outreach programs, and sometimes you have to go and seek them out, occasionally from snooty pharmacists who are going to pass a value judgment. (And uhm kids, if you are embarrassed to buy condoms, you are not mature enough to be making humpies.)

Furthermore, I’m curious to know about Palin’s stance on hormonal birth control. A lot of fundies believe that by preventing implantation, options like the pill are simply another form of abortion, so they do not support them as options for women. When Palin said she is “pro-contraception,” did she really just mean “pro-condom,” or did she mean to indicate support for the full array of choices, including IUDs and hormonal birth control? Inquiring minds want to know.

Palin is clearly anti-abortion, but how much is she willing to commit to in order to prevent abortions? And, as always, how can you claim to be “pro-life” while slashing programs designed to help teen mothers, special needs children, and all children under 18? If you think fetuses are important, how come babies and kids aren’t?

Look, there are a lot of problems with Palin, but I think it’s important to discuss it when she seems to be getting an issue right, at least partially. Making a balanced decision in November is all about having all the facts, and this is just one more piece of the puzzle.