Breaking News: Based on what I saw at the checkout at the grocery store the other day, Sarah Palin’s apparently decided that she and her daughter self-identify as being “pro-choice”.

Yeah, I know, but hear me out…

That’s what textually, seems to be the correct message to take from the big huge yellow letters on the cover of this magazine (In Touch weekly, Jan. 13, 2010):

Both The former Governor and her daughter (presumably – I doubt, given her situation, Bristol had much practical choice even if she really wanted to), thanks to the laws on the books as written, were able to choose carry to term their respective risky and inconvenient pregnancies to term.

Let me repeat that sentiment: The law allowed them to choose for themselves exactly how they wanted to handle their less-than-ideal pregnancies. They chose what they felt was best for them, given their particular circumstances (the financial wherewithal to care for the resulting children, access to high-quality medical care to deal with possible complications, and yes, their moral outlook), and proudly proclaim that they chose correctly.

The irony here, is the use of “choose” (and it’s derivatives) in this particular instance. Palin and her political allies are unabashedly on record as wishing to deny American women the ability to make this same choice for themselves.

That’s all those of a pro-choice bent ask for, really; that women, when presented with pregnancy, have the ability, as the Palins did, to choose how they’re going to deal with it based on their own particular situation and circumstances, and to have the same options available to consider or dismiss in turn, according to their own personal values system.

Also…I wonder if Palin and her people realize that if the kind of health care system and early-childhood care and education initiatives they reflexively oppose were actually in effect, even more people would be in a position to make what they’d consider the right choice (i.e. – the one they’re on record as wishing to force on everyone through legislation) in that situation without duress or legal consequences, because they’d be able to afford to manage risk effectively and better afford to care for the resulting baby?

Just wondering if they’re being assholes about it, or just haven’t thought their cunning plan all the way though.