"Palin pushes abortion foes to form 'conservative, feminist identity,'" reads the headline to a page A16 Amy Gardner story in Saturday's Washington Post.
While the 10-paragraph article in itself didn't raise any bias alarm bells, I was disappointed but hardly surprised that the Post buried the story on the last page of its A-section.
Gardner's article focused on how Palin, "[s]peaking to a breakfast gathering of the Susan B. Anthony List in downtown Washington on Friday" observed that liberal pro-choice feminists are hypocrites for on the one hand insisting that women can hold fulfilling careers while being mothers but at the same time those same feminists hold out abortion for young women who might feel their unwanted pregnancies are an inconvenience obstacle to career or educational goals.
That observation led Post staffer Jonathan Capehart, no Palin acolyte he, to concede Palin makes a "very interesting point":
[W]hen the spotlight turns to pro-life issues, Palin shines bright. Abortion is a wrenching and emotional debate that's waged as much with the heart as with the head. And Palin speaks from deeply held convictions rooted in personal experience.
I went to see her speak at the "Celebration of Life Breakfast" fundraiser for the Susan B. Anthony List. My colleagues Amy Gardner and David Weigel
do a good job detailing what went down, particularly Palin's comments on her decision to give birth to her son, Trig, who has Down Syndrome.
But what fascinated me was Palin's thought-provoking slam against women's rights groups. She began by reminding the audience that suffragist Alice Paul once said that abortion is "the ultimate exploitation of women." Palin then referred to recent polls that show more young women agreeing with "their feminist foremothers" on the issue, thus "empowering women by offering them a real choice." And then came this:
"The pro-woman sisterhood is telling these young women they are strong enough and smart enough. They are capable to be able to handle an unintended pregnancy and still be able to, in less than ideal circumstances, no doubt, to handle that. Still be able to give that child life, in addition to pursuing a career and pursuing an education, pursuing avocations. Though society wants to tell these young women otherwise. Even these feminist groups want to try to tell women, send this message that, "Nope, you're not capable of doing both. You can't give your child life and still pursue career and education. You're not strong enough. You're not capable. So it's very hypocritical of those... pro-women's rights groups out there."
While I don't agree with her ultimate stance on abortion, I understand where she was coming from and think she makes a very interesting point. Am I wrong?