Fair question: Given her political position on teen pregnancy, how to reduce its prevalence, and given that she was part of the reason your tax dollars were allocated to teach abstinence to public school students (and in other governmentally funded ways), is her 17 year old daughter's pregnancy not relevant to the political debate and 'fair game' as a topic of discussion? Here's a good summary of this line of reasoning: By Bonnie Bucqueroux September 1, 2008 Sorry, George, Bristol's pregnancy does matter Please remember that Mother Palin wants to impose her religious views on matters of choice and family values on us. And, as an advocate of abstinence education, Palin expects us to pay for programs that express her narrow views -- yet her own family shows us how ineffective such efforts often prove to be. I want my tax dollars used to give young girls information on birth control. Sarah wants families to handle such matters, but clearly she didn't do a good job of teaching her daughter how to avoid a teenage pregnancy. Or doesn't she believe in birth control? I also think it's outrageous that Mrs. Palin accepted the offer to become vice president knowing that this would put her daughter into the spotlight at what must be a difficult time for this young girl. Why didn't Sarah "just say no"? It isn't the media who thrust Bristol into the spotlight - it was her mother. I thought conservatives believed in putting family first?