At a casino bingo hall in southwestern Colorado, Lauren Boebert, a Republican congresswoman, bounced her 6-month-old grandson on her knee.
“The election’s still a ways away,” she said as the guests arriving for the Montezuma County Republican Party’s annual Lincoln Day dinner trickled into the room. “And in talking with people at events like this, you know, it seems like there’s a lot of mercy and a lot of grace.”
The month before, Boebert, then in the midst of finalizing a divorce, was caught on a security camera vaping and groping her date shortly before being ejected from a performance of the musical “Beetlejuice” at the Buell Theater in Denver for causing a disturbance. The footage contradicted her own initial claims about the incident, and the venue’s statement that Boebert had demanded preferential treatment added to the outrage.
That’s ultimately a nature vs nurture question though, right? Even if you argue she was deficient in her parenting, I doubt anyone will place the choices of her adult child 100% on her. Do you follow all the same paths of your parents? I sure don’t…
Sorry, you must not have understood me so let me put it into clearer terms. I’m bagging on Boebert for not practicing what she preaches and having a child at 18 out of wedlock. Not her son. I have no idea what he preaches. I only pointed out that there seems to be a pattern here that stands in pretty strong contrast to her party’s dogma; other than that I don’t know why we’re focusing on him.
Her son is not the elected representative for the party that is pushing abstinence-only sex ed, moving to ban both birth control and abortion, and defunding programs that help young and single parents, all against the will of the people.
Though, to answer your question; it does stand to reason that if she, as a parent that supposedly follows this ideology, can’t even keep teen pregnancy out of her own home, let alone her own body; how does she expect things to go on a national level without the aforementioned programs and services? Just as you said, teens don’t tend to heel to the dogma of their parents and government especially when said dogma goes against their very basic nature.
people are allowed to change. just because she (or anyone, im not really defending her personally) has an opinion now, doesn’t mean they always had it. in fact, past expereiences tend to shape peoples feelings. If someone is 36 and preaching about not having sex before marriage or not having a child at a young age, it’s probably because they had a child out of wedlock at a young age and have the experience to talk about it now. it’s asinine to believe that people can NEVER change their minds about something. everyone makes mistakes, though not everyone learns from them. but you, i bet you’re perfect right? you’ve never changed your mind about anything. you’ve stuck to you guns 100% about everything always.
Seems we have more confusion. Let me repeat myself.
The moral of the story is that she can have her beliefs without forcing them onto the general population. Also that abstinence only education does. not. work. No matter the beliefs of the parents or what they’ve learned through life experience. Pubescent teens are going to be pubescent teens. They are ruled by hormones, not their parents beliefs, and abstinence-only education simply does not teach them how to safely navigate that.
I mean we’re talking about Boebert here but if you must know. When it comes to public policy, my ‘mind’ tends to go by what has been proven through research and data. As it turns out that does make it right more often than those that go by faith alone, which is the sole thing that guides most of the nonsense mentioned up above. The difference is that science welcomes being proved wrong as it presents an opportunity for evolution and greater consensus and understanding, and is formed by many more minds across many more generations than just my own. Whereas evolution is still a dirty word in faith. Sorry you have such a complex about it.