There would be no need for public “blasting” of Sarah or her daughter if a serious man of God, or even a student of history, had been somewhere remotely close to their lives and counsels as a family. This is a family parading itself before the public as an Assembly of God, “got-baptised,” born again band of believers, but their self-government response to their own problem doesn’t seem anything like the sort of Christianity John Adams declared was essential to the preservation of the republic. When Bristol declared abstinence as “not realistic,” she might as well have been saying righteousness itself was a farce. She was overtly declaring the need for a welfare state, for federallly funded planned parenthood. You really want THAT as your limited-government banner??
It seems that maybe Bristol herself is being misconscrewed.
Whether her comments about abstinence not being realistic are descriptive or prescriptive are, at the very worst, not clear. We know they are descriptive. God sometimes described His people in an analogous unflattering manner. For that to be prescriptive would have been a grave wrong. But it is not clear that is what Bristol meant.
Bristol did express her wish that none others follow in her footsteps. With a modicum of charity, this can be taken as the definitive statement on the matter.