Yes, Ann did say that.
However, the "rest of the story" is that she said it in context of her arguments that children are statistically going to be worse off without a father (which when I saw her say it, I took from her statement that she meant a locked in, i.e., married to the woman, father).
Perhaps the way she said it was “obnoxious” but that’s her stock-in-trade, she gets her points across with shocking effect. But hey, isn’t this FR? Aren’t we conservatives? God and Country? Set aside the strident tone, and all Ann meant is that a man who has fathered a child should marry the mother and give the child the best possible home. I don’t see anything disagreeable in that, especially for a family who purports to be devout Christians.
I would think most Freepers would be in complete agreement that Sarah Palin’s now-adult single-mom daughter should not be yet another welfare recipient. If she were my daughter (or he my son) I’d be saying just about the same words to them as Ann, live up to your responsibilities, and if you won’t there’s a long line of decent people waiting to adopt. Don’t really see why y’all are offended.