[cajunboyinthecity.blogspot.com]

[cajunboyinthecity.blogspot.com]

[www.palinbabyquestion.com]

The incidence of Down Syndrome goes up after 35, yes. But I think the bulk of the evidence points the other way. Also, why a rabidly anti-choice woman would get an amnio to test for genetic disorders if termination was not an option is beyond me. But adoptive parents could request one. I'll stop now, you can follow the links if you're interested.

 Reply

I still think Palin is an insufferable hag, but I can't believe she or her doofy husband would be clever enough to pull of hiding an Easter Egg much less a pregnant daughter.

 Reply

Fishy, thy name is Palin pregnancy cover-up.

 Reply

1. Saying her water broke in Texas and flying back would be pointless if it was a lie, she could have just said her water broke after she returned.

2.A woman with a difficult pregnancy, such as a Down's baby, often doesn't tell people till later in the pregnancy to avoid the stress of explaining that she had lost a child, especially if her job made it likely it would be in the media.

3. Pictures of the family show Bristol with the supposed "baby bump" as far back as 2006 making it likely she was bloated or, as I do, have a tummy no matter how many damn crunches I do.

4. There are pictures of Sarah in mid-February sporting a tummy.

5. There are, in fact, pictures of Sarah Palin, clearly preggers in the spring with a belly and a chubby face.

Look, I can't stand Palin but my distaste for her is based on her inability to separate her religious views from her duty as a public servant.

My opinion is we can't decide who is protected by feminist theory and who deserves to not have their pregnancy and motherhood called into question. Just because we disagree with someone's politics or religious beliefs there should be a line we don't cross, mine is the circumstances one becomes a mother.

The media speculation mainly hurts a 16 year old girl with a lifetime of struggle ahead of her who didn't want to be in the spotlight.

 Reply

Predictably, Lynn Paltrow, Executive Director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, says it better than I can:
[www.alternet.org]'s_rights/

And that's the last I'll say, since no matter how delicately I frame my comments I seem to keep offending you.

 Reply

As for the article you referenced it is stating an opinion I agree with, legitimate criticism of her parenting skills and how they differ from her political stances. It says nothing about Trig being Bristol's, in fact, the whole point is that she WAS pregnant and irresponsibly chose to get on a plane while in labor, which I totally agree was a shit thing to do but if the doctor told her it was fine I understand wanting to be by your family instead of some strange hospital having a doctor you don't know deliver your special needs baby.

In the end, my point is that speculating on how or who gave birth or was pregnant is irrelevant. In the end, the child was carried to term by someone and is being raised by a family that can care for him. If she, or to your point Bristol, had had an abortion I would totally be on board to call it out but I don't see how raising her 15 year old's love child as her own really constitutes hypocrisy of her views on women's reproductive rights.

 Reply

It's completely hypocritical because the anti-choice brigade wants to classify embryos and fetuses as people with rights, which leads to women not having the freedom to make choices like "wanting to be by your family instead of some strange hospital having a doctor you don't know deliver your special needs baby." Or even whether to have a c-section or natural birth.

[Side note: The hospital that she chose did not have a NICU, a trauma unit, or even an obstetrician on staff. Her concern about the month-premature special needs baby? Hard to see it. And her doctor was not an obstetrician either, but rather the foremost authority on child abuse in Alaska and a GP. The same doctor who will not go on record backing up Palin's story about the post-fluid-leak plane trip.]

Speculating on how or who gave birth to the child or was pregnant is relevant, in my opinion, for several reasons. First, when I became interested in this story, she was campaigning to be Vice President of the USA, and one of the main qualifications that she cited was the fact that she had 5 children. Bizarre? Perhaps. But she brought it up.

Secondly, I agree with jurisenpai that she could have silenced all of this speculation by producing her medical records. Instead, she shouts "Bristol's pregnant!" to get the spotlight off of her. Indicates that she will not answer straightforward questions and also that rather than take the easy route (produce records, which everyone else ruinning did), she will sacrifice her own daughter to the media.

Thirdly, if this is true -- and I believe that it is, it speaks to her capacity for deception, and a crazy 1950s mindset regarding teenage sexuality. (Daughter disappears for six months on a vacation of sorts, miracle baby appears, none the wiser.)

Nobody's saying Trig isn't being raised in a family that loves and can care for him, but this is still nuts. If I'm right, she's a crazy liar, and if I'm wrong, she's a hypocrite (see letter re: would advocate for laws that would deny to other women choices that she herself made; see also, culture of life vs. endangering special needs fetus). So I do think it's relevant.

 Reply

What I disagree with is forming this opinion based on speculation of evidence that can't be proven. If you want the religious-right to respect that all family's are different and deserve respect, a certain level of privacy and the protection of the law then it can easily be viewed as hypocritical to expect someone on the right to follow your ideals for what is correct behavior for a mother. There is nothing illegal or immoral about raising your daughter's child as your own. It's a totally private matter.

While I understand the argument that she was running for a public office there is no law stating that candidates must supply their medical records or personal information beyond some financial records(and even those are limited).

Again, I don't believe that she is raising her daughter's child since every major theory in favor of it can be refuted pretty easily.

"she could have silenced all of this speculation by producing her medical records."

Palin's medical records release:

[media.adn.com]

Obama (whom I voted for) released a similar summary from his doctors:

[blogs.suntimes.com]

"The same doctor who will not go on record backing up Palin's story about the post-fluid-leak plane trip"

Please see the article below in which Palin's doctor on record saying she had to induce labor and that she spoke with her all day from the time of the alleged leak to ascertain if Palin was in active labor.

[www.adn.com]

"And her doctor was not an obstetrician either, but rather the foremost authority on child abuse in Alaska and a GP"

I was delivered by a GP, my cousin's Down's child was delivered by a GP, most of the children in my family were delivered by a GP. It is fairly common practice in non-metropolitan areas so I'm not exactly sure if you are implying she was negligent in not having an OBGYN or that there is some sort of abuse being covered up.

"One of the main qualifications that she cited was the fact that she had 5 children"

So it would make all the difference if she said 4 children and one grandchild with another on the way? If Every candidate has used their family, in varying degrees, in their campaigns. What makes this different?

Look, I'm not saying you are wrong I just don't agree with your position on the relevancy of the pregnancy or the nature of the pregnancy itself.

I'm defending a woman I do not like who's opinion's I find abhorrent because, as a woman, I can't deny a woman's right to reproductive privacy even if she doesn't respect my reproductive rights. I'm not saying, at all, that everyone should, just how I feel.

 Reply

She released a one page note from her doctor. Okay. BUT after Obama's similar one page note, people were like, "WTF? that's not your records," so "his campaign released the results of standard laboratory tests and electrocardiograms from his checkups in June 2001, November 2004 and January 2007. The findings were normal."

[www.nytimes.com]

No such luck on the Palin front. After saying that she would release her records, on the eve of the election she released the "everything's just fine!" one-pager. One of these things is not like the other.

While we're at the Anchorage Daily News, here's the report of her announcing her pregnancy, replete with people that were actually there and worked closely with her going WTF?? NO WAY!, which says more than just a bunch of pictures of her looking not-pregnant.

[www.adn.com]

On the topic of the doctor, she did initally back up that story (dated April 22), but will not comment when asked anymore (possibly because not advising a woman to stay put after her water breaks, without evaluating her, and without recommending an evaluation is very likely malpractice). See: Times article posted above.

On that note, Palin said that she got her doc's permission to fly here: [www.newsminer.com]
but in the atricle you posted from ADN, the doctor specifically says that Palin never asked.

I just feel like, altough I understand where you're coming from, I have to prove that this is something I've given real thought to, and not just sourced from crazy liberal nutjob dot com or something.

Also, and I know you're not the one that said it, but it seems to be a common reaction: yes, individual chances of having a baby with Down Sydrome go from 1% to 3% after age 35, but 80% of all babies with DS are to born women under 35.

[www.kidsource.com]

In closing: I am aware that this long-ass-day-late post makes me seem insane. I have accepted it.

 Reply

The tabloids made me do it.

 Reply