Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 10:02 PM
Wed Dec 9
73 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
| Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
| Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
| Twitter
Sadie Stein
| Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
| Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
| Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Lizzie Skurnick
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Weekends/Commenter Moderator:
Hortense
| Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/08/09
12/08/09
What a to-do to die today at a minute or two til two...
12/08/09
12/08/09
Also, I thought it was VERY classy he wouldn't discuss where he had sex with Bristol. The things he says seem factual because they are almost too banal to be made up.
12/08/09
Am I wrong in thinking that it's hugely irresponsible for a 44 year old woman carrying a special needs child in what is by definition a high-risk pregnancy to board a cross-country, high-altitude flight? And then to assume that she is absolutely insane if she repeats that journey, only this time leaking amniotic fluid and feeling contractions?
I'll admit, I've never had a kid, but the friends and relatives who have all stopped flying around 6 months in. The ones who were older mothers went straight to the hospital as soon as labour started in any way.
I don't care about the Mysterious Trig Origin story, but am I missing something about what I'd had as received wisdom long before I ever heard of Palin: that women should not fly late in pregnancy because it can put mother and child in danger if labour progresses, what with flight attendants not being medical professionals if things go badly wrong. I mean, Trig could have had a hole in his heart. This is not something the dermatologist onboard can handle with crossover medical skills.
Seriously, don't care about the conspiracy theory. But the decision-making in that suggested chain of events chills me, and makes me wonder why ANYONE would trust a person with those decision-making instincts to be President.
12/08/09
At the same time, I am not a politician, and I would assume that there might be reasons that one would need to travel late into pregnancy. However, once water breaks? That means labor is going to start toot sweet (if it hasn't already -- some women's water breaks before labor begins) and in that case, yes, I would suggest its irresponsible to board a plane for a cross country trip. So even if there's nothing else to the story, you're correct -- this highlights very questionable decision making behavior.
12/08/09
Her decisions were hugely irresponsible, and in my opinion, pretty selfish. And flat out dumb.
I've had two kids. I guess I see it as much more logical to be on the ground, near a hospital if I'm having contractions and my water has broken.
12/08/09
Labor doesn't get serious until transition, which is when. Many women have their waters break and sit in early labor for anywhere from 2 to 24 hours, and they are nowhere near ready to push, and can still do simple things like walk and talk during contractions. Generally, you don't really have to go into the hospital until you are closer to transition.
Maybe she wanted to get home to be cared for by her OB rather than a stranger? Supposedly, she called her doctor before she boarded and was cleared to fly if I'm remembering my crazy Palin stories correctly.
Subsequent births may or may not come faster (though generally they do). If she was in early labor before transition, who knows how many hours she had left.
It's not the choice I would have made, nor do I necessarily think it was a good one, but I can't work up the energy to crucify her over it when there are many better things to crucify her over. OBs usually advise that you can fly until your 36th week... so I'm not sure where the 6 months figure is from if not paranoia.
07:23 AM
A dermatologist is a medical specialist, they would not have any trouble delivering a child.
12:10 PM
@Anycah: Her doctor might have known, but the airline certainly didn't. And I know women are perfectly capable of operating normally after their water breaks -- but most of them are near a phone or car, and can make it to a hospital in a half hour or so.
Palin was in midair, on a looooong flight. Twice. If she'd progressed quickly (and it's not something that can generally be predicted, from what I understand) then she'd've been hours away from the nearest hospital. I know things worked out in the end, but she introduced a lot of unnecessary risk.
12/08/09
He is, from what I can tell, the only thorn to have permanently embedded itself in Sarah Palin's side.
Shine on, you crazy diamond!
12/08/09
12/08/09
Oh Joy, don't ever change! Somewhere, Elisabeth is having a stroke.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
But the real point is ... so what? Unless Andrew Sullivan was that baby's father (and the idea of that just amuses me) it's really none of his damn business. Enough with the conspiracy theories. It's almost as annoying as those birther people.
12/08/09
12/08/09
Andrew Sullivan, don't presume to think that you understand what women can and cannot do while in labor.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
At this point, though, Sullivan's claims don't seem to hold much water. It's pure speculation.
12/08/09
12/08/09
I used to loathe Sullivan -- I have never forgiven him for his pro-war stance in 2004 and he still clings to some crap economics. But I give him credit, he's come a long way in the last couple of years. I don't mind at all his role as a thorn in her side. This woman's bullshit needs to be called, vigilantly.
12/08/09
12/08/09
The hypocrisy would be in presenting her daughter as an example of abstinence by hiding the product of her sexual activity. Sort of a moot point by now, but especially troublesome if Bristol didn't have a choice at all. Which I wonder about. But again, that's Bristol, not Sarah, and I have no desire to drag her through the mud. As interesting a conspiracy as it may be, I've pretty much abandoned Andrew Sullivan's blog because of it.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
Everything worked out, which is great! But if it hadn't, Sarah Palin would have been the factor that introduced totally needless danger into the equation. Put flatly, her son could've been born with a hole in his heart, and she chose to go on a long-haul flight where the nearest medical help would be a First Aider and whoever on the plane had taken pre-med.
Of course, there's the flip side to this, which I find a lot more probable: she irresponsibly boarded a flight back to Alaska, but there was no sign of labour until she was almost on the ground. At which point they drove to the hospital and had the baby. And then she elaborated, as she tends to do, and created a Wilderness Woman story for herself -- only realizing too late that the other half of that take is Shockingly Irresponsible Mother.
In short: I'd prefer to think her a compulsive liar than so offhand about her child's survival. Neither quality makes me want her in office.
12/08/09
As to the other point (and egg creams point) I could sort of see it from that perspective but its still a pretty big stretch. I mean if she had had a previous abortion and lied about it that would be different but just to say I'm against abortion and I didn't abort my kid...I mean, I can see the ridiculousness and dishonesty if it wasn't her kid to begin with but she did have what 4? other kids that she didn't abort. I guess if it was glaringly untrue that would be one thing but its not and all this speculation about womens bodies by (primarily) men is tiresome.
12/08/09
12:46 AM
If Palin had ever had an abortion and lied about it, or even covered up her daughter's pregnancy and lied about it, I do think it's her private business and shouldn't be pried into. The salient issue here is that she politicized her own reproductive life in order to win an election. She intentionally marketed those very personal experiences, choices, and "authenticity" as the #1 reason to support her election. So when there's information suggesting that she did not have those experiences, did not make those choices, and that her version of authenticity is fake, and that's all there is to talk about because she has so little political experience or knowledge to speak of, then journalists not only can but should ask questions about it.
I have no problem with certain issues being off limits for public inquiry, so long as public figures do not make those issues foundational to their authority and credibility. But once they do, those issues must be back on the table as a matter of holding them accountable for what they say. What Palin tried to do, and largely succeeded in doing, is claim that her reproductive and family choices were a reason to vote for her, while refusing to answer questions about them because they were "personal." She succeeded by vilifying the questioners as being sexist, among other things. Yet to me it was no different than questioning any number of male politicians who have run on "family values" platforms and then were caught philandering. Where they put their penises is not the issue; the issue is that the disconnect between what they say and what they do reveals hypocrisy, dishonesty, and an attitude that they are not accountable to the rules and values that they are proposing to foist upon the public.
It may seem distasteful that Sullivan doggedly pursued Palin on the massive holes in her pregnancy narrative, but journalists should not value politeness. And almost all of them were way too polite to her throughout the campaign. And that was a shame in a year where marriage equality legislation was so under fire. Even if Sullivan was just spinning his wheels and getting nowhere, he did a service by pointing out the rank hypocrisy of a rising political star who couldn't tolerate people calling bullshit on her mythological personal life that she herself made a public issue while simultaneously demanding that their personal lives be subject to public legislation. I don't think Sullivan was wrong to do what any conscientious journalist should have done. But even if you see it as a "second wrong," hopefully you can also see it as a useful wrong for how it exposes the double-standard of rights to privacy between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/04/09
12/04/09
Bravo, Portia.
12/04/09
12/04/09