We have a few interesting things to post this morning. Over the last few weeks I've gotten a lot of mail containing speculation about aspects of this whole situation. Some it has been frankly pretty odd, but yesterday two separate emails came in both pointing out things I had not thought of that I wanted to pass on.
Both of these things are simply something to think about it. I am not drawing any conclusions, but I would sure like to hear other's read on these things. Both, however, are sort of related to each other.
The first is Palin's refusal (which many women consider the oddest thing about all of this) to take any - repeat - any maternity leave. She was back in her office in Anchorage for at least a couple of hours on Monday, April 21st. The long interview on this page of the website was done in that office on that day. Then, she gave a speech (we have photographs) I believe either the next day or the day after. The email I received suggested that her refusal to do this stemmed from a concern that the story might not hold and that then, having taken a paid maternity leave, it would constitute fraud. This is a very good point.
The second concerns the wording of the Palin family statement which supposedly announces Bristol's current pregnancy. Here it is:
We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.
"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates.
There's absolutely nothing in this statement (with the exception of the Palins saying they have five children) that could NOT be also interpreted as referring to a pregnancy that already happened. No where does it actually say that Bristol Palin is pregnant now. According to my correspondent, that statement came solely from the McCain campaign. I have not verified this.
I have been surprised at how many people have written to me expressing their doubts about the current pregnancy. I have always assumed that it was true... just not as far advanced as has been stated. I may well be proved wrong about this. Only time will tell.
No Time for Tuckerman
-
Time. It is precious, they say. It flies, they say. And former Republican
Party Chair, former Dunleavy Chief of Staff, and now former University of
Alaska ...
1 year ago
9 comments:
Also, if Sarah & Todd legally adopted Trig through a closed adoption, the statement about the "five" children would also be true. In a closed adoption, the birth certificate would be reissued in Sarah & Todd's names & the original would be sealed by the court. That's why a birth certificate isn't really proof - only medical records will do.
That is very perceptive. I had not thought of it. If there were some sort of closed private adoption, then every single comment in this statement could be true without Bristol Palin being pregnant now. I have reviewed the "official statement," and it's true: the only people who state that Bristol is pregnant are unnamed "McCain aides."
In the article in People magazine in early September, it does say specifically that the "Palins announced their daughter was five months pregnant." But there is no other comment in the article from the family about the matter, except for a statement from an unnamed "family member," saying that "They were surprised" by the pregnancy. Again they could have been equally surprised three months ago or almost a year ago. It is all very odd.
I have no idea what the adoption laws are in Alaska. A couple of people have suggested that the adoption might have happened at birth. I am pretty sure that can't happen - I think there are always waiting periods - but maybe it's not out of the question that there has been already a private adoption. Any lawyers reading who can tell us anything about adoption in Alaksa?
I have been saying that all along that the birth certificate is NOT really proof. The birth attendant can write whatever he / she wants on it, and if a birth attendant was in on "it" (whatever "it" is) it would just be the word of the attendant and the parents. I had one friend who had an unattended home birth (went so fast the midwife didn't make it) and she had to go into the health department and do a birth certificate herself. No one questioned her, but realistically, that baby could have come from anywhere.
Something I heard on the Thom Hartmann Air America radio program before the "official" announcement of Bristol's "current" pregnancy questions whether this possible deception might be due to health insurance.
If Trig is Sarah's child he would be covered from birth under whatever platinum policy the Gov. of AK would have. If Trig is Bristol's baby, the birth would probably have been covered, but possibly not any long-term health care that might be needed for this special needs child.
What do y'all think?
OK, you lost me on this one, Audrey. When you say there's doubt about Bristol's current pregnancy, are you saying there's doubt about the timing, or doubt that she's even pregnant. Because if it's the latter then it's going to be kind of awkward if she doesn't pop out a kid.
Morgan,
there is something known as a "miscarriage". Only time will tell. Bristol hasn't been seen for a while, the McCain campaign is keeping her away from the public eye.
If they're saying she's five months then that's too far along to term it a miscarriage.
Viability has been pushed back so far these days that it would be probably termed a stillbirth. And with the Palins being in such a glaring spotlight I think it would be awfully hard to sell the public some story of how she privately miscarried a second trimester pregnancy at home. Nope, not do-able. Not at all. The fetus is just too far along for that.
Bristol looks pregnant to me, and I wonder if she didn't do it on purpose because she so wanted to have a baby of her own after losing Trig to her parents for political reasons.
I can't imagine that they would be so stupid that they'd try to fake Bristol's current pregnancy. That would be asinine. On the other hand, if it were true I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Bristol had tragically lost the baby on the eve of her debate with Biden, forcing Palin to postpone the event...
At this point, nothing they do would surprise me.
I had never doubted that Bristol is pregnant now, though I believe she is not nearly as far along as the McCain campaign has indicated.
I have been surprised though by the number of emails I've received questioning this. It's probably been the number one thing brought up in email overall. I think she does look pregnant.
Morgan is right. Anything before 20 weeks is a miscarriage; anything after is a stillbirth. At this point, based on the McCain campaign's statement that she was five months on 9/1/08, she would be ... yes you got it... SIX months now. There's no way they could hope to pull off a miscarriage at this point.
I believe that there is still a fair amount of simmering doubt about this whole situation even among the mainstream media. A lot of people have real doubts about how the story was shut down. ONE weird thing with this pregnancy... ONE... and the press will be back on this with vengeance.
Since Bristol's "baby" is due in December, maybe she will "miscarry" (stillbirth, whatever) right before the election for the sympathy vote.
Post a Comment