Friday, October 24, 2008

Sarah Palin's "Early Testing" - Questions Revisted

Although I have posted about this in the past, hearing in Sarah Palin's own voice that she knew at thirteen weeks of gestation that Trig had Down's caused me to want to revisit this topic.

This week, Sarah Palin gave a phone interview with Dr. James Dobson. You can listen to the whole interview here. A part two to the interview is available here.

I cannot shake the feeling that this is yet another false statement.

Gov. Palin does not state here specifically that she had amniocentesis performed. I did not have time this morning to review every source, but I cannot pin down if she EVER actually said that she had an amnio done. It's been assumed, but has she ever said it? What she has said repeatedly is "early testing." If someone can provide me with a link where she is quoted as having said that she had an amnio, I would appreciate it. Here's what was actually said in People.

PEOPLE: Gov. Palin, when you were 13 weeks pregnant, last December, you had an amniocentesis that determined Trig had Down syndrome.
SARAH: I was grateful to have all those months to prepare. I can't imagine the moms that are surprised at the end. I think they have it a lot harder.

First, she did not correct the statement that she had an amnio, but she did not confirm it either. Second, if she was due May 15th, she would have been significantly farther along in December, 17-20 weeks. She would have been thirteen weeks the first week in November. Significant? Not really. It's just one more thing that's a "little bit" wrong. Why can nothing this woman says be really transparent or clear? Why could she not have said, "Well, actually, that was wrong. The test was performed in November."? She might not remember the exact date, but she's going to know during which calendar month and how many weeks pregnant she was when she had the test!

Here's a brief paragraph that describes the risks of early amniocentesis.

This and subsequent reports from the trial demonstrated that compared to midtrimester amniocentesis, early amniocentesis was associated with a 4-fold risk of a technically difficult (twice the risk of requiring multiple needle insertions) or unsuccessful procedure (1.6% vs. 0.4%), a 10-fold risk of chromosome culture failure (2.4% vs. 0.25%), a higher rate of fluid leakage following the procedure (3.5% vs. 1.7%), a greater risk for pregnancy losses (7.6% vs. 5.9%), and a significantly higher risk (1.3% vs. 0.1%) of having a baby with talipes equinovarus (club foot).

There is another test that is often performed early in pregnancy, Chorionic Villus Sampling. In this test, a small piece of placental tissue is extracted, either through the cervix using a small catheter, or through the abdominal wall, using a needle. I don't want to bog this post down with a lot of medical information, as there are many internet sources for more info if you want it, but the research I reviewed this morning seems to indicate that transabdominal is safer and is typically the procedure that is done. Ultrasound is always used in conjunction with the procedure to guide the technician. In most sources, the procedure is listed as having between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 200 risk of causing a miscarriage.

Other studies will show slightly different results. But there is NO doubt that early amniocentesis and early CVS both carry higher risks than traditional later procedures.

Every source I have been able to find agrees on one thing: the only reason to do testing this early is to allow women who have some reason to believe there might be a problem to opt for abortion sooner, when the procedure is less traumatic. There is absolutely no medical reason for someone who will not abort to do the test this early, when there is a greater risk of CAUSING ABORTION. No medical reason. Period.

Most pro-life women choose to skip invasive testing completely.

By claiming that she was tested at thirteen weeks, Sarah Palin has opened herself for some serious questioning. Of course, no one seems to be doing it! I sense that there must be an undercurrent of discomfort and the "whoa!" factor among a lot of pro-life women who are at the same time, unwilling to call her on it.

If Sarah Palin was truly pregnant, the only reason I can think of for her to have testing that early would be so that she could abort early if there was a problem, which of course would call her entire public commitment to the pro-life movement to be called into question.

I have stated earlier on this blog that I think this early testing statement was in fact made to cover for an inexplicably long period between when she should have known she was pregnant (say from seven-eight weeks (early October) at the latest) and when she would have found out that Trig had Down's (which would have traditionally not been until mid or late December, ten weeks later) during which she told no one she was pregnant. She has claimed that she told no one because she was struggling to come to terms with the fact that she was going to have a "special" child. And certainly, one can accept that for privacy reasons she may not have announced it to the entire state of Alaska at this point.

But if she had known for ten weeks that she WAS pregnant, but did NOT know her unborn child had Down's, the story falls apart on the personal level. What woman wouldn't tell her own mother (who she is supposedly quite close to)? Her sisters? Her teenaged daughters? Some trusted staff members?

I suggest two possibilities. Either Gov. Palin was never pregnant at all, and this entire tale is a fabrication


Gov. Palin was pregnant but actually never knew that Trig had Down's, and all of this has been put out to enhance the pro-life credentials.

Because for a pro-life woman, testing at thirteen weeks makes no sense whatsoever.


Anonymous said...


Another well thought out post.

As with all big lies, they get tripped up in the details, such as her claim that she knew about the Downs. She won't confirm the amnio since she never had one, but she's not a smart woman and may not have known that that test would be the only reasonable way she could have known about it before Trig's birth.

So "early testing" is a weasel expression that would not put pressure on her to produce either a doctor's statement or later records of the amnio, which would require indepedent lab work. Instead, her doctor could give some nonsense "early testing" assurance if needed and that would be that.

Even giving Sarah Palin the benefit of every doubt, her story doesn't hold together and would crumble under cross-examination.


Mary G. said...

Just a teeny note: some of us pro-choice women have refused pregnancy testing, even when forty years old--not because we disagree with the folks who do have testing and make a difficult decision on that basis. The point is: to be able to make the decision. I obviously did not refuse testing because I am opposed to abortion, because I'm not. But I chose to have my baby (at home). I also do question some of the Down's and mother's age issues, but that is a different problem entirely. Mary

Morgan said...

You know I'm no fan of Palin, but there is another scenario in her favor. If a routine ultrasound showed markers that the child had Downs then she may have followed it up with a test to be sure. I mean, from a pro-life perspective I'd imagine a woman might want to know FOR SURE so that she could educate herself on what to expect, the severity of the problem, and what could best be done to ensure the baby was born healthy despite the odds.

But it that were the case, then everything she did from the time her water broke flies in the face of that logic, doesn't it, because it was the exact opposite of what a mother about to deliver an at-risk child would do.

An outside possibility is that she knew the kid had Downs via ultrasound and follow-up testing and then had prayer for some sort of "healing" and deluded herself into somehow thinking that she'd deliver a healthy baby.

I know of blogging couple right now who were - like Palin - fundamentalist Pentecostal pro-lifers. They put their trust in God to the point that they didn't even get prenatal care. They ended up delivering a stillborn son when an easily preventable infection took his life in utero.

I'd never really considered this last possibility until watching that tape on her religious beliefs. I mean, if she really believes God got her where she is politically is it such a stretch to believe that he'd heal her unborn child?

Perhaps she was afraid to tell people of the potential problems for this reason. I don't know.

My gut tells me that she is lying and I do think the truth will come out. Eventually.

mary g. said...

In this piece from May 2008, Palin states she knew about the Down's in December, when 4 months along: I suppose she can say she didn't hear the People interviewer saying "at 13 weeks." In another interview she also said she found out "midway", yet she has also said or agreed to the 13 weeks timeline. Almost all sources suggest it was through amniocentesis, defining the procedure, etc. She has never denied this. Mary

Anonymous said...

I just listened to the whole interview with Dr Dobson. I am terribly disappointed that such an influential Christian gave Sarah Palin such a whole hearted endorsement. She was given an easy ride and the whole interview was little more than a love in. If I never bothered to read any news (like SP) I would assume from the above interview that Sarah Palin was God's answer to the prayers of the worldwide church and probably vote for her. I believe that Sarah Palin's ignorance of just about everything is probably typical of average US citizens, otherwise she would have been dropped from the ticket after just one of her now infamous Katy Couric interviews. If a Britisxh politician displayed this level of ignorance they would be sunk below the waterline never to resurface again except as an object of ridicule. It's been said that this appointment makes Dan Quayle look like Metternich, I would say that this is the lowest level of political appointment since the Emperor Caligula attempted to make his horse a consul. At least Caligula was insane, what is McCain's excuse.
I'd be interested to hear if Dr Dobson ever gave any patient the advice Sarah Palin claims to have had about her labour. The fact that Dobson doesn't have any problem with the official account of SP's pregnancy/delivery is in itself worrying.
SP is and embarrassment to both the church and to the feminist movement - and this takes some doing!
Aside from her hard to swallow (Rather, totally beyond the bounds of credibility) pregnancy account, and her interviews, which were like watching car crashes, how does Dobson get round her abuse of power and her $150K wardrobe not to mention her subsequent lying about both the abuse of power and who had paid for the wardrobe.
If this is the level of candidate the American Church supports, the church is in even worse shape than the GOP.
And what is the big problem with socialism among American Christians. Acts 2.42-45 seems to have no problem with it. "42 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."
The whole political scene in America worries me and I reckon that you guys on the blog who know Christians or are Christians need to get the message out in your communities that Sarah Palin is phoney.

Anonymous said...

follow up
Does anyone have an e-mail for Dr Dobson. I'd like to communicate with him directly over all this.

Anonymous said...

Thank you. I have personally questioned the whole testing thing from the beginning for exactly the reasons you give. Tying this to the question about when she actually knew she was carrying a special needs child adds strength to the argument.

Joan Kind

Audrey said...

Clarification on a few things:

First, Sarah Palin herself states in the Dobson interview that she knew at thirteen weeks. So the People interview really was not relevant to that question. I pulled that up because I was trying to figure out if she ever has actually stated that she had an amniocentesis (as opposed to the CVS or finding out via ultrasound.)

Second, "diagnosing" Down's via ultrasound that early in pregnancy is very rare. In fact ultrasound is only considered a "screening" test for Down's, not a "diagnostic" test. And in fact, medical personnel are firm in stating that ultrasound alone cannot diagnose Down's; it can only suggest the possibility.

There is one test, which looks for thickened skin at the neck, which must be done with high resolution ultrasound after fourteen weeks. Most centers don't offer it. One article, reviewing thousands of ultrasounds, says: "Only a thickened nuchal fold found on second-trimester ultrasound provided minimally useful information in screening for Down syndrome." Some medical journals say that ultrasound screening, even when it's LOOKING for Down's, and even in the second trimester, will miss 50% of cases.

The chances of Down's call made on ultrasound in podunk Alaska at thirteen weeks is near zero.

I have no clue what Sarah Palin is suggesting or stating. I think she wanted to move that diagnosis as far forward as possible for the very reason I state, which is that it at least partially explains why she told no one she was pregnant, and she didn't really think through the other implications.

Anonymous said...

As a physician, I'd like to say that the word "testing" implies something active, like amniocentesis or cvs. These are "tests." Ultrasound is an "exam."

Also, she has to know that many pro-life moms would question her having amniocentesis, something that indisputably raises the chance of miscarriage, though how much is open to question. If she really had found out through ultrasound, I think she would have jumped at the chance to use that.

Sleuth for Truth said...

This has nothing to do with the amnio question...however, I cannot find if this video was discussed or posted.

It is a Scott Slone podcast posted on February 11, 2008 entitled, "Hike of the Week Urban Hike with Sarah Palin" at:

It shows a long hike from the governor's mansion to her office from about 4:00 to the end (about 5 minutes total).

Anonymous said...

Can I revisit the "Where's Bristol" topic? Here's a video from today ...

Her "two children" are with her.

Either Bristol is back at the hotel breast feeding her baby Trig OR she is being made to be nanny/mom/slave, while being 18 yrs old, and seven months prego now herself. Disgusting.


Anonymous said...

Re the video just posted by Sleuth for Truth ... that has been seen before, HOWEVER, I didn't see Sarah Palin actually drink the coffee, but should a woman in her condition even be drinking coffee? Isn't caffiene off limits to pregnant women? The interview "received a tip" and it was clearly caffienated.


Anonymous said...

In terms of whether, in the case of Trig, ultrasounds suggested an abnormality or a test such as an amnio confirmed it, I've seen quotes from Palin that say her doctor called with the diagnosis. If that's true, do the doctors in this discussion feel that means we can rule out anything but an invasive test? I can't see interpreting those statements as anything but close to definitive, i.e., a diagnosis from an amnio or other similar, not a call that said there's a high chance your baby may have a defect that may have resulted from an abnormal ultrasound.

If the entire "we knew through early testing" Trig had Downs story is false, a clear grab at the pro-life base, then I'd be more willing to see Mr. Toad's Wild Ride (the two commercial flights after her water broke) and drive out to Mat-Su Regional as within the realm of possiblity. Palin clearly has terrible judgement, so, although no doctor would have allowed it for any pregnant woman in labor, she may actually have done something that irresponsible.

Lower 48

Anonymous said...

In the above I meant to say the call may have followed an abnormal ultrasound. Not that the defect itself resulted from the ultrasound, obviously.

colorado voter said...

I just watched the video at posted by Sleuth for Truth shot on 2/20/2008 which was 57 days before the alleged birth date of 4/18/2008. This woman does not look 28 to 31 weeks pregnant. The jacket could almost be concealing a baby bump if the term were not as far along as she was supposed to be at that date. For a 43 year old with 4 known prior pregnancies, she would have "popped" very soon into pregancy with a fifth child. For all you women out there with multiple births, wasn't true for you?

dave said...

You wrote:

"Second, if she was due May 15th, she would have been significantly farther along in December, 17-20 weeks. She would have been thirteen weeks the first week in November. Significant? Not really. It's just one more thing that's a "little bit" wrong."

Don't downplay this one – I think it IS significant. This is the closest things have gotten so far to an undeniable and material contradiction in Palin's account.

The first news story about this, presumably based on information from Palin or her handlers, was an AP story that ran last May 3. It contained a dramatic description of the doctor giving Palin the news over the phone, and said: " The doctor's announcement in December, when Palin was four months pregnant, presented her with a possible life- and career-changing development…"

The "December" thing took hold and was repeated in a number of stories that ran over the summer. The "four months" thing faded.

Then in the late August People Magazine interview after the announcement at the convention, the "13 weeks" thing popped up. You're right, the information there was actually contained in the interviewer's question, which Palin danced around – but in two subsequent interviews (w. Hugh Hewitt on September 30, and with Dobson on October 22), Palin has herself said, explicitly, that she was "13 weeks along" when she got the news that Trig had Down Syndrome.

As you note, given the public statements about when Trig was due, the "13 months" thing is significantly out of synch with "last December". It is also, of course, significantly out of synch with the "four months pregnant in December" mentioned in the AP story. Four months in December is, of course, correct (assuming the information about the due date is valid).

Keep pulling on this thread. It may unravel the sweater.

dave said...

Something else occurs to me about Sarah Palin's change in her story as to when she learned that Trig had Down Syndrome. Perhaps the shocking news she got in the 13th week of the pregnancy, was the news that Bristol was pregnant. Perhaps it is that timeline -- big development connected with "13 weeks pregnant" -- which is finding its way into her current confabulations.

Anonymous said...

"Her "two children" are with her."

I watched the above video and plainly the two children on the stage with her were Willow and Piper, not Bristol!

kathy said...

I've really been enjoying your blog and appreciate the honest way in which you seem to approach the topics. I do want to suggest to you, however, that you tone down the "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" rhetoric. As I'm sure a lot of women can attest, a person's political learnings on abortion issues can change during pregnancy! I consider myself to be personally "pro-life" but politically "pro-choice". Although over the age of 35, I did not do the AFP test or amnio with any of my kids. But I could see that a woman who wanted to know whether or not to prepare for a special needs child, even if she had absolutely no intention of considering abortion, would opt for these tests. I really don't consider pre-natal testing to be a good litmus test for whether or not a woman is pro-life. That said your post today raised some interesting new questions. I'd just suggest that you avoid labels--it enhances your credibility!

ebenezer said...

What is being said is that the Amniocentesis is a big risk to take if you are not seriously considering a termination. In the UK one in a hundred amniocentesis results in spontaneous abortion.
From the information on the blog today an amnio in the first trimester carries more risk that in the second although I am willing to concede that the miscarriage rate in US is lower than UK.
So I think, given the high risk of miscarriage, it is a fair question to ask what Sarah Palin was thinking by having an amniocentesis.
The crazy journey back to Alaska also legitimately begs the same question.

sarah.hoax said...

Speaking of videos. This newsweek interview was shot in late march. about 7.5mo.'s preg and sitting crosslegged, leaning forward.

This picture is huge! Taken same place(same woodwork) as Alaskan TV shot of Trig, on day of birth. Is this Willow or Bristol? Doesn't look like a woman who just gave birth.

Looks a little old for Willow, but small for Bristol. Who is it?

Anonymous said...

Hi, I just found your blog this week as I have been more than a little curious about all this as well. Did you happen to see the NBC piece this evening where Sarah said she would release her medical records? I have a feeling this story is going to come undone at any time now. Nothing about this adds up.
Your points are all well made. I'm a pro-life woman who had two children after age 40 and I had no prenatal testing. My reasoning was that I was going to have my babies regardless of their health so what would have been the point?


Anonymous said...

Dr. Dobson's website is

Anonymous said...

I apologize if this article is already a part of your research, but just in case it's not...


Anonymous said...

Here's my scenario:

Bristol got pregnant, and Sarah intended to find an adoptive parent while keeping Bristol out of school and out of the public eye. During a routine later-term ultrasound the technician suspected Down's Syndrome (you can see facial details in utero). Sarah knew that there would be complications arranging for an "easy" adoption of a special-needs child, and she knew if Bristol were to have the baby as her baby, the family health insurance plan wouldn't cover the health care expenses for a child with Down's Syndrome.

She thought that she was doing the right thing for the child to "assume" the pregnancy, and the right thing for her career for keeping Bristol out of it.

If you look for information about early detection of Down's Syndrome you will find that it can be detected at 13 weeks with amnio. Why Sarah Palin would have elected to have amnio at 13 weeks with a "pro-life" mindset seems mighty strange to me. But her doctor probably told her that the 13 week number was a magic number that would make medical sense.

The birth stuff is pretty obvious. Sarah could easily slip into a hospital bed and assume all motherly duties, while Bristol was skirted off somewhere to recover.

Anonymous said...

(There is audio of Sarah giving an account of the birth in the second box under her picture.)


Anonymous said...

To sarah.hoax regarding the pic you posted

I believe that is Levi's sister. There is a website detailed with the timeline... , with lots of pics of the extended family. But I can't locate it atm...

Regardless of whether she has 4 or 5 children, she definately looks great! But I can't believe anything she says. She has been dishonest and misleading about so many thingsm including the bridge to nowhere. It must be really hard for her to keep track of all the things she says...

Here are my Christmas cards...


because I am confident this country will do the right thing, and will not vote Palin/McCain

bacci40 said...

palin may be pro birth, but she isnt pro lifie or pro baby...has anyone really taken a good look at trig? the kid is 6 months old and well behind in all developmental markers....this is most likely due to the fact that he is getting little if any in the way of physical or speech therapy, which anyone who has worked with down syndrome children, knows how important this is from day one.

she may talk a good game about advocating for special needs kids and families, but it doesnt seem that she cares much for one of her own.

the kid is treated like a doll....makes me ill

Anonymous said...

Interesting comment from an Alaska newspaper re "No Timeline offered on release of Palin’s medical records"

According to Sharon Leighow, spokeswoman for Palin,
“She takes good care of herself, and she’s very disciplined in what she eats,” Leighow said. “After she had Trig, she was able to lose the baby weight in a couple of months and get back to her normal weight.”

Lost the baby weight in a couple of months? Except for the one picture that I have seen of Palin with newscaster Andrea Gusty -- and possibly wearing her fake pregnancy belly -- Palin looked exactly the same before and after giving "birth."

These people keep pouring out the B.S. Release the full medical records.

Jack Bog said...

They never will. I'll bet there will be some sort of goofball "summary" issued on Halloween so that they can say "We released the records -- what more do you want?" A few days before the election. But they won't be the full records, and won't clear up the serious doubts expressed by this site.

Anonymous said...

Yup, they will say she is a healthy mom of 5. Akin to the social background questions that are often part of a medical history. The woman has a family of 5 kids- doesn't speak to how the 5 were acquired, whether by childbirth or adoption.

Without a statement from a reputable physician - are there any left in Wasilla? -- that Sarah birthed Trig, I will never believe it.

Anonymous said...

Audrey, I posted about this last night but have you heard the audio on this site?

This is the link to a 4/22/08 Anchorage Daily News story titled " Palins' child diagnosed with Down Syndrome". There is also the audio of the interview (in the second box below a picture of Sarah, Todd and Trig). Sarah is telling Trig's birth story as several reporters ask her questions. This is evidently the first press conference that Sarah gave in Alaska after Trig was born. If you listen there is one reporter who seems to be particularly skeptical. She asks Sarah if her water had broken in Texas and Sarah skirts the question. The reporter says she is just trying to clarify statements that Sarah's father had previously made. This reporter later asks other pressing questions saying again that she is just trying to clarify/verify what Sarah's dad had reported.

If only there was a way to identify and contact this reporter. You can hear the skepticism (at the whole birth story) in all her questions.

If this little piece of information has not already been investigated please take a listen.


Anonymous said...

It was tough listening to that audio. She really sounds like someone who is lying through their teeth. It is sickening. Instead of saying "when the doctor told us that our baby had this problem" she says "when we heard about it". Did they hear it through the grapevine? I'm sorry that I'm not really contributing much here but a few comments here and there, but soon hopefully this whole thing will be over and we can all move on with our lives. Either they will lose the election and Palin will go back to Alaska not to be heard from again, or they will win and then Bristol will have to produce a baby somehow some way.


Anonymous said...

Sarah has made two political stump speeches recently in Western Pennsylvania, one in Johnstown and one in Pittsburgh, to tug at the heartstrings of Catholic and pro-life voters in that area. She is using Trig to get the McCain/Palin ticket elected. What an ambitious, aggressive and self-serving person this woman is. She talks about how "precious" Trig is and how blessed their family is to have him, but is she really providing the motherly, nurturing care that this special child needs in the early months of his life--IF she is truly his mother? Also, she shows absolutely no affection to the other two daughters who are being used as political pawns.

Anonymous said...

"Either they will lose the election and Palin will go back to Alaska not to be heard from again, or they will win and then Bristol will have to produce a baby somehow some way."

Appalled: I am looking forward to the Palin family going back to Alaska not to be heard from again--EVER! This has been the most outrageous two months the American people have had to put up with in politics. If John McCain had the judgement to choose and properly vet a running mate who was already known to the American people instead of this totally unknown "wildcard" from the Alaskan wilds, we would all be at peace instead of scratching our heads and up in arms!

I'm also getting sick and tired of the Republican exploitation of "Joe the Plumber." Barack Obama was very gracious to this man and the rightwingers are making it sound like he was mistreated in some way.

Anonymous said...

Oh yes, with what.... 9 days left? the Republicans are trying to do big time damage control. I have read that the "Christian Right" is launching an all out attack on Barack Obama. I am a Bible believing, Christ following, non-party aligning voter who twice supported George Bush but I am totally AMAZED at how an entire group, i.e., the "Christian Right" could be so BAMBOOZLED by Sarah Palin. Aside from being completely unqualified intellectually, she obviously has a HUGE problem with the truth. There's just too much that doesn't add up about her.

In the last couple of days I have seen several stories (print and video) where she has complained about the media treatment she is getting but earlier this year she gave this interview

(see the segment entitled, "Palin: The Perceived Whine)

where she suggests that Hillary Clinton should buck up and take the media scrutiny that she (Hillary) is getting.

I am not going to question her faith. I was still undecided at the start of the RNC this past September. I only know that from this Christian's perspective, her VP nominee acceptance speech left the worst taste in my mouth. Besides her perky cuteness how could anyone think that there was anything pleasant about her introduction to the world that night? This woman was touted as a Christian and selected primarily to secure the Christian vote yet her speech was arrogant and mean-spirited. These "attributes" didn't exactly make the best Christian calling card in my opinion.

This year I am not voting solely on issues. I am voting for TRUTH. There has been so much negative speculation out there against Obama and I have spent quite a bit of time investigating those accusations as well. While none of us has a perfect record on anything, the accusations against Obama have by and large proven false. Besides that he is smart, steady and ready.

With all due respect to everyone's freedom to choose, this campaign has been so frustrating to me because I can't understand what planet McCain/Palin supporters are currently living on.


Thank you Audrey for your truth search and for starting this forum.

Anonymous said...

"This woman was touted as a Christian and selected primarily to secure the Christian vote yet her speech was arrogant and mean-spirited. These "attributes" didn't exactly make the best Christian calling card in my opinion."

Truthseeker: Yes! If I had been her parents in the audience that night at the convention, I would have crawled under the seats in embarrassment. I was an avid John McCain supporter back in 2000, but I cannot understand why he chose to have Karl Rove, et al. running his campaign. I guess he thought since George W. Bush was so successful in getting elected by being negative and mean-spirited, it was going to work for him. All this has done is blemish his former reputation for truth, integrity and character.

Anonymous said...

To Truthseeker,

The truth we seek is not simply whether Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy. If she did so -- which seem likely given the evidence -- she probably are good reasons, or least mixed selfish and selfless motives.

We cannot allow intentional suppression of the truth of this matter to stand, however, particularly since us 'truthseekers' have been attacked for even questioning her. Certainly, the McCain campaign and the GOP know the truth, but are using all their efforts to keep it hidden simply to protect a) their slimming chances at holding onto the presidency, and b) their reputation for having poorly vetted Sarah Palin before selecting her and for covering it up.

Further, that the entire right-wing echo-chamber and MSM have accepted and even repeat the lie, and ruled that we cannot question Saint Sarah on anything, must be opposed with all the vigor we can manage. We've seen that these liars can spin anything, but not covering up a faked pregnancy. No way. It's unspinnable forever.


Mary G. said...

Sarah Palin wouldn't call people who BOMB abortion clinics TERRORISTS--see Huffington Post/Daily Kos--she herself said it in her interview with Brian Williams.Mary

Sleuth for Truth said...

Re. Trustseeker's post with the audio at

At 11:10 on the audio Sarah Palin makes reference to all the family help she will get including the "THREE different sets of grandparents." Are her parents or his parents divorced and remarried to add an additional set of grandparents? Are they counting a great-grandparent on one of their sides?

At 12:50 on the audio Sarah Palin states she "never FELT or looked pregnant."

And, lastly, has anyone met a woman who is unwilling to tell--in detail--the birth story, especially right after the baby's birth? When the reporter on the audio asks about Palin's water breaking in Texas, Sarah Palin acts all blushing like "if you want to get personal/technical."

Everyone I know who has had a baby, including myself, give pretty personal details about the birth stories of each of their children. You can still be discrete telling someone about how/when/where your water broke before a child's birth, but it's an important part of the birth story.

She also says early in the audio that while in Texas it was clear she wouldn't "be pregnant" for another four or five weeks. It just seems like strange terminology to use.

If the baby was really 4-5 weeks early, were the doctor(s) involved concerned about lung development of the baby. Has this question been asked? Obviously, he didn't have lung issues (no NICU) that we know of.

BTW, what are exactly are "labor activities" other than labor? (Mentioned at about 1:45 on the audio.)

Anonymous said...

The audio of Sarah Palin's press conference back when Trig was born has three new things that strike me.

1. Twice in the interview Sarah's asked how this will impact her. And both times the very first thing she brings up is that her load will be lighter because her older kids will play a significant roll in raising Trig.

An interesting response, given our suspicion that one of those older kids is the actual parent!

First, at 6:45 or so:

"Q: What does it mean for you [Sarah and Todd Palin] as parents, in your roll as parents with him?

"SP: I think very significant here is the role that family and our extended family, our older kids will play, will be playing in raising Trig -- our older kids..."

Then, around 9:15, to a question about how she'll manage being governor while raising a special neeeds kid, her answer again is Trig's "help from the extended family, having big siblings."

Sure doesn't sound like Sarah thinks Bristol's headed back to high school or college!

2. The second incredible thing from this press conference is Sarah's description of how smooth and easy the birth was, the easiest of her five. There's no mention of labor being induced. Is there any woman alive who's been induced who would describe it this way?

3. Finally, at the start of the interview Sarah claims that she flew home because she felt something different than routine Braxton Hicks contractions. But by the end, she's arguing that it was ok to fly because all she felt was routine Braxton Hicks.

Overall, in this press conference I hear hints that Sarah's really the grandmother, I hear Sarah preparing the press to see Bristol essentially raising Trig, and I hear a woman who hasn't quite got her story together, making it up as she goes.


(The audio is at, audio link below family photo)

Anonymous said...

Sleuth for truth, yes. I've had 4 kids, ages 19-3. A birth story never gets old, every little detail. I recently heard Sarah say in an interview that Bristol was helping out a lot with the baby on the campaign trail. And yes, how does a pregnant woman not ever feel pregnant? One more point is that the Anchorage article (with the audio) says she had to be induced to deliver. I find that somewhat inconsistent with the "easy, easy" labor & delivery she repeatedly says she had. Under the circumstances, everything just went suspiciously smooth for an over 40 mama carrying a special needs baby who flew 8 hours on two planes and then drove 2 hours to give birth 4-5 weeks early.

There is a sweet picture on the net of Bristol, Levi, & Trig at the convention. Bristol is holding the baby and Levi is kissing his head. We all know Sarah did not carry or deliver that baby.

Dangerous, I do agree with you. For me the issue is much bigger than why she lied.

Maybe there w a s some maternal urge to "protect" her daughter but c'mon. This is 2008. Teen girls get pregnant by the New York minute. When you take a look at the whole of her story (all the parts that we know) I believe that Sarah Palin's main and possibly ONLY impetus for this wild baby tale was her ravenous ambition,her relentless quest for her own personal success. She had to know that she was NOT qualified to be the Vice President of the United States. Have you read the article from The New Yorker Magazine on how she came to be chosen? Members of the RNC were courting her well before she became a household name. There was even a preplotted "campaign before the campaign" to get her name out there as this great maverick leader.

But remember she was their answer to the Christian vote and it wasn't going to play well for this abstinence pushing politician to have a pregnant 16 yo. She would have been immediately seen as a hypocrite. She needed a cleaner image.

Why did she not announce this pregnancy until she was supposedly 7 months along? Could it be that the RNC candidate makers were still trying to figure out how to fit Bristol's pregnancy neatly into their candidate's life?

[ Wow I never knew there could be a conspiracy theorist hiding inside my little brain. :o) ]

Furthermore, there does seem to be a masterful coverup on all of this. I read that even the National Enquirer has been unable to get any info. If the RNC would spend 150K dollars on clothing and 22K dollars on a makeup artist for Sarah Palin, I wouldn't at all be surprised if there hasn't been a massive payout in hush money about all this.

I'm convinced she is lying about Trig's birth. We are all guilty of lying. I certainly don't want to condemn her for being human. It's just that I believe lying is a pattern for Sarah Palin and I don't want anyone like her to represent me on the highest platform in America either.

Anonymous said...

Just wanted to say that that last post at 11:59 to sleuth and dangerous was from me truthseeker. :o)

Anonymous said...

Sleuth for Truth said:

'She also says early in the audio that while in Texas it was clear she wouldn't "be pregnant" for another four or five weeks. It just seems like strange terminology to use.'

-- Good point. You talk about when the baby's coming, not how much longer you'll be pregnant. -jwc

Anonymous said...

Sleuth, "Labor activities" is Palinspeak for who know what?


Anonymous said...

Re three sets of grandparents, Todd's parents are divorced, so that is probably what she is referring to.

As a trial lawyer, I hear deception in her voice. Perhaps we can send the audio to the FBI and have them run a Voice Stress Analysis.

I truly believe this woman is a pathological liar. Just what we need in D.C.

Anonymous said...

To Audrey, this website must live on after the election until the full truth is known.

From today's Politico blog about Sarah

*There are people in this campaign who feel a real sense of loyalty to her and are really pleased with her performance and think she did a great job," said the McCain insider. "She has a real future in this party."*

Anonymous Hippopotamus said...

Re: the posted audio at

Listen at 5:00. She responds to the reporter's question "So did your water break?"

SP says "we did nothing to put our child or anyone else in danger."

Isn't this a strange way for a pregnant mom to refer to herself? Wouldn't a pregnant mom more likely say "we did nothing to put our child or myself in danger" ?

Anonymous said...

Re the last post, I think Sarah is referring to the question of whether she put Alaska Airline passengers in danger.

Anonymous said...

Hey, the story is even breaking through to Doonesbury.

Check out Doonesbury's straw poll at Slate magazine.

The question for the straw poll is what is the hold-up for Sarah releasing her medical record.

As you can see below, you can vote for one of three choices.

*During a recent NBC interview, Sarah Palin announced that she'll finally release her medical records. At least, we think she did. Her final word was: "Never been seriously ill or hurt. You will see that in the medical records if they're released." Apparently, the operative word is "if". Spokeswoman Maria Comella later told ABC News: "When medical information related to Governor Palin's health is ready to be released, we will make that information available."
So what's with the hold-up?


Privacy. Republicans traditionally rank it as among their favorite Constitutional rights, at least they did before the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, and the million-man airport Watch List. Okay, let's call it modesty.


Perversity. Since it's mainly the filtering media elite who are clamoring for it, she's decided to stonewall there. Refusing to put her own clean bill of health on display like the other candidates is what a maverick would do, so that's what she's doing.


Necessity. I really, really wish I could think of something else, but since I can't, it's about Trig. Medical records would reveal routine details about her pregnancy, pre-natal care and childbirth. Unless... um... they don't exist.*

Anonymous said...

To Audrey all,

Looks like something might just break on this Monday the 27th!

Cajun Boy has been following this story as well.

Palin Pregnanacy Truth said...

I hope that Cajun Boy is telling the truth. But this CNN article leads me to believe McCain is already distancing himself...

We haven't heard from Audrey in a little while. I'm hoping its because this is about to break and she has to remain silent until it prints. :-)

Anonymous said...

The CNN article that the above poster linked to is pretty astounding.

I hope this national soap opera comes to an end soon and Palin sent back packing to Wasilla.

Anonymous said...

Another good post from Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic.

I'm glad there is at least one person in MSM who is asking questions.

*Just when I thought that NR couldn't sink any lower, they print this:

Seeing the Palin family, in a very visible public forum, with an uncompromising and public pro life philosophy arouses deeply repressed feelings in post abortive parents, as well as media members, counselors, health care professionals, politicians and others who promote abortion rights, especially the abortion of children with challenges such as Down Syndrome. These powerful repressed feelings of grief, guilt and shame can be deflected from the source of the wound (i.e., abortion) and projected onto an often uncharitable focus upon the trigger of these painful emotions ... the Palin family.

Can I just say that I have always been extremely supportive of anyone who decides not to abort a child, especially those with special needs. That's been my position for my entire life. The reason for opposition to Palin is that she is utterly unqualified, her record is flimsy at best and her incessant, bizarre lies suggest she is unable to deal with reality.

As for the rest of the Palin family, the tabloid stuff about her son and her marriage has been widely ignored. The strange twists and turns of her last pregnancy - as explained in public - simply defy credulity. It isn't an attack to ask her to account for such a bizarre story. It's called democracy and accountability.*

Veritas said...

In the audio on the ADN website SP also refers to Trig as "it" (about 2:10 in). Granted, she was paraphrasing something she claims her doctor said after checking her once she arrived at the hospital (that she would have "it" soon) but I think that's a really strange, almost creepy, way for a Mom of a three day old baby to refer to her newborn. At three days postpartum most moms are so delirious on the hormonal cocktail being produced in their body, that referring to the new baby as "it" is almost inconceivable. Again, not proof that she's not the Mom, but just another piece that seems weird, counter-intuitive, like petting a cat backwards. Who does that?

Anonymous said...

It could also be possible that Palin was considering an abortion- hence hiding the pregnancy and the early testing

Anonymous said...

Well I listened to the audio track on as was posted by anonymous above.

She called her baby an “it” – surely even before she had the baby she knew it was a he? If she “knew” he had downs then I’m sure she would have known his gender. As someone above said a mother of a 3 day old baby would not refer to him as an “it”.

She says err and umm a lot in the whole interview she also stutters over her words as well – Common on liars (thinking of the story and compensating by using err and umm). When Todd is asked questions he also umms and errs throughout. SP however does NOT umm and err when speaking about email from other special needs parents or when Track came down to visit with friends…this could be because it is actually true, therefore she doesn’t need to think about it or make up stories about it (bit of food for though there).

SP states that: The Doctor has delivered a lot of babies over the years – she isn’t qualified to deliver “a lot” of babies is she?

Somewhere on this site there is a link to an article which states that according to SP that when Piper was born they wanted to slow down a little bit to spend time with her because time with new born babies are precious – yet she isn’t doing so with Trig…If she was the mother I know she is busy with the elections but surely you would have thought she would have taken a few days off at least to “recover” and “bond” – people wouldn’t be upset with her as its NATURAL!

She says “we did nothing to put our child of anyone else in danger” – I think the child they are talking about here might be Bristol. Someone who was about to have a baby would say we did nothing to put myself or the baby in danger…not “anyone else”.

I also notices she said 3 sets of grandparents…as an above poster has said it may be referring to the fact that Todd’s parents are divorced, well it may be the case BUT it may also be SP and Todd, Bristols grandparents and Levi’s parents…


Meg, Jerry Angela and Joshua said...

I am pro-life and have done level 2 ultrasounds and CVS, so just because someone is pro-life does not mean that they wouldn't want to know for sure.

Anonymous said...

I had an AFP (alpha fetal protein) which is done between 16 and 18 weeks. It is a blood test which can help to identify fetal neural tube defects, Downs', some renal problems, and other issues. Certain readings on the AFP can also mean a miscalculated gestation age, or multiple pregnancy.

I think it likely that either Palin or Bristol did have this test as it is fairly common--I have never known anyone who was pregnant and *didn't* have it it, probably because it is just a blood test and does not carry the same risk of miscarriage as the CVS and amnio do. So if Bristol is the mother, Sarah would probably have found out the baby had downs when Bristol was in her 4th month of pregnancy (Dec 2007). Trig was born in April at 35 weeks.