Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Truth or Lie?

A comment has been received that I believe makes a good basis for a post. It was added to the site on the "Biology Lesson" post at 11:24 PM on November 18th.

A written statement from her doctor is evidence. It may not rise to the level of documentary evidence that you insist upon, but it IS evidence.

True. It is evidence. And the fact that Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson said anything at all, after refusing to make any public comment about Sarah Palin's birth story for more than seven months (from April 21, 2008 to November 3rd, 2008), is noteworthy. It is undeniable that this physician states that Sarah Palin has given birth to five children. The exact quote is: "She had four term deliveries in 1989, 1990, 1994, and 2000, and one pre-term delivery at 35 weeks gestation in 2008." However, and this is critical, at least some of this information are not "facts" that Dr. Baldwin-Johnson knows because she was there. It's information she's repeating because she's been given it by others.

We have no way of knowing where much of the information came from. Actual files that were physically transferred to her office? Or a medical history that Sarah Palin filled out? And when might she have filled out this history? 1992? Or November 2, 2008?

This physician was not even practicing in Wasilla at the time of Palin's first two births. Yet the information about Palin's birth history is reported with all births listed equivalently: Births that Baldwin-Johnson may have attended and births that we know she could NOT have attended. So... which is which? No distinction is made.

We're supposed to "assume" that the information about the 2008 delivery is something that Balwin-Johnson knows about first-hand because it's "recent," but this is never explicitly stated. My guess is that this is exactly what the framers of the statement hope readers will assume. We've been told by Sarah Palin that Cathy Baldwin Johnson was at Trig's birth, but it's never been confirmed by anyone, in particular Cathy Baldwin Johnson. This statement also says that Trig was eligible to be born at his community hospital, but does not say he actually was. These ommisions are strking.

(And interestingly enough, there appears also to be a factual error in this supposedly "rock-solid" statement. Piper's birth year is listed as 2000. In every other source I can find, she's listed as being born in 2001, which jibes with her being seven throughout the campaign, and six when when the announcement was made that Sarah was pregnant in March. If she was born in 2000, at no point in 2008 could she have been six years old. Not a big deal, but one would think that this statement would not contain any errors, no matter how trivial!)

Again, everything else is just speculation. I don't care what birthing histories people have had. I don't care what people have read in text books or had described to them by medical members of their family. EVERYTHING being discussed here (of a medical/obstetric nature) is PURE SPECULATION.

It is NOT evidence. Of anything.

There are specific standards of care which are widely available. I am a medical professional who can comment "professionally" on all aspects of lactation and breastfeeding. I have attended over 100 births in a support/coach/midwife's assistant capacity, so while I am not a midwife or obstetrician, I have a solid - factual - grounding in exactly how laboring women behave and how labor is managed. My husband is a board certified physician who has reviewed most everything of a technical medical nature that has been posted by me, and he's written some of it. To say that it is not appropriate for a woman who has stated that she is eight months pregnant and who has stated that her amniotic fluid was leaking to be taking long airplane flights is not speculation. It's a fact. It's dangerous, ill-advised, and I challenge you to find one physician anywhere who will disagree with that. To say that the majority of women with a medical history similar to Palin's will give birth within 24 hours of amniotic sac rupture is not speculation. The majority will. This is a fact.

Numerous physicians who have posted on this site and others, and have given statements to the main stream media, have all agreed that from a medical standpoint, Sarah Palin's actions on April 17th, 2008 cannot be defended. It is evidence of either a blatant disregard for the health of her child and the comfort, well-being, and safety of her fellow passengers, OR it is evidence of untruthfulness.

Statements by SP's father - hearsay. Tick-tock on the day of the birth - speculation and hearsay.

Sarah Palin's father told KTUU news in an interview that Gov. Palin's water broke in Texas. How is this hearsay? He said it, and Palin confirmed it on 4/21. "Tick-tock" on the day of the birth comes from a variety of sources, but most notably Palin's own interview with the Anchorage Daily News (audio file here / transcript here). Palin herself describes her 4 AM contact with her doctor, her determination to give the luncheon speech, Todd's efforts to change the flights, and their decision to skip the evening reception. Alaska Airlines only has so many flights, and I have personally confirmed with the airline that their schedules have not changed significantly since April. Palin confirms their arrival back in Anchorage around 10:30 PM. How is this speculation and hearsay?

This is 3 people's highly personal medical histories that are being commented upon. It is a witch hunt. If we don't have the medical records, we cannot make assertions as to the factual nature of the circumstances.

In many cases, we cannot make absolute statements without medical records. But we don't have those records because they've never been released. Neither has a birth certificate. Nor has a simple, three sentence statement from Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, to wit: "Trig Palin was born on April 18th, 2008 at Mat-Su Hospital in Palmer, Alaska. Sarah Palin is his biological mother. I was personally present at his birth."

Much on this website is speculation. But much is not, and ironically this commentator has chosen to call into question some of the best documented information available. Most of what we know concerning the timetable of the events from 4/17 and 4/18 is from Palin's own words, or from sources that we should be able to consider absolutely reliable like official press releases from the State of Alaska press office. Most of what we know of her labor is from her own words.

The question is not: fact or speculation?

It is: truth or lie?


hrh said...

Badda-bing, badda-bang, badda-boom.

Girl, you are deadly! And just mebbee SP's worst nightmare come true.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Audrey. A concise and dead on reply. I do though agree with one aspect of peacay's post. Enough of the personal birthing, leaking stories, we all have them. I think your point is taken at least by the majority who contribute to this blog that the "wild ride", if true, was irresponsible at best. And may I ask again for you, if you are new to the site, please read through the site, the blog and the comments. Many questions/ speculations are or can be adressed there, except for "Who is Trig's real Mom" :).


Anonymous said...

I think this story is very fishy. I do see a problem however, the picture of Bristol with Mercedes holding Trig. In that picture, Bristol does NOT look like someone that just had a baby. I dont think that picture supports the idea that Bristol is the Mom.

I cant wait to see what happens mid December, what is going to happen with Bristols alleged pregnancy? How is this going to end.

One other note: In the ABC Alaska news clip when the anchor is talking about the pregnancy announcement, he says that she is due "mid-may" Maybe they were off so much because Bristol was not able to calculate the last day of her last period.

Alex said...

Amen, Audrey. IT is the discomfort of women all over the US, who from hearing these stories, know in their hearts that things are amiss and lies have been told. But It is your professional expertise and reasoned argument that make the case clear. Thank you for explicating what so many of us can only feel, from our own experience, our belief in motherhood, our love of children, and our respect for truth.

Anonymous said...


You are a hard-working, credible American performing a service that is needed and appreciated by me and many others in this country.

Keep up the great work!

Marcy said...

Anyone at all can read this blog. And I'm 100% sure that Sarah Palin has had employees and extended family members combing the internet for every mention of her name. This blog is probably at the top of their daily scrutiny list.

Therefore: expect employees and family members to post everything they can think of to stymie the investigations that proceed from this blog. I think I've spotted a few of them already. And Audrey and Morgan may have moderated out the more virulent ones. Knowing the witch hunters are reading adds a little spice to the conversation, doesn't it? grammy

Punkinbugg said...

I listened to that audio clip for the first time today. I wonder who the female reporter is that keeps trying to get to the point (the one who brought up her dad's comment, etc.) She is completely cut off at the very end of the news conference by a governor's aide, just as SP is backed into a verbal corner. Wonder if she's done any follow-ups?


deb said...

I had Audrey's baby. Just sayin'

I am continually impressed with the matter-of-fact order with which you deal with a topic that can be fraught with emotions.

However this plays out, no one can question that you choose to stick to facts and leave speculation on the wayside.

Anonymous said...

I am anxiously awaiting Dec-Jan news of delivery. I think most women can easily come to many conclusions on this. It's almost too bad she's not here in DC under a microscope, NOT!

My rant = "Wild Ride" equates to potential loss to me, yet she wants the rest of us to have no choices regardless of circumstances. I'm all about choice limits, but don't make me abide than prove w/actions that you knowingly gave little regard for your downs babies life. Another do as I say not as I do. Otherwise she could easily prove it wrong. JMO

Sorry for the annonymous, short on time right now. Holly in Md

janie said...

Every day (okay, a few times a day) I eagerly log on for the latest. I can't wait until the day comes, when 'Palin's Deceptions' are fully brought to light.
Maybe THEN my sister will stop calling me a mean spirited, extreme liberal!!:) More importantly, I think she is a frightening woman who needs to be exposed since she doesn't seem to be 'going away'. Those poor children.
Thank you, Audrey

Anonymous said...

A photo of Palin in the hospital with Trig. She is wearing a mike, is there a video of her somewhere? Also earrings, unusual for hospital wear unless she is 'fixed up' for a newscamera. Another picture from the 22nd shows her speaking at a school; she looks pretty good for just having been in the hospital having a baby.

Anonymous said...

I have updated my newly created flickr page which I had set up in order to support Audrey's brilliant page. There is some pretty interesting stuff on there! ;-) The link is:

There is one new thing, because Trig Palin cannot be found at all in the public online records (at least I didn't find him). But I don't know how relevant that is, because it might be that those records are not updated very often. Anyway, here are the screenshots:

Does anybody know how often those records are updated??


PolySciSuzie said...

In the 70's there was "speculation" and "rumor" that George McGoverns VP running mate had undergone shock treatments for depression. He had to face the voters and tell the truth and he withdrew his candidacy.
There has been longstanding "speculation" and "rumor" that Governor Sarah Palin and VP running mate of John McCain, faked a pregnancy, lied to her constituents in Alaska, lied to the voters of the United States, could have committed not only fraud, but insurance fraud and risked the medical license of her doctor. She has not provided medical records to clear this up and this would be an easy thing to do. The questions still linger and the question of whether or not she is a liar and a fraud are still in the minds of many. That is why we are still here and will remain here, until she answers to the voters.

Anonymous said...

Any other person, meaning any other person than SP, even someone in the public eye, would probably have wanted to clear this up once people started speculating...IF everything was on the up and up.

At the time of birth, the OB making a statement or comment? Likely. Photos of family, baby? Likely. Confirmation from attending sources that would not violate HIPAA (which means not releasing PHI, personal health information, and there is some leeway when the PATIENT has already released the information publicly thus removing the privacy factor.). So the nagging question remains...why the cover-up, the secrecy? Why attempt to remove ALL traces of third-party references on the internet, any article, blog, website, myspace, photo that would have easily given proof that Bristol was not pregnant and that SP was? Why not have friends and family come forward and gladly clear this up? Why are people in Juneau and Wasilla afraid to talk about this? About Bristol? About SP? Did no one see her in the local grocery store the entire time she was supposedly pregnant? She couldn't have worn that empathy belly all the time, not at home, not working out.

SP wasn't tapped officially for the VP slot until late August. But she HAD been angling for a place in national politics since running for governor. From an article in the New Yorker: "Upon being elected governor, Palin began developing relationships with Washington insiders, who later championed the idea of putting her on the 2008 ticket." Palin hired a Massachusetts PR firm to craft her image and get her name in front of East Coast conservative interests. And, Palin had met with conservative leaders on two separate Alaskan cruises in summer 07, and these same people began talking her up in DC for the VP slot.

So there was in fact a GREAT DEAL of motivation for her to cover up her daughter's politically embarassing pregnancy, or fake a pregnancy that would produce a DS baby to attract even more adulation from her anti-abortion, right right evangelical base.

Smoke and mirrors. Truth or Lie? Or, Truth or Consequences? It's that last one that I think everyone is waiting for.

--Reader from Ohio

Anonymous said...

In Newsweek this week, there is a picture of Bristol backstage at SNL. She clearly looks preggers.

You can see Bristol more clearly in the picture that is printed in the magazine, as opposed to the picture online at Newsweek's website.

Anyway, my theory is that Trig was born at home earlier than April 17 and returned to the hospital in April for jaundice treatment. I do think Bristol will give birth in December, and that she got pregnant again soon after giving birth to Trig.

I also think Sarah Palin is a pathological liar. I really wonder about her parents, particularly her father, who I have also read is a pathological liar. Someone as pathological as Sarah doesn't spring from nowhere.

Anonymous said...

Reader in Ohio,

It's interesting that you mentioned 'Did no one see her in the local grocery store the entire time she was supposedly pregnant?'

The answer to that is YES. There was a contemporaneous posting in an ADN chat from March 2008, right after the announcement, where the woman said she had just seen Sarah Palin at the grocery store and she didn't look even remotely pregnant.

Since the post was contemporaneous to events and the poster had no reason to lie about such a thing -- since she went on to say how thrilled (but surprised) she was at the news -- I think this is conclusive evidence that people at the time had doubts about the pregnancy announcement but buried them with suspension of disbelief because they had every emotional (if not rational) reason to do so. This is just like an audience at a magic show.

Faking a pregnancy after that is easy, provided you can produce a baby at the end. They do it on TV all the time. They did so, but that doesn't prove the mother was the woman behind the curtain. In fact, given the magic-show quality of everything that happened after SP's pregnancy announcement, you can safely wager that she isn't the mother.


Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I can't pass on the irony of this particular excerpt: "This is 3 people's highly personal medical histories that are being commented upon. It is a witch hunt."

Why are two innocent family members' "medical historiers...being commented upon"? Because of their mother's choices. Of these three people, two--the innocent children, Bristol and Trig--have had their "personal medical histories" injected into public debate by the third. That third person has been unwilling to put out the miniscule portion of her own medical records it would have taken to prove she gave birth a 5th time (if that were true--and it's hardly a privacy issue, given that the same person not only publicly discussed far more intrusive supposed details of the birth process, way beyond anything she would have needed to settle the issue, but used them as political ammunition), but she was perfectly willing to have her doctor publicly detail baby Trig's medical history in her letter, and she was perfectly willing to have her campaign let the world know her daughter's reproductive status.

Anonymous said...

I have a question to all female readers who have already given birth:


possible, 6-7 weeks before a six-pound baby is born?? I might be wrong - but doesn't this HURT...?? Could a woman do this without a problem?


jeanie said...

Regarding the possibility that Bristol had Trig earlier than 4/18 - Depending on how much earlier, it's possible that Bristol actually was 5 months along on September 1.

Like everyone else on here, I'm interested to see if/when Bristol does give birth. But I don't think it will be completely convincing evidence for SP having had Trig - even if she has it according to the GOP timetable - unless it is known conclusively when Trig was actually born!

sarah.hoax said...

This has to be the most convincing Photographic evidence that Sarah was not pregnant! Early March 8 months pregnant. Must see TV.

note: covered in Audrey's Blog

Anonymous said...

OK...if this is not evidence, I don't know what is! Please consider this:

1. Bristol Palin and Sadie/Mercedes Johnston have got the same height.


2. Sarah Palin and Bristol Palin have almost the same height - Sarah seems to be just a LITTLE bit smaller.



(but the difference is so small that it seems irrelevant to me)

Conclusion so far: Sadie/Mercedes Johnston, Bristol Palin and Sarah Palin are almost identical when it comes to body heigt - the difference is very, very small.

NOW comes the interesting part:

When Sadie/Mercedes Johnston is holding Trig on the myspace-photo, Trig is JUST ABOUT twice as big as Mercedes's hand - or even smaller!


Now look at the picture of Sarah and Trig, taken on the baby shower on 5 May 2008. Trig clearly looks MUCH BIGGER. You can compare him there to the size of Sarah's hand. He looks there almost 4 times as tall as Sarah's hand!!


However, if the official story is true that Trig was born on the 18 April 2008, then both pictures must have been taken roughly at the same time - with just about 1-2 weeks difference!

In my opinion, this is EVIDENCE. It seems that there is a time gap of about 2 month between those pictures!

Please, mainstream media, open your eyes! This is not a conspiracy theory, these are two pictures which are "on the record".

trish in SW FL said...

"Patrick November 19, 2008 2:06 PM:

possible, 6-7 weeks before a six-pound baby is born??"

For some reason, I cannot get that address to come up...happens sometimes, and might just be me.

trish in SW FL

Anonymous said...

Dangerous, thanks for the grocery post mention. I agree with you that at the time the pregnancy was announced--and this is key--no ordinary citizen of Alaska had any reason to think anything other than what made sense: "ok, well she may not look pregnant, but..." and then fill in the blank with whatever comes to mind as has been done in many comments on this blog to Audrey's logical commentary. SP was a 'runner', she was 'petite', she 'wore scarves', she is a 'private person', she is a 'Christian', etc. etc.

SP does nothing that is not calculated to advance her political career. The campaign is evidence of this. Her kids are props, her frontier lifestyle is a prop, her PTA Executive Maverick background is a prop.

All of politics is a magic show, smoke and mirrors, the man behind the curtain. People hear what they want to hear. Until they hear or see something so incontrovertible that reality smacks them upside the head and they have to concede. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing. Your boyfriend beats you but you think you can help him stop. Fried twinkies are bad yet we eat them. People who profess family values couldn't possibly fake a pregnancy. We just don't want to know the bad stuff.

The idea that SP did not want anyone to think less of her for being a pregnant career woman, for not being able to govern effectively as a pregnant woman, so she had to HIDE her pregnancy is absurd. SP WANTS people to think she can kill the moose, cure the bacon, and that she's the one fryin' it up in a pan there in her kitchen also. A publicly touted and displayed pregnancy of a SD baby is perfect for someone with her ambitions. She can re-write her personal history or even better, ignore it, and when you call her on the revision you are wrong, not her. You are the hater. Nothing stops her. Not even a DS baby and a family whose needs clearly trump any ambition or career plans she might have. So why did she hide it for so long? So the 'haters' wouldn't criticize her ability to govern under hormonal duress? Why miss out on all the adulation from your pro-life fanbase, all the points you'd rack up over the nine months of lovingly detailing your special needs pregnancy to the Alaska media?

I have been obsessed about this story for many reasons (I'm a woman, I hate hypocrisy, etc.), but one of the the main ideas that drives me to continue reading this blog and posting comments is the concept of moral obligation.

In the world of ethics, there is a theory called Consequentialism. Another way of looking at this theory is as "the ends justify the means". This theory holds that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any moral judgment about that action: ie, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome or consequence. This is the essence of Sarah Palin. If it works out for her, it must have been a moral action. God okayed the fakery because in the end the DS baby lived.

This next part might get a bit boring, but I think it is important because if you want to understand your enemy, you must understand how they think and what they believe.

Some questions that many consequentialist theories address:

--What sort of consequences count as good consequences?
--Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action?
--How are the consequences judged and who judges them?

Moral action always has an effect on certain people or things. Various kinds of consequentialism can be differentiated by the beneficiary of the good consequences. That is...WHO BENEFITS?

SP's morality and values are so widely touted, both by her and by her supporters. She contradicted both during the campaign with her delicate winking inciting of racist talk and actions, her deragatory comments regarding her opponents, her shameless lies about her clothing, her record, her family, her beliefs, etc. Her ends always justify the means.

She truly is a dangerous Tabula Rasa.

--Reader from Ohio

Anonymous said...

The earliest picture of Trig (in which we are certain of the date) is the picture of him with his grandparents on April 18:

I just do not believe this is a premature, newborn baby.

Here is what I think is the scenario:

While Bristol is pregnant with Trig, she hasn't decided whether she is keeping him or not, so Sarah starts wearing camouflage scarves just in case they decide to keep him. Then he is born in early March, and they decide to keep him, so Sarah announces "her" pregnancy.

Sarah, as we know, likes to make up things as she goes along....

So, while in Texas on April 17, something goes wrong back home with the baby and she is needed, and she figures why not take this opportunity to "give birth" - she's probably sick of having to fake the pregnancy at this point. They use the photo op at the hospital -

I do believe, like one of the other readers posted, that Bristol got pregnant soon after, and would like to make right all of the many wrongs that were done to her. I think she will give birth some time in January. Sarah will say the baby came a bit late, but not so late that her believers will question it.

As a mother of 4, none of her actions have made any sense. From the body language of everyone involved, to the bottles when she claims breastfeeding, to the lack of any verifiable proof that she is the mom -

This is just my opinion.

- Another reader who is grateful for your persistence, Audrey

Anonymous said...

Patrick, it might be possible to bend down like that while hugely pregnant, but it would be VERY uncomfortable. The baby is already pressing on and squishing internal organs, so bending over just makes that worse. It would have been difficult for me to breathe bent over like that when I was 7 months pregnant. I also would have needed someone to help me stand back up. :)


Anonymous said...

Sorry if this has been observed here before but my guess is that sometime in February 2008 she knew she would have to announce the "pregnancy." So she starts padding/using scarves prior to the March announcement. Hence, the early Super Tuesday indoor shot where she has no coat or scarf and is obviously not pregnant and then the late DC Press conference where she looks like she might be hiding something under that scarf in some shots (thogh strangely not in many others). For outdoor events, like in the March 1 where she is bending down with the dog, she figures she can get away with no padding because of the thick coat.

Anonymous said...

The Newsweek video is probably the best photographic evidence. Like the March 1 bending photo, 7 month pregnant women don't lean forward. Their natural posture is to lean back in a chair. And they definitely wouldn't lean back AND cross their legs. Essentially SP is in the most unnatural seating position. It is very plausible that is purposefully hunched over to hide her belly. Someone should try to contact the videographer whose name is given at the end to see if he has any extra footage of her getting up/sitting down.

Anonymous said...

You guys think that these are the real birth records for Trig?

Anonymous said...

WHO CARES? Your stupid. Find something better to do with your life!

Anonymous said...

Hi Annie,

thanks a lot for the answer! I guess that virtually every woman would agree with you. I actually wondered whether this is physically close to impossible...when I discovered this picture a short while ago and sent it to Audrey, I thought "GOTCHA"... ;-)

To Trish in SW FL:

We are talking about the picture which is also on this page, where Sarah is stroking the dog - picture taken on the 1 March 2008:


jeanie said...

To anonymous at 4:12 - your timeline is reasonable. And it is of course sad, but also convenient that Trig has DS, so he most likely won't hit major milestones several weeks before he should for his purported age. Plus if he is on the large size, that will be chalked up to the DS as well!

Anonymous said...

Good site as well...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 4:45, threatened much? Don't like people searching for answers get the hell off this blog. Simple as that, just click the little x on the right hand side of your screen idiot.

Morgan said...

Peacay apparently is unnerved by our curiosity, and claims speculation proves nothing, while a note is "evidence."

That's rather silly.

Evidence is collective. If everyone were as placid and incurious as our Peacay, then any "official" note we got would ease our minds.

I'm reminded of that classic scene in South Park when Officer Barbrady urged the townsfolk to ignore the cow mutilations "Move along, you lookie-loos. Nothing to see here. Cows turn themselves inside out all the time!"

Of course, I'm being facetious even if Sarah Palin's birth story is about as believable as your average alien abduction story.

The reason, Peacay, that we aren't dropping this is that the *collective* evidence (Palin's own words, conflicting biological facts, photographs, outside testimony) don't square with what could be fabricated evidence presented by her doctor.

Are you unaware that evidence can be fabricated? No wait. Don't answer that....;-) Anyone who is willing to scream "case closed" over a doctor's note is likely incapable of entertaining such a possibility.

So let me join the chorus of others urging Audrey to keep it up. The only ones who are upset about the questions you raise are the ones who are nervous about seeing them asked. As well all know.

Anonymous said...

"WHO CARES? Your stupid. Find something better to do with your life!"

Audrey, thanks for allowing this cranky poster. It's entertaining to see that this is the most coherent (and misspelled) response this person can muster to speak to all the facts and theories being presented on this blog. Yah Boo, Anonymous Cranky Troll Poster! When you have something constructive to add that isn't a useless kneejerk response, come on back! Otherwise you are pwned by your own petard.

Anonymous said...

Morgan, thanks for your comments!

Anyone who doesn't subscribe to the perennial truth Cogito Ergo Sum is doomed to believe anything fed to them from any source. Cue Homer Simpson.

Question Everything, peacay. It will enlighten your passage through this life, being a critical thinker. You'll be amazed once you put on that thinking cap! Oh the places you'll go and the BS you will question.

(At the very least, watch an episode or two of CSI. You could learn a few things from Grissom.)

--Reader from Ohio

Anonymous said...

This would be at only "six months", but I haven't seen it posted anywhere, so what the heck.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the comment about Bristol not looking like she'd just given birth (Myspace pics):

In that same set of pictures, Sarah CERTAINLY DOES NOT look like a 44-year-old who just went on a harrowing airplane ride and gave birth!

glk in AK

Anonymous said...

To anonymous 4:41:

Regarding the Newsweek interview in March 2008:

I have now included screenshots on my flickr photostream:

The links to the videos are here:


Windy City Woman said...

I have some thoughts and questions about adoption.

How long does it take to adopt a child in Alaska? If the pregnant woman KNOWS that she will not take the baby home, and has an adoptive family chosen, can it be speeded up? Are adoption records always public, always private ("sealed") or is it up to the birth mother/ adoptive parents? Certainly there can be personal/ embarrassing details relating to an adoption, as there are with divorces.

Here in Illinois, there was a Republican politician who had a messy divorce. When he ran for the U.S. Senate a few years ago, some sordid details appeared in the press, causing him to withdraw from the race. The Illinois GOP basically had a meltdown. An out-of-stater had to be brought in to take his place on the ticket. The Democratic candidate was easily elected.

His name was Barack Obama.

Anonymous said...

Readers seem to be moving more and more towards the hypothesis that Bristol is Trig's mother. Should we also assume that Levi is the father of both Trig and the child yet to be born? What circumstances might exist which would call for DNA testing to show paternity of both Trig and the child yet to be born?

Anonymous in IL

Tony said...

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You. I am a Registered Nurse at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. As a medical professional, it is my practice to make decisions based on medical facts. The Sarah Palin pregnancy story does not add up scientifically or factually. How can we get to the bottom of this? My best friend won't hardly talk to me because he said, "I'm mean spirited". It would help if the truth came out...

Anonymous said...

I am an avid reader here and this is my first contribution:
I think we should look at the legal implications as well as the medical side of this story to unravel the Palins’ and others actions. For legal reasons, I think Sarah and Todd must have legally adopted Trig immediately after his birth (Bristol most likely birth mom). So . . .
1. What is the waiting period in Alaska for adoption? Is it possible that the reason Trig’s birth announcement could not be placed on the Mat-Su hospital web site is that they (Sarah and Todd, the adoptive parents) realized they did not have the legal standing yet to release the information?
2. What are the rules for maternity leave versus new adoptive parent leave? This may explain why Sarah took no maternity leave whatsoever. I think she did not want a paper trail that would expose her to accusations of fraud when the truth finally comes out (and I think it will).
Another point . . .
What about Dr Baldwin Johnson’s loss of privelege’s at Mat-Su? Could this be because her involvement with a high risk delivery (against hospital policy) might put the hospital’s accreditation at risk? Is there an easy way to determine when this hospital is due for evaluation?

Lynn from Louisiana

Jack Bog said...

I do see a problem however, the picture of Bristol with Mercedes holding Trig. In that picture, Bristol does NOT look like someone that just had a baby.

I disagree. Her face is a bit flushed, and unlike Sarah Palin, who looks in no way post-partum in the contemporaneous shot, Bristol does look like someone who could have given birth two or three days before.

Anonymous said...

I just recalled something. I had almost forgotten it until some recent posts reminded me of the importance of body language and what people DON'T say.

It's from that special bio about SP that I saw on FOX in early September.The narrator (Greta Van S.) states it was taped in April, prior to the April 18 birth.
I found a YouTube of it in 5 parts:

In Part 4 (about 4:03), SP, Todd & Piper are in the kitchen. SP is checking her BlackBerry.

SP: "Todd, did Bristol call you?"(These are the words I suddenly remembered.)
TP: (Barely audible; had to replay it many times to catch it.) "Um, I haven't talked to her for a couple hours."
SP: (Mumbles something about how she almost forgot about dinner.)

To me, they sound like grandparents waiting for regular follow-up calls from their daughter about something very important. Labor pains, maybe?

TP and SP seem nervous. At one point (about 6:32), an off-camera male voice asks, "Do you know what it is?' and SP turns to the camera with a big smile and says, "Boy." Just that one word, very unlike the chatty SP but very much like an excited grandmother. It's also the way you talk to people when you have something else to do. I also notice another off-camera voice picks up on their impatience and tells them it will only be another moment and they'll be done. And Todd offers a crew member a hamburger (just one) "before you go."

I'm wondering if Trig was about to be born that same day the video was being shot. We know it was in April, perhaps as early as April 1. Exact date of that vido could explain a lot. -- FishEye

ocean said...

Out the pipeline and pass to Piper.

Anonymous said...

Says anon:
"I think this story is very fishy. I do see a problem however, the picture of Bristol with Mercedes holding Trig. In that picture, Bristol does NOT look like someone that just had a baby. I dont think that picture supports the idea that Bristol is the Mom."

I just don't see why not. That picture is probably a day or two or three after the birth. She's 17. What is a new mom supposed to look like? You can't even see her midsection in that picture. I do see new mothers at my job; we take the postpartum spillover, but very few are that young. Some of them do look quite good and slender after birth.

Anonymous said...

Sarah has already begun her campaign for 2012.

Let the truth come out. Keep on the story.

Ellie said...

First, Audrey is my hero.=0)

sarah.hoax said...
"This has to be the most convincing Photographic evidence that Sarah was not pregnant! Early March 8 months pregnant. Must see TV."

I read that for the 1st time and was stunned by how articulate she sounded. Sarah spoke in complete sentences (that made sense), and made her points clearly and concisely.

Now contrast that with her responses to birth-related questions in another interview:

She rambles on incoherently in multiple run-on sentences, and her answers are neither clear nor concise. Add to that the amount of ums and uhs she says and it seems as if two different women were interviewed. Suspicious? VERY! As a mom of 2, I find it very odd that any woman would not be able to easily rattle off the circumstances of their baby's birth.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 1.54pm gives a link to pictures of Bristol “being” pregnant. Here is the link to the photo with Bristol sitting in it getting her makeup done, if it takes you to all the photos it’s photo 9. If you zoom in on the photo Bristol doesn’t look much different to how she did a few months ago wearing the same (?) dress (at the conference where everyone said her breasts were padded out). For someone who is supposedly 8 months pregnant I’d say she doesn’t have a very big belly. I’d have also though her bump would be higher up rather than where it is on the photo.

To Patrick at 2.06pm, I haven’t given birth but I’d imagine it would be painful and I imagine that you’d see her coat pulling around the middle “if” there were a bump under there.

Quote anonymous at November 19, 2008 3:26 PM OK...if this is not evidence, I don't know what is! Please consider this:

1. Bristol Palin and Sadie/Mercedes Johnston have got the same height.


2. Sarah Palin and Bristol Palin have almost the same height - Sarah seems to be just a LITTLE bit smaller.



(but the difference is so small that it seems irrelevant to me)

Conclusion so far: Sadie/Mercedes Johnston, Bristol Palin and Sarah Palin are almost identical when it comes to body heigt - the difference is very, very small.

NOW comes the interesting part:

When Sadie/Mercedes Johnston is holding Trig on the myspace-photo, Trig is JUST ABOUT twice as big as Mercedes's hand - or even smaller!


Now look at the picture of Sarah and Trig, taken on the baby shower on 5 May 2008. Trig clearly looks MUCH BIGGER. You can compare him there to the size of Sarah's hand. He looks there almost 4 times as tall as Sarah's hand!!


However, if the official story is true that Trig was born on the 18 April 2008, then both pictures must have been taken roughly at the same time - with just about 1-2 weeks difference!

In my opinion, this is EVIDENCE. It seems that there is a time gap of about 2 month between those pictures!

Please, mainstream media, open your eyes! This is not a conspiracy theory, these are two pictures which are "on the record".

I’d say that’s good spotting there. As for the height difference on the prom photo mercede might be wearing heels/in any of the photos someone may be wearing heels…but as you said the height difference won’t be much if they are. There is a possibility Sarah might have small hands, are there any photos what you could estimate if she just has really small hands? I believe the photos are taken more than 1-2 weeks apart as well, I’m just trying to eliminate the hole in your theory. Also look at his size compared to the hands on there. Sarah’s parents are similar in size to each other so I’d assume Sarah will be of similar size to both of them…

Anonymous at 4.43pm
You guys think that these are the real birth records for Trig?

Can you take a screen shot and post a picture as it just takes you to the home page, the latest date I can search for is 1988, however I did a search for Trig Palin, it says view birth record…but then you have to pay for it, its $3 or something, I’d pay but being from the UK, I’d have to pay exchange rates/for changing currency and It’d be expensive. I also wonder if the Trig Palin it can or cannot find may be the uncle which Trig is named after (I don’t know if the uncle is on Sarah or Todd’s side for the surname to carry through).


Anonymous said...

I'm Anonymous at 4:41 and if you look at one of the Newsweek video clips it shows the end where her and Janet Napolitano get up and there is NO indication that SP is pregnant. She stands up too easily. (I am a mother of one.) If I have the timeline strraight, this would have been shortly before the announcement and thus about a month before giving birth to a 6 pound baby.

Also let's not forget her ridiculous abs comment (I was able to hide the pregnancy easily because I have tight abs). As a petite woman with a very flat stomach prior to pregnancy, I can tell you the obvious: that when you are in shape it's hard to hide an expanding midline. I had a very noticeable belly at 3 months.

Morgan said...

"Question Everything, peacay. It will enlighten your passage through this life, being a critical thinker."

Well put, Reader from Ohio. Our homeschool curriculum is based on the critical thinking model. At just eleven years of age, my daughter already knows what Peacay does not, which is that you don't buy the Official Line when evidence points to the contrary.

On the other hand, I'm quite familiar with the placid follow-the-leaders mentality as exhibited by Peacay. We keep sheep, after all. While cute and wooly, such creatures are easily fleeced.

Marcy said...

I believe the anonymous poster at 4:45 on 11/19/08 was one of the Heath extended family, posting in hopes of fracturing the purposes of this blog. And I believe 'peacay' is another one. If I label them Deluded Troublemakers, I can use the initials DTs. It fits. grammy

Punkinbugg said...

There is a terrific op/ed about SP by Dick Cavett on the New York Times website - it is the #1 most popular column today:

palin pregnancy truth said...

Is there any way we could contact this teen:

I think someone mentioned it before. She seems smart and open minded. I have a feeling the loose lips will come from other teens in the area. Maybe she could do some investigative work? She's obviously already got a bright career in journalism ahead of her.

Anonymous said...

Have to comment on this...

Anon writes: "WHO CARES? Your stupid. Find something better to do with your life!"

Why is it the trolls can never spell? Hey Anon.-- when you call someone stupid, try not to use the wrong your/you're. Makes you look, you know, stupid....

Sorry, Audrey, couldn't help myself!


PS: I'm impressed at your willingness to let even such crazy comments through. You really are playing above-board here.

Anonymous said...

hi audrey,

i read this blog everyday there is a posting (and check it everyday regardless.)

i have been a bit obsessed with this topic since palin entered the national dialog, because i feel that she either lied to us all about her "last pregnancy" or showed judgement during a real pregnancy that should disqualify her from ANY position of power.

thank you for this rational resource.

just to make sense of when postings appear and the interest in this story, i'd love to know what US time zone you post from, and approximately how much traffic this blog/home page are seeing? you noted it increased dramatically after the andrew sullivan link, i'm curious about how many people are following the story here?

thanks, luna 1580

p.s. if you don't feel comfortable posting the answers to my questions i'd be happy to email you privately.

Anonymous said...

Dear Audrey and Morgan,

Thank you again for all you two are doing! Is it just me, or are the number of blogs increasing? Lots of first time bloggers and new readers! America is unwilling to let this go, and we are going to get to the bottom of this. I'm interested in the Greta Van S. interview date. Is it in early April? I only have dial up, as I am out of the country, so, is there a video accompanying this interview? Can we see what SP looks like as they are talking in the kitchen, so suspiciously? It seems like this would be worth looking into.

Penny in Paradise

Anonymous said...

About the heights and sizes of hands -- I don't know of any studies of the correlation of hand size and height. I think there is some of foot size, but this is stretching things. Also in the Gallery on ADN of pictures with SP, one of the people indicated that she shook hands with SP and was surprised at how small her hands were.

sandra in oregon

Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin Newsweek interview/video from 5 March 2008 (one day prior to the announcement of the pregancy!!):

I have included all the relevant information with links etc HERE... case somebody hasn't heard the full story yet. There are three more pictures in the photostream.


Punkinbugg said...

HA. FINALLY - a mention of Bristol on Myspace -- this is Mercede's boyfriend Corey's Myspace, which is not set to private.

Here is the link to a picture of himself and Mercede -- check out the comments:

I just wonder if *one* of his friends is a Palin...?

Anonymous said...

Re Sandra's comment on hand size: If anything, I think her hands look a bit larger than average - see photo at
or this one at
or any other where she is waving, etc. But I agree, it's hard to judge this sort of thing from a photo, because angle & perspective are big factor (as well as the type of lens used)....

Anonymous said...

Audrey, you are the author of a bestseller-website: I simply can't put it down. And this is my first post. I'd like to say that the whole, fantastic frontier-woman fable either is just that, a made-up story, or a farce by which I mean it all happened as they say but that they all look absurd if these details are true.

There have been many blogs and commenters who have written eloquently and intelligently about this woman having a serious personality disorder. Consider her fitful, erratic college career, her disordered speech and thought patterns, and the shameless lying-while-smiling. (not to mention little need for sleep and other grandiose and hypomanic qualities.)

But, what I'd like to propose here is the following: if their crazy story is true and SP is truly the biological mother of Baby 1 (Trig) and BP is the mother of the imminent Baby 2, then what we know for certain is that there was a teenage girl who got knocked up the very same month her mother told the entire family that she was going to have a baby in two months (and worse still, he came early). What better way to say: "Mom, put down the cell phone and the blackberry, put down the landline and my adorable little sister, close the laptop and stop screaming at my big brother and NOTICE ME! I'm over here, lost in your manic shuffle and more interesting tasks. I have something to tell you" (and the whole wide world, as it turns out.) Now, that, my fellow conspirators, is one angry girl. And that is one woman whose house is not in order. And that is one woman who is now running as far and as fast and as furiously as anyone I've ever seen from a troubled family that now includes a really demanding newborn. And as messy as that all sounds, I'll bet it's actually a lot worse. Keep up the good work and I'll keep turning the pages! LA

BG said...

I'm really struggling with the theory that Trig was born before April 18. It doesn't make sense to me. SP said announced she was pregnant. She would have had to eventually produce a baby. It doesn't make sense that she would continue to act pregnant if this baby had already arrived. At some point she would have had to debut her baby and it would have been obvious if the baby was considerably older than a newborn. If that was really what she planned to do, wouldn't she also report a larger baby than 6lbs 2oz? The only reason I can think of for the "wild ride" back to AK was because someone was in labor. And it was probably NOT the person who reported to be leaking amniotic fluid. I have had two babies, both under 6 lbs and I have a similar build as SP. Not only does she not appear pregnant but no way would I be standing up giving a speech or even sitting on a desk chair days after giving birth! Three days after giving birth, you still have to use a squirt bottle in the bathroom! :)


Anonymous said...

About the size of the hands. I think whether or not SP has small hands is irrelevant. Unless she has abnormally small hands it wouldn't make a difference and anyway, there are several other pics of other women holding him. As I remember, all pics indicate about a three hand span length to Trig- probably more. In the pic where Mercedes is holding him, 2 weeks earlier, he is only 2 hand spans long. What would be useful is average growth sizes from newborn to 2-3 week old babies.

Mom of One, Esq.

ocean said...

There remains a simple solution to end all these discussions:


Anonymous said...

Sometimes it's worth to revisit old press articles about this story - and when I read this article from the Anchorage Daily News, I find the content just stunning...


(...) "The stage of her pregnancy was not apparent by observation," said an Alaska Airlines spokeswoman. The doctor, Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, said she induced labor once Palin was at the hospital.

What's the McCain campaign say? Nothing so far. I've called and e-mailed for an on-the-record response, but haven't heard back.

What's Palin's in-state spokesman, Bill McAllister say?

That it's not true. "The answer to that is no," he said.

"But beyond that, I don't know, why should we even have to say anything," he said.

McAllister was an Anchorage TV reporter before working for Palin. He said Palin once approached him - before people knew she was pregnant - assuming he'd been hearing rumors.

"She said it's not true about Bristol," McAllister said.

At the time, the rumor would have been that Palin's daughter was pregnant.

How does McAllister know it's not true?

"The governor's not a liar. That's the main reason. But also this would have to involve some sort of conspiracy with the hospital of Wasilla. They said she gave birth there. Is the doctor, the nurses ... are they all lying?" he said.

Why not share the birth certificate?

"What a thing to request -- prove that this is your baby," McAllister said. "I mean, my god, that's horrifying to think that she would have to do that."

I said one reason is to put it to rest.

"In my mind, there's nothing to put to rest," he said.

No, Alaska birth certificates are not public record. Meantime, this is all a plotline straight out of a recent season of Desperate Housewives."


Anonymous said...

Readers, please don't lose sight of the fact that Sarah is supposed to be a grandmother in less than 4 weeks. If Bristol's (second?) baby is any later than that,Sarah's Trig birth story becomes even more unbelievable.

I have always believed that Sarah could not have possibly given birth to Trig the way that she has claimed, from not looking pregnant until her eight month with a fifth child to her wild ride back to Alaska while leaking fluid. ANYONE who has given birth to one or more children will tell you her story is just not humanly possible.

Compund that with the fact that Trig supposedly came five weeks early,with known DS before birth and was not hospitalized for more than 24 hours? To boot he was over 6 pounds, which is a healthy weight even for a FULL TERM BABY! If she would have went to 40 weeks, Trig could have easily been close to 9 pounds at birth.

Come on yourself a favor...either release a valid proof of birth, or admit the truth. Someone will speak up sooner or later...better you do it than your daughter Bristol.

FW from VA

Anonymous said...


... if any.


Silver Salmon said...


Good work. I'm occasionally still scouring the pages of Wasilla and Palmer kids. Found a link to Sadie's Photobucket account, but it has been set to private.

I still can't believe that no one mentions Bristol or the Palin family. I don't think any references have been deleted.

For Bristol's sake, I hope she wasn't in close with a good many of these kids.

I thought I lived in a pretty sad place (poor, rural south Georgia), but this area is way worse. Our teen pregnancy rate isn't good, but this has to be off the charts. It seems as if every other female is teenaged and expecting or already a mother.

The partying is insane. It makes you wonder if anyone in Alaska checks IDs with all the underage drinking and some references to drug use.

Maybe it's because I'm southern, but one of the things that has bothered me the most is how they're casually slinging around the most racially loaded word in existence. Instead of the word's historical use, they're essentially using it to mean "a cool person."

At the very least, Governor Palin needs to get a grip on her own community.

Anonymous said...

This is an older blog from "Cajun Boy in the City" - still a great read, even now!!

And here is an interesting comment from somebody regarding size of Trig in the Mercedes Johnston myspace-pictures:

"You can just call me crazy too because this Palin thing is bugging me too.

And that baby in those pictures is not a 6lb baby. I had a 6lb baby and I also had a 3lb 12 oz baby and that baby is too small for a 6lb baby. Look at his shins, they are about as long as her index finger.

It may not be at the hospital, maybe it was at a checkup later, no hospital bracelet on the baby that I see, and the room doesn't match the birthing rooms on that hospitals website. It might not even be Trig Palin, but babies do not shrink either, even in Alaska, lol, and the Gov is not wearing any pants btw.

And maybe that is all there is to it, she doesn't want the birth weight known, didn't want to get accused of being annorexic or someting, who knows? But too much just doesn't make sense, and if it doesn't make sense, it's usually not true...."


Anonymous said...

First of all, I want to thank Audrey for putting together this website.

Second, I want to apologize to anyone who was not interested in the personal birth stories that I shared previously. I had read from another poster that she was interested in the stories of other women as it related to waters breaking -- that’s what prompted me to tell the stories. And, in the context of the purpose of this website, I especially wanted to emphasize what COULD have happened to SP and Trig, if her story is true. She could have been quite embarrassed in any number of situations. She could have delivered the baby in a very inconvenient, uncomfortable, public, and unequipped place. He could have been coming out foot first, or bottom first, or cord first. He could have died. She could have died. And it’s likely that at least one or two of the “could have”s WOULD have happened. I understand some readers may not be interested in the personal accounts. And Audrey had certainly already done a great job of explaining the facts. So I apologize if I took too much time on birth stories.

Now I want to comment on why the facts that Audrey has presented are so important. Why is it important to know whether the facts that Sarah Palin gives, regarding what happened on April 17th, are things that would have been likely to have happened?

This is why -- First of all, if SP is telling the truth, and if she is what she claims to be, then she herself SPECULATED on what would happen. That is, if she is telling the truth, then she is the mother of Trig, and was the person most responsible for his care on April 17th. If she is what she claims to be, then she is truly pro-life. If she is truly pro-life, then she would want Trig to live (not to mention herself). If she wanted Trig to live, then, on the morning of April 17th she SPECULATED that he would survive what she was about to do. She had no way to know the outcome at the beginning. (Yes, every birth story is individual. But no woman can plan exactly how she wants it to happen.) If she did not base her SPECULATION on FACTS (i.e. proven medical facts and statistics), then she was either negligent or deluded, and is not what she claims to be -- i.e. she is not truly pro-life or trustworthy. (If this were her first child, maybe she could get off with just being labeled ignorant. But that would not be the case with a fifth child. She had to have had some knowledge of pregnancy and childbirth.) Sarah Palin’s OWN speculation was at the risk of her child’s life. That’s some serious and dangerous speculation! Either that or she’s lying.

I think this has great ramifications. Let me explain.

In a way, even though I was definitely not an Obama-supporter, it does seem fitting that he won the election, because at least those who voted for him were pro-Obama. I don’t remember talking to any Conservative Christians (CCs), or hearing of any, who planned on voting for McCain, who were strongly pro-McCain. They seemed to be primarily anti-Obama, and secondarily pro-Palin. That’s not to say there were not some pro-McCain voters, but I think the really pro-McCain voters were not as likely to be CCs. I hope I’m explaining this clearly enough. I think, to a large degree, CCs were voting AGAINST Obama. In order to be against Obama, they felt compelled to be for McCain/Palin. (A few, like my husband and I, avoided both Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin, and voted for someone that we did not expect to win, but someone that we could vote for without violating our conscience. But we were strongly advised not to do that because, as it was pointed out to us more than once, a vote for a third (or fourth, or fifth) party candidate was a vote for Obama. Yet the reason we did not vote for McCain/Palin was because of Palin. If it had been McCain/Pawlenty or McCain/Huckebee, we would have voted Republican, as is our usual practice.)

The kinds of discussions that went on among our family and friends and many, many other CCs ... discussions which, whether in person or by email, happened A LOT ... were focused mainly on Obama, and secondarily on Palin, but very little on McCain (some talk about his being a veteran, etc.). I hope you can see the significance of this. A great many CCs, in their zeal to try to keep Obama from being president, felt they had to vote for McCain, even if he wasn’t their pick in the primaries. So when Palin appeared on the scene, and represented herself as being very strongly pro-life, guess what? So many who felt they had to vote for McCain anyway, like him or not, suddenly found someone they thought they could actually identify with and whole-heartedly support. So it became Obama vs. Palin. If you have certain values that you hold to be of utmost importance in an election (e.g. pro-life), and you hear someone not only SAY they’re pro-life, but also PROVE it by giving birth to a Down’s Syndrome baby and encouraging her unwed daughter to keep her own baby, it’s like a magnet. Now if that magnet suddenly turns around and repels you, what are you going to do? You’re already repelled by the other side (i.e. Obama), and if you’re repelled by Palin, and if you believe there is no other option, ... oh, no, that just couldn’t happen because then what would you do about Obama? Palin had to be trustworthy, or there was no hope. (I personally believe there is always hope in Jesus Christ, regardless of what any government does or doesn’t do.)

I hope you can understand how I felt in regards to the overwhelming CC support of Sarah Palin, particularly right before the election, and still somewhat now. It feels almost like taboo to even question SP's integrity.

That’s why, to me, the whole question of the amniotic fluid leaking is SO important. Because you HAVE to come to one of basically three conclusions: either SP is NOT the mother of Trig, and has greatly lied to a whole nation (a horrible thought); or she IS the mother of Trig and has lied about the birth story, either by outright lying about leaking amniotic fluid or by not correcting herself if she thought it was leaking, but it wasn’t, and something else happened to necessitate induction (which still means she is a liar and has greatly misrepresented herself as someone who is trustworthy -- another horrible thought); or she IS the mother of Trig, and WAS leaking amniotic fluid in Texas, and was extremely reckless and negligent in regards to Trig’s life (which means she is NOT pro-life in her actions, which means her actions do not match her words, which means she is either hypocritical or self-deluded, and does not truly represent the values that the CCs thought they were voting for -- another horrible thought).

To sum up, Conservative Christians for the most part voted AGAINST Obama, and FOR Palin. And one of the strongest reasons (though not the only reason) they did this was because they were convinced that Palin was definitely pro-life. And one of the strongest proofs that she “walked the talk,” meant what she said, and could be trusted to stick to her values, was Trig.

That’s why, Audrey, your website is so important! And that’s why, whatever the facts may be regarding the real mother of Trig Palin, the very facts regarding pregnancy and childbirth (medical facts which pertain to women and babies in general) call into question the credibility and integrity of Sarah Palin, as these FACTS prove that she was either lying or, at best, was herself greatly SPECULATING on the outcome of her actions, at the risk of her child's life!, and thus cannot be truly considered pro-life. ... And the hopes of a great many Conservative Christians were/are greatly misplaced. That to me is very sad indeed.

I have signed “mother of 4” on my two previous posts. Just in case another mother of 4 happens to sign that way, I will add my initials.

DM, mother of 4

Windy City Woman said...

To Ocean,
Release the results of the amnio test? Why do you assume there are any?

Anonymous said...

The story around baby Trig and the suspicious birth was actually mentioned in one Canadian newsclip:

Other "mainstream media" sources where this has been mentioned:

Vanity Fair:


New Yorker:


Anonymous said...

Patrick or another commenter on a recent post here included a link to a Los Angeles TV station's interview with Palin on the day in March that she appeared at a Newsweek forum on Women & Leadership, also in L.A. This was the day before she announced to Alaska reporters that she was seven months pregnant.

I have lost the link, but if you find it, you'll see that Palin's scarf falls in a straight line from her neck to her lap in shots that show her from the side. There's no baby bump there that's being camouflaged. She seems to have no tummy at all. That is consistent with the Newsweek video of her that shows her sitting forward, legs crossed at the knees, for much of the forum.

Not a comfortable or even a possible position for anyone who's more than a few months pregnant.

And yes, Peacay and a couple of other commenters here sound very much like Palin trolls. One posted many times on ADN's site after the first erupted soon after McCain's announcement, trying to kill the controversy. I think they work for the RNC!

PolySciSuzie said...

Windy City Woman
if you type in you will be on the actual website and not just the blog. The website is filled with pictures of Palin at various stages, links to many newspaper articles, etc. Palin has talked about her supposed amniocentesis from Dec 07 to numerous reporters.

Anonymous said...

I had agreed with you that Dr. B-J's statement that SP had "one pre-term delivery at 35 weeks gestation in 2008" might have been based on information provided by SP that might have been false. I'm having second thoughts, and a question for someone who knows the rules of medical ethics for Alaskan physicians.

Dr. B-J states that she is SP's "personal family physician" and has been since 1997. As such, she almost certainly knew whether or not SP was pregnant, even if she had nothing to do with Trig's birth. If she knew that SP had not been pregnant in 2008, would it have been within the bounds of medical ethics for her to state, with SP's authorization, that SP had given birth in 2008, based on a statement by SP that she knew could not be true? Some say a virgin gave birth once, but there has never been a birth not preceded by pregnancy.

You have, reasonably I think, assumed that Dr. B-J would not risk her medical license and that the letter was carefully drafted to avoid that risk. If it would have been unethical for her to confirm what she knew to be false, we have to give that statement more weight. So is there an Alaskan doctor in the house, or someone else who knows the rules?

It's still possible that SP didn't see Dr. B-J in the months in which she was supposedly pregnant with Trig, which would be reason for Dr. B-J to suspect that SP hadn't been pregnant, but not proof. But that's a much smaller loophole.

I'll bet Dr. B-J regrets signing that letter. Even if she avoided the pitfalls, it's going to dog her career.

Thank you, Audrey, for anchoring this inquiry. Your intelligence, fairness and decency are evident to all of us.

Anonymous said...

Nice analysis by "DM Mother of 4" (11/20 4:48 pm). I find those words very clear and persuasive. Also humble, respectful and fair.

There's a wide range of political views on this site, but a common a search for the truth.


stephanie said...

Anon @10:18--there's a post on the next topic down about the State Board of Medicine rules which apply to licensed physicians in Alaska. The rules are available online at the State Board of Medicine website, and make interesting reading.

One linguistic point, as a lawyer who has read a lot of medical documents and examined and cross-examined many doctors, about that particular critical sentence you mention in the CBJ letter: writing that a patient had "one pre-term delivery at 35 weeks gestation in 2008" is very different than writing that a patient "delivered a pre-term baby at 35 weeks gestation in 2008."

IMO, the former would accommodate a patient who, e.g., adopted a child who was delivered at 35 weeks' gestation. It would take no more than one question under oath for any lawyer to clear this up with CBJ.

Another point on records, because there has been some trollesque misuse of the concept of "hearsay": medical records and patients' statements of medical history contained within those official records are admissible in court proceedings (the only context in which the concept of "hearsay" truly has meaning) as an exception to the hearsay rule. The reason for this is basically that there are sufficient indicia of trustworthiness in the statements of medical history a patient conveys to a medical professional AT THE TIME OF TREATMENT to allow factfinders to consider such out-of-court statements for their truth. That is, generally one does not lie to one's treating physicians when the course of medical treatment may depend on the reliability of what one says.

In contrast, a letter or other "documentation" crafted long after the medical event, beyond the point at which misinformation could compromise diagnosis and/or treatment, and crafted for a non-medical (essentially a PR) purpose, would be self-serving hearsay and would not be admissible for its truth.

In addition, Audrey can probably speak to this better, but the language in obstetrical documentation tends to be far more precise. I have never seen an obstetrical record that did not refer specifically to the particular number of pregnancies a given patient has had and the exact number of times that patient had given birth (not "had deliveries"). The precision of such information in medical records is of great importance to any treating obstetrician's management of a patient's health.

Several posts have also mentioned HIPPA restrictions. It may be important to note that those aren't the only confidentiality restrictions which can apply to medical information. When a patient is underage, for example, that patient's guardian and family members can also be bound by privilege independent of HIPPA. I'm not suggesting that what happened here is necessarily covered by any privilege, especially given the supposed "patient's" public announcements, but any physician (with a malpractice carrier to worry about) is probably going to err on the side of keeping quiet unless directed otherwise in a legal proceeding.

Anonymous said...

Thanks so much, Stephanie, for substantiating (from a lawyer's perspective)what many of us felt were some glaringly imprecise statements in CBJ's letter re SP's medical records. It seems clear that whoever wrote that letter was very careful to sidestep a couple of critical issues regarding SP's obstetrical history...

GraceR said...

Stephanie, your observations are interesting. I'm wondering what you make of the Dr.'s language in the 2nd to last paragraph where she says that Palin is "recovering well from the birth of her last child, Trig"? It would seem to indicate she did give birth, or not?

Mary G. said...

I would also add my thanks to Stephanie. I learned a lot reading your post. I do feel quite bad at times about the rest of Palin's family being dragged into this maelstrom. And thanks to jwc and mother of 4 for their contributions and inclusiveness--Mary

Anonymous said...

Stephanie, thanks for sharing your legal/medical expertise. That's a nice clear explanation of the hearsay rule regarding what's trustworthy here.

(fellow attorney)

Anonymous said...

check out the latest Turkey killin' video of queen sarah. she mentions that "the kids are doing well in school and Trig is happy and healthy".

a better choice of words might have been, "the girls are doing well in schol and Trig is happy and healthy", but she refer to the kids and Trig separateley.

hmmmmmm....a little Freudian slip?

Anonymous said...

To Grace R:
For what it's worth, here's my interpretation of that statement and the whole business of SP's 5 deliveries, as mentioned earlier in CBJ's letter - Palin is "recovering well from (all the turmoil surrounding) the birth of her last child, Trig (who instantly became hers when Bristol 'delivered' him to her)!

Stephanie said...

Thanks, jwc, Mary, anon & Grace, and Grace has a great question: that is precisely the part of the letter in which I have to launch off into the land of legalese, given how lawyers tend to frame things in view of their obligation to try to avoid exposure for their clients. Legalese does not always dovetail with common sense.

Clearly the sentence you quote ("At the time of her most recent medical evaluation, she continued to be in good health and was recovering well from the birth of her last child, Trig.") is written to convey the impression that she physically gave birth. On the other hand, what does that ("recovering well") mean? What, if anything, of substance does it add to the letter? We're not told anything concrete or indeed anything that would seem to require medical expertise (e.g., at an OB check-up it might be observed that a patient is back to her pre-birth weight/blood pressure/glucose level, or that sutures from any surgical procedures have been removed or dissolved, etc.). Once again the language is both uninformatively general and exquisitely indirect.

I try to put myself in the place of a lawyer advising a doctor. Let's just say hypothetically that a pre-term baby has been born to a minor and delivered to the full-time care of her very busy legal guardian, who has a high-power job and is caring for several other children, including the pre-term baby's biological mother. I can think of no legal peril that would follow if the patient authorized my hypothetical (doctor) client to say both that the patient " pre-term delivery" and that the patient seemed (psychologically, if nothing else) to be "recovering well from the birth of her last child," the pre-term baby. Those statements probably could be made even short of a formal adoption, because of course the patient is the adult legally responsible for both the baby and the baby's mother if the baby's mother is a minor. That's no insignificant amount of upheaval from which to "recover," and being an adult legally responsible and caring for a child's baby could fairly be characterized as making that baby "hers." Were I the guardian/grandmother/caretaker, I'd consider myself to be "recovering well from the birth" if I even made it to my own internist's office during that calendar year.)

I think the single most telling paragraph is the fourth: "At the time of her most recent preganancy, Governor Palin had no health risk factors other than her age. Routine prenatal testing early in the second trimester showed evidence of Trisomy 21...She followed the normal and recommended schedule for prenatal care....This child, Trig, was born at 35 weeks in good health. He was able to go home at two days of age with his mother." Look at the chasm between the first and second sentences (not to mention the shift to indirect voice and removal of "Governor Palin" as the subject), and assume that her "most recent pregnancy" yielded a daughter's birth (in 2001). No fact reported in that paragraph suggests Governor Palin was the one carrying "[t]his child, Trig," who "was able to go home at two days of age with his mother"--the home shared by the Governor and her minor (17-year-old) daughter. Does anyone doubt, e.g., that the mother of a pregnant minor in such circumstances would "[follow] the normal and recommended schedule for prenatal care" for her daughter?

In my mind it comes down to this (again, echoing Audrey): there's no need to read between the lines, no need for delay until election eve, no need not to release any true medical record, and no for any legal dancing at all if this patient gave birth to this child. If a patient wanted her doctor to put an end to speculation that she had not given birth to a 5th child, why not just have had her immediately dispatch this in August: "I am Governor Palin's personal physician. She has authorized me to confirm that I was present at [identify hospital] on [identify date of birth] when she gave birth to her fifth child, a son."

Anonymous said...

GraceR wrote: "Stephanie, your observations are interesting. I'm wondering what you make of the Dr.'s language in the 2nd to last paragraph where she says that Palin is "recovering well from the birth of her last child, Trig"? It would seem to indicate she did give birth, or not?" Well -- maybe not. Even if Bristol gave birth to Trig and SP is now "Trig's Mom" by process of adopting him, she could still be "recovering from his birth" in the sense that the experience of faking pregnancy, covering up the actual birth, etc., would have been quite an ordeal for someone in the public eye.
The elephant in the room for me, by the way, is the fact that DS occurs much more frequently in the children of older mother's than in the children of teenage girls like Bristol. It is still a weird, weird story, and SP's various stories do not hang together at all.

Windy City Woman said...

Yes, I realize that Sarah CLAIMS to have had amnio. My point was that we don't know for sure; her statements are not terribly believable (e.g. that her doctor approved a 12-hour trip for a woman in early stages of labor).

Fellow readers,
Yeah, the doctor's statement said practically nothing. She probably had her lawyers go over it with a fine-tooth comb to make sure nothing was an actual lie, which is probably why it took so long to produce.

Kevin said...

Stephanie wrote:

"[A]s a lawyer who has read a lot of medical documents and examined and cross-examined many doctors, about that particular critical sentence you mention in the CBJ letter: writing that a patient had "one pre-term delivery at 35 weeks gestation in 2008" is very different than writing that a patient "delivered a pre-term baby at 35 weeks gestation in 2008."

"IMO, the former would accommodate a patient who, e.g., adopted a child who was delivered at 35 weeks' gestation. It would take no more than one question under oath for any lawyer to clear this up with CBJ."

Interesting ... I was "Anonymous" at 10:18 pm (11/20) and am also a lawyer. I wouldn't think that "having a delivery" could be stretched to mean "adopting a baby," and I'd hate to have to defend that in front of a judge. That's not to say there aren't lawyers who would try to get away with it. But I question whether Dr. B-J, whose reputation is at stake, would buy into that line if a lawyer suggested it.

Taking your suggestion, I looked at the rules. The Alaska State Medical Board at 12 AAC 40.955 has adopted the AMA Code of Medical Ethics. Principle 2 of the AMA's Principles of Medical Ethics states:

2. A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions, and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception, to appropriate entities.

I didn't find an AMA pronouncement addressing the specific question of a physician misrepresenting a patient's medical information at her request, but I think "honest in all professional interactions" covers it. I don't know whether such a misrepresentation ever resulted in discipline, but it appears to be prohibited.

If Dr. B-J knew that SP adopted another woman's 35-week newborn, I would definitely call her statement a misrepresentation and beyond merely misleading. If she were referring to only one "delivery,"maybe one could argue that if someone drove up to SP's house and dropped off baby Trig she "had a delivery," although eyes would roll. But in context she was referring to it as one of SP's five "deliveries," and presumably the other children weren't "delivered" that way.

Bottom line, I think we should understand that Dr. B-J is saying that Trig is Sarah's baby, and is taking responsibility for that statement, despite all of the things she doesn't say that we would expect her to say. If Trig isn't SP's child, Dr. B-J can defend her statement as based upon what SP told her only if she didn't examine SP during the time of her supposed pregnancy.

I agree that a question under oath would raise the stakes for Dr. B-J considerably and might elicit a different response, but for now that's not foreseeable.

Anonymous said...

Just want to say, occasional troll aside there is a really interesting and respectful discussion going on among posters. It's a credit to the way you present the material.

Stephanie said...

I want to make it clear I'm not saying I would envy the lawyer who may be in a position of defending that letter, or that I ever would have crafted something like that. Kevin is absolutely right about the dim prospect of any public court proceeding directly addressing this, and absent that we'll probably never know what confidential directives may have been passed from patient to doctor (conditioning anything the doctor does or says).

And of course if an Alaska-licensed doctor goes in front of the Medical Board on an ethics complaint, that's not a legal tribunal: the questioned physician conduct, and whether it violated the state's professional standards, would be evaluated by a group appointed by the Governor of the State of Alaska.

Stephanie said...

I hope it's OK to pose a question to the other lawyer-perusers on this site.

My question is whether any of you has come upon a case in which a physician's misrepresentation of clinical information was grounds for professional discipline (or any court action) when the misrepresentation ran only to a third party/parties (other than a third party responsible for providing or compensating provision of medical services)?

I've only found instances of discipline for misrepresentations to a patient, the patient's family, an insurer or medical facility or other party providing patient services or responsible for payment (the lion's share of cases I've seen), or to other health care professionals involved in a given patient's treatment. This makes sense, given standing requirements in most states, but I'm wondering if any of the learned readers here knows of an instance where a physician was subject to any sanction (or even was required to answer to a professional board) for alleged misrepresentations to third parties not involved in a given physician-patient relationship?

Would it be unnecessarily cruel to assign this topic to some law students?

Anonymous said...

Thanks to Stephanie and Kevin for your posts, which add quite a lot to the discussion. I see that the language in the letter is not as definitive as I had originally thought, and bears the fingerprints of lawyers who have very carefully parsed the statements. Misleading is not legally the same as lying.

As a result, I find myself wondering what evidence can be obtained to put this matter to rest. Of course there are the obvious things like a birth certificate and medical records; but I cannot see how those documents could become accessible unless Sarah or someone else close to the situation decides to set the record straight -- unlikely at best. Unless there is something definitive on the internet or in public records that turns up, or someone in the know in Alaska who is willing to go on record with another explanation, I suspect that the birth of Bristol's child will be the next opportunity to find out anything substantive. I believe the Sarah's story is not plausible, and the truth will come out eventually -- though she has done an uncharacteristically good job at covering it up.

Mary G. said...

The lawyers' opinions have been very thought-provoking and informative. I have been wondering for a while now if it wasn't another doctor from Dr. CB-J's practice who actually delivered Trig--several of them are family doctors who specialize in obstetrics (while others focus on pediatrics). So if some doctor's name has been kept completely out of the public, said doctor cannot be making any false statements. BUT--Palin did say CBJ delivered Trig--or did she? I will have to reread those articles--they say things like, she "talked to her doctor," but that doesn't mean it is the doctor who delievered the baby. I do think somewhere it was said CBJ did deliver Trig--but perhaps that was unconfirmed. And the ADN article mentions that Palin had to be induced, again, maybe it was worded in such a way as to suggest CBJ without actually stating that.
Shall I drop everything and go to law school??!!

Stephanie said...

Mary G.--

Really enjoy all your posts--and NO! Don't go to law school. If nothing else, you run the risk of ending up as one of the law students I was thinking about torturing with some of these research questions!

Anonymous said...

I've read and re-read the article in the ADN about the birth. It quotes the doctor (CBJ) about the induction. The method of getting the quotes (i.e., phone, in person, hearsay) is not revealed.

sandra in oregon

sjk said...

In the post turkey pardon inteview she refers to her “son” in Iraq, to the “kids” doing well in school and “Trig”, SEPARATELY. “My sons Brigade is relativley safe, the kids are doing well in school and Trig is happy and healthy”……As if Trig wasnt her son or her kid. this woman cant possibly keep all of her lies straight and she just made a huge mental slip in my opinion..

Anonymous said...

I tend to think that there won't be new information available until Bristol delivers... but it also occurred to me that it would be to Sarah Palin's benefit to reveal this fraud then (presuming it is a fraud), and get it behind her, rather than waiting with a constant fear that someone will out her, possibly at the most inopportune time, such as when she is running for office in a few years. There must be a few people who know enough to do so -- and one of them will likely tell the tale at some point. I wonder if McCain's campaign found out the truth and that's why she was called a "whack job."

Anonymous said...

One important point that's sometimes overlooked about maternal age and Down syndrome:

It's certainly true that the incidence of DS births increases with maternal age - so for any individual woman, her risk of having a child with DS increases with age.
BUT if you look at all the DS children who are born in any given year, MOST (70-80%) will actually have younger mothers (under the age of 35) simply because there are so many more babies born to women in this age range overall.

So it seems confusing at first, but it's a fact: in terms of absolute numbers, most DS babies are born to younger women!

Anonymous said...

From the Anchorage Daily News, article on birth:

Because of prenatal testing, most families now know beforehand, said Judy Waldron, president of the Alaska chapter of the National Down Syndrome Congress, a support and education group that delivered a parent packet to the Palins in the hospital.

Is the question of 'who saw SP in the hospital for Trig's birth' answered here?

Also, CB-J states in the same article that Palin kept in close contact with Baldwin-Johnson. The contractions slowed to one or two an hour, "which is not active labor," the doctor said.

"Things were already settling down when she talked to me," Baldwin-Johnson said.

Anonymous said...




Another article:

Some things that may be of interest, a bit of news about Trig's birth.

Anonymous said...

I'm so glad to have found this blog with comprehensive questions and answers (theories) with regard to the truths/untruths surrounding the paternity of TP. I have believed from the get-go that this is BP's baby, however not by Levi. I've read in other places that the baby is fathered by SP's husband Todd, I've also read the father is BP's brother Trak (Track?), thus the DS. I've read he was shipped off to Iraq to avoid further scrutiny. That Levi is just a pawn in all this, that there isn't a current pregnancy with BP, that the notion she couldn't have given birth to Trig because she was pregnant at the time he was supposedly born was all contrived (due to her vp pick on McCain's ticket) and is being forced to marry her to avoid destroying SP's political career. Who knows what's truth or not here. It will be interesting when it all does come out. I can say one thing though, I'm a HIM proffesional (Health Information Management, i.e. medical records); for 10 years I've made my living managing the patient record, pulling charts for doctors appointments, and copying records for signed patient releases. A release of information is never a single paged health summary. A patients medical records, over time, often become what term "volumes", certainly in the case of a woman SP's age who has bore "5" children. She would have multiple volumes. It would take hours to copy all those records. I do this everyday therefore I can't buy the whole notion that SP finally released her medical records and it's been summized to a one page health summary?! It's ludicrous. Every detail of every office visit would be on every page, test results, ultrasounds, amniotic labs as has been previously brought up. I guess since they (the Palins or many Alaskans or rural folks?)likely wouldn't have the knowledge to question these kinds of events had they occurred elsewhere, they assume that know else would. But here we have the common sense of women who have bore 1 or more children and recognize the illogical circumstances surrounding this birth, we have attorneys who recognize many of the legal aspects, HIM proffesionals who can see through the whole medical record farce, doctors who would see through the improbability of another doctor allowing a woman to fly for half a day with broken they really believe they can pull this off? Because they may not be qualified to question doesn't mean the rest of the world is as obtuse. Can't wait till SP is exposed for the deceitful person she is. BP's future and reputation is certainly going to need some vindicating.

Anonymous said...

re Stephanie's post of November 21, 2008 2:04 PM – dang, that letter from Dr. CBJ is a masterwork of misdirectiom – your analysis, Stephanie, seems right on target: someone spent a lot of time crafting a letter that appears to support one narrative while actually leaving the door open to a totally different set of circumstances.

I do not see a likely situation arising where CBJ will be called on to testify under oath about this. Can any of the lawyers out there see a case where that might happen? What if someone says in a major news outlet that the guv is a liar? Can you all see a libel suit taking place? I can't, since truth would seem t o be a defense - but where would the burden of proof lie? With the guv, if she brought a libel suit? Or with the accuser?

Brad S in Kentucky

Stephanie said...

Hello, Brad S.! A quickie on your libel question, and you're right about truth being a defense. Sarah Palin unquestionably is a public figure, so to sue a news outlet for defamation she'd have the high burden of proving not only that published information was false, but that it was published maliciously (in reckless disregard of its possible falsity).

There are some other interesting libel/slander questions out there, like is the family doc now a "limited purpose public figure," having injected herself into this specific public controversy (and making her burden much higher were the doctor to allege she has been defamed)?

And any physician could sue (for defamation) anyone who made false statements which would establish professional incompetence by that physician, and therefore would injure his/her professional reputation.

OK, I tried and failed to make that a quick answer. Sorry about that.

Anonymous said...

I don’t think the CBJ letter was written entirely by Dr. Baldwin-Johnson . The letter appears to me to incorporate language possibly from an original letter actually written by Dr. Baldwin-Johnson , but also includes language added by a third party/parties, using language from other medical records.

Here are some inconsistencies that I see in the CBJ letter. The inconsistencies may not be meaningful; they just seemed interesting to me.

1. The term “good health” is used twice in the body of the letter to describe the level of health; however the letter concludes with “In summary, Governor Palin is in excellent health….” It isn’t logical to draw a different conclusion from the description of health given twice earlier. (sounds like marketing spin)

2. Note that almost every paragraph uses the term “Governor Palin” and then uses “she” or “her” later in the paragraph. We naturally think that the “her” or “she” is Gov. Palin, but maybe it’s not….

3. The birth dates of Willow and Piper in the letter are inconsistent with the dates given in other articles. I believe Audrey mentioned this. Of course, the other articles could be wrong.

4. “Routine prenatal testing early in the second trimester” is mentioned in the fourth paragraph. Audry discussed (October 24 Post) testing and referenced the People Magazine interview:
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.

There is considerable confusion about the dates of “early testing” which Audrey has discussed. This sentence in the letter doesn’t clear up anything. (couldn’t 13 weeks be considered to still be part of the first trimester?)

5. “there was no …condition of the baby that would preclude delivery at her home community hospital.” This phrase seems oddly vague; why not just say the name of the hospital?

6. The sentence “This child, Trig, was born at 35 weeks in good health” doesn’t prove Sarah gave birth to him. As Audrey and other commenters have mentioned many times, why not say “Gov. Palin gave birth to Trig at 35 weeks?”

7. “he was able to go home at two day of age with his mother.” Very strange. “His mother” OI believe that Stephanie mentioned this in an earlier post. This language is inconsistent with the other language and earlier references to “governor Palin” in the letter.

8. The signature of CBJ could be a stamp and not an original signature. The copy of the letter posted on the internet shows the name written after “Baldwin” is illegible. The “FP” in the abbreviation “FAAFP” is lighter than the remainder of the abbreviation. There could be a very reasonable explanation for this.

These were just things that looked “funny” to me and caught my attention. The letter does not appear to be written entirely by one person. I am an attorney and have been involved in drafting many, many documents “by committee” and this letter has that feel.

Anonymous said...

Here are a few fun observations:
First, the press release from the Governor’s office is humorous:

“The Palins were thankful that the Governor’s labor began yesterday while she was in Texas at the Governor’s Energy Conference where she gave the keynote luncheon address, but let up enough for her to travel on Alaska Airlines back to Alaska in time for her to deliver her second son.”

The Palins were thankful that labor began in Texas????

(Also, “Governors" should not have an apostrophe.)

Second, from a newspaper article at
The oldest Palin kid, Track, is in the Army and texted his mother after learning the news with something to the effect of "This is just so cool -- I finally got my brother."

As the mother of three sons (two are teens), I think the “Ick factor” (as used elsewhere on this site) would prevent such gushing from a teenage boy, especially a macho one like Track, about his mother giving birth.

Third: The other new moms on the Matsu hospital site look like normal, tired, worn-out new moms who’ve been through childbirth, which is physically strenuous. Sarah looks like she had a great night’s sleep, with time to put makeup on, etc.

Fourth, from another article: Palin's three-day maternity leave has now become legend among mystified mothers. But aides say she eased back into work, first stopping by her office in Anchorage for a meeting, bringing not only the baby but also her husband to look after him.

Brought her husband to work to look after their newborn?

Fifth, from another article: At her baby shower, Palin joked about her long months of secrecy, Lane said. “About the seventh month I thought I'd better let people know,” Palin said.
“So it was really great,” she continued. “I was only pregnant a month.”

Windy City Woman said...

If complete medical records had been provided, even not counting info on Trig's birth, there could be a lot of things that would put Sarah's giving birth to Trig in serious doubt. Imagine if any of the following had been in Sarah's records:
- a tubal ligation
- a hysterectomy
- note that patient declined contraceptive care because husband had had a vasectomy
- previous Cesarean births; these days women are told not to have a vaginal delivery after a Cesarean (though they seem to go back & forth on this); no way would she (or should she) be back at work 3 days after a Cesarean birth.

Of course, there could be other things in her medical history not related go ob/gyn issues but which she might want to keep private anyway. Imagine if she had a history of mental health issues, or diabetes, or other conditions. Not that she couldn't be governor or vp with these conditions, but it wouldn't look good to the public. Please don't assume that she has these things; just play "what if."

Anonymous said...

Interesting tidbit: Isn't a birth by a governor something BIG? So, wouldn't there usually be at least ONE or TWO pics be taken by the local media right when the governor leaves the hospital? Wouldn't there possibly be a pic or two of the governor in the hospital bed with the new baby (especially with a 'special-needs-child', which would be a great oportunity at educating the public about such children?

Craig said...

I believe the doctor is on record as stating that she induced labor for Sarah.

At this point, people are so invested in the "conspiracy" that that a statement of "I was there and delivered the child" will be seen as being not good enough (or a lie).

Anonymous said...

One question: The picture on 4/13 shows a very PG Palin. When she flew home in labor, the flight attendents said she didn't appear very PG. Which is accurate?