Here's the original post.
Here's a follow up post containing a few comments Mr. Sullivan has received, including one from Patrick and Kathleen who originally discovered the photo and sent it on to me.
Mr. Sullivan makes a point I'd like to emphasize here. It reminded me that, while I do feel this photographic evidence is, if not absolutely conclusive, then certainly compelling, the issue that brought me to this topic initially (was it only three months ago?) was that I did not believe her birth story. Period. I did not believe she leaked amniotic fluid and general birth gunk all the way from the hotel room to the podium to the airport to the airplane to the layover lounge to the next airplane to Alaska. I did not believe that she could sit still through two four hour flights and the flight attendants not notice a thing. I did not believe that the governor of Alaska risked having to lie down in the aisle in first class (or coach even), spread her legs, and push her baby out. (And if she got on the airplane leaking amniotic fluid she had to know that was a possibility.) I did not believe it for one second three months ago and I don't believe it now.
Mr. Sullivan interviewed eight obstetricians and here's what he says about it.
Actually, the Dish went out and interviewed eight of the leading obstetricians in the country and laid out all the facts of the case and asked the experts for their take. While none would say that this pregnancy could not have happened, and none would comment on a case they hadn't examined personally, all of them said it was one of the strangest and unlikeliest series of events they had ever heard of and found Palin's decision to forgo medical help for more than a day after her water broke and risk the life of her unborn child on a long airplane trip to be reckless beyond measure.
I did not have access to eight "leading" obstetricians, but I had access to one good old-fashioned country doc. His take on her story was a bit more blunt.
It's a crock of shit.This is not about an individual picture, which may or may not have a pad, or bump, or in which she might be leaning over a bit, or in which she looks just like your wife/lover/mother/friend/co-worker on her ninth pregnancy as she hiked up mountains ten miles both ways.
This is about a hundred little things that don't add up, after the birth story. Like why, even when she was aware of rumors that her oldest daughter was pregnant, did she not bother to appear in public with the girl once after mid-February 2008. Like why she didn't tell her own mother she was pregnant until just days before she announced it to the world at seven months. Like why the heck the family did not bother to take one photo at the hospital of the new baby with mom and siblings. Like why anyone on God's green earth could have thought that the best way to prove that Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig Palin on April 18, 2008 was to tell the world that Bristol was five months pregnant on September 1, 2008. Like why her doctor has never been willing to state that she was even actually physically AT the birth.
Lots of little things. And you know what these little things add up to?
I return you to my doctor friend's quote above.
48 comments:
The moment I first heard Palin's explanation of her labor and delivery (remember the "Sarah Palin decision diagram?), I realized that either:
1) Palin was lying
2) Palin was criminally reckless with the life of her child AND with her own life
I think back to my younger brother's birth, my mom's 4th pregnancy. Just past her due date, mom was experiencing some cramps (but nothing like "real" labor she had felt with the previous 3 deliveries) and leaking. Dad was gone to a business meeting but, having just "had a feeling", came home to find her showering for her trip to the hospital. He hussled her out the door and to the hospital. And thank goodness he did; one look by the nurse "oh LORD" and the doctor "get this woman in delivery ... now ... I MEAN NOW!", got mom ushered into delivery immediately.
That night, the doctors lost both my mother's and my brother's heartbeats during delivery. But we were indeed blessed, because both mom and brother lived (though my brother's arm was broken in the mad dash to get him out and breathing).
Now, Mom was 15 mins from the hospital. She was not two 4-hour plane rides and a 45-min car ride from the hospital.
Either way, whether Palin is lying or just reckless, she's foolhardy and not a person to be leading a state ... or a country.
And, frankly, I'd like to see Bristol kept out of this discussion completely; she hasn't done anything wrong and her inclusion here. Yes, her own mother, by unconscionably revealing Bristol's personal business at the Convention for no other reason than to deflect suspicion from herself, has indeed brought Bristol into the discussion. But I'd say we do better to just drop speculation about the girls.
Audrey,
Let me say that I agree with you 100%. As an attorney, there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence about this pregnancy and birth that just don't pass the "smell test".
Taken individually, like all circumstantial evidence, each separate fact that you identify in this post can be alternately explained away as either "possible, if not likely", or "quirky" or "irresponsible mothering", etc.
But cumulatively they add up to a very a fact pattern that is much more consistent with someone hiding something than with the uncontroversial pregnancy/labor/delivery that SP would have us believe.
My skepticism to the prior post was in response to the characterization of that photo as the "nail in the coffin".
I just don't want you to overplay your hand and wind up having this story buried like George Bush's Texas Air National Guard record.
Keep up the good work, keep the pressure on, and keep pushing for answers.
Not only was Palin reckless with her own life and that of her child, she risked the lives of passengers on board the plane. If she had gone into labor they would have had to make a risky unplanned landing.
Even if the baby is hers, she needs to explain this part of the story!
Audrey, this is one of your best posts.
Thank you for all your hard work in keeping this issue alive and well despite the lack of MSM interest.
Yes. Well done. And I agree 100% with Kathy (first post): let's leave the children out of it. It might take longer, but it will all come out in time.
--Amy
When I heard that McCain had picked an attractive woman with five children, the latest one with downs syndrome, and that she was pro-life…I thought…I couldn’t had written a better script myself. (My script would have been totally weird, like a Jim Jones type cult that wanted their members in elective government positions for the advancement of their principalities. And for the purpose of stacking the deck, so to speak, the leader plucks a baby from his flock that happens to have a disability, to use as a shoe-in for a female character. Okay, I will stop….)
Then I heard the detailed story of Palins’ Texas trip, I thought…what, no way! In my 20s, I gave birth to two children, and with both the amniotic fluid started leaking and the labor pains began within 6 hours. Both Palin and her doctor are pro-life, so I am shocked at such reckless behavior.
Maybe Palin and Dude rushed back because a baby was being delivered at their local hospital, but the baby may not be Bristol’s either. Could be that Bristol got mad when she found out about another baby coming into the house, and figured if she was going to have to take care of another baby, it would be her own. Not sure if that fits within the time frame, but that sounds like a teenager to me.
I think that the hospital in question is the same hospital Wasilla Assembly of God members gained control of the board and stopped abortions until a court ruled against them. Maybe my script is not so crazy, huh?!
Keep digging...thanks!!
I can remember last spring when I was looking thru Alaska's CraigsList/Rants and Raves, there were rumors of Bristol being prego, I think this was around the time Trig was born, but not sure. Anyway Silly Sarah can do and say whatever, she doesn't care what we think, GOD is on her side!!!
i've noticed several of my comments focused on this, and i hope audrey will repost this one, with some new additions to it, as it directly addresses her new andrew sullivan post. this is long, please read it.
i now think ALL of our focus should be on getting more people to analyze (and defend, as if that were possible to do logically -such attempts only make the holes more glaring) the "wild ride" birth story.
people in the MSM.
people in the general public who don't know why anyone cares about this.
people who support her.
i don't understand the people who feel that her "wild ride" behavior, if pregnant, is not at least as objectionable as publicly lying about a pregnancy, in terms of her character.
people who say "her doctor okayed it, it's fine," (which i find very hard to believe) must not know much about down syndrome.
even if you just dismiss risks of "broken water" infection and other unforeseen delivery risks due to her travel plans, children with DS are often born with heart defects, which may not be diagnosable before birth.
"The overall incidence of congenital heart disease in the general population is 0.8 percent. The incidence of congenital heart disease in children with Down syndrome is up to 50 percent."
source: (a hospital, not wikipedia)
http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/health/heart-encyclopedia/disease/syndrome/down.htm
they may also have developmental disorders of the gastrointestinal tract:
"There is no specific treatment for Down syndrome. A child born with a gastrointestinal blockage may need major surgery immediately after birth. Certain heart defects may also require surgery."
source: (USA national library of medicine & national institute of health)
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000997.htm
many of these defects require treatment (often surgical) within the first year of life, but some require immediate treatment. immediate: as in at birth or the baby DIES. a mother CANNOT know in advance of birth if her DS baby will need immediate, life-saving surgery and a neonatal ICU.
ANY woman who thought there was even a chance she was entering labor a month early with a known DS child would get herself physically checked out at a hospital asap. a phone call would not be sufficient (not to mention a competent doctor would never attempt to clear the health and safety of both mother and child without seeing them at this critical time.)
if she was pregnant, SP took a very real risk that her baby, herself, or both would not survive the travel home.
THIS MAKES NO SENSE.
seriously, she was a "rising star" presenter at that texas conference, and if not that, still one of only 50 governors out of 300 million americans. therefore, she would have received preferential treatment at any local hospital.
and probably instant media exposure.
do we really think she should be let off the hook for this child-and-self-endangering behavior
just 'cause the first dude believes "you can't have a fish-picker from texas."??
if she comes back on the national scene after being somehow proved conclusively as trig's birth-mother the "wild ride" should become a showcase of her decision making ability in and of itself.
WHY WE SHOULD FOCUS ON THIS ABOVE "THE BELLY" RIGHT NOW:
as this is her own current, public, published story she will be forced to defend it and cannot say "pajama conspiracy theorists" invented it all.
thusly, if more people like andrew sullivan point out to/in the MSM that she deserves "negligent-crazy- possibly-suicidal-mother-of-the-year-award" for the wild ride (and doctors agree!) she can only defend herself by admitting the following:
some or all of these statements she made -or confirmed- were LIES:
*her water leaked/ lost plug/ started contractions in texas at all
*she received a go-ahead from her doctor or any doctor
*she actually spoke to any doctor
*she made a reasonable choice to leave texas
*she made a reasonable choice to bypass anchorage hospitals for one with no neonatal ICU
*she knew in advance she carried a DS baby
*she was actually carrying -and thus wildly endangering- said DS baby
seriously, push this and she will be revealed as super-incompetently-insane, or her lies will all come out as her only way to prove she's not insane.
and it will all happen without dragging her kids through the mud for her behavior.
please think about this,
luna
It was her labor story that first raised my red flag. It just wasn't right. Whether or not Trig is her son, you're right that the labor story is the catalyst for scrutiny. Had she never told that story we probably wouldn't have heard so many of the other details that don't add up. Although the rumors of Bristol existed long before Palin hit the national stage, I think the labor story is what made many of us start to dig deeper.
She liked to make fun of Biden's gaffe's but I'd say that her labor story is the biggest gaffe of the decade.
Jennifer
Luna is correct that the only way we may be able to get SP to comment on this is to challenge her on the judgment of the trip. I suspect she will poo-poo it with something like "it really wasn't that serious" and "I know my body" and that will be the end of the discussion. That's how a lawyer would prepare her for cross-examination on the topic. She defends both the circumstances and her judgment that way by making herself the unlimited authority on the situation that only pertained to her. Hence, it's a dead end either way.
The better challenge is why she doesn't just release the medical records or even insurance claim records and put it to rest. She doesn't have a good answer for that. If she demurs, then she could be more effectively challenged on the judgment question because most women would a) never have flown in their 8th month, b) always have sought a consultation in Dallas, and c) never have flown 12 hours to Alaska in that condition without a doctor's OK. Hence, she would have to understand why people would be skeptical of her refusal to release those records.
That is why Andrew Sullivan's approach is exactly right, if only it would gain some traction in other outlets. Perhaps he'll win a Pulitzer if he pursues it, but it would likely be at the risk of some backlash if he can't break the story. That's probably why he's treading lightly.
We just have to keep giving him something to report. Otherwise, nearly everyone else will be like my own mother who thinks we should drop it. (I disagree with her.)
Dangerous
The March 26th photo is conclusive on two levels -- first, there is no room to hide a 33-week fetus (plus amniotic fluid and placenta), and second, the pad indicates an attempt to create a disguise to look pregnant. The second point is just as important as the first in understanding the importance of this picture. It is increasingly obvious to anyone who is rational and has some knowledge of fetal development that Palin lied about the pregnancy. The truth is coming out, thanks to the continuing investigation by Audrey and others. You'll soon reach a tipping point where the truth can no longer be denied. You're almost there.
In thinking about SP's location prior to the Texas trip -- she was in Juneau and apparently was spending most of her time there because the legislature was in session. Would Dr. Baldwin-Johnson have been flying to Juneau for weekly check-ups? Prbably not. Because of the high risk pregnancy, usually weekly checkups start early in the pregnancy, especially since (because of the pictures) it appears the baby was growing so fast. Maybe a Juneau doctor was the one she called.
It just doesn't fit the more you think about it.
sandra in oregon
dangerous, thank you for supporting my conclusion.
while i agree SP's my reaction to pressing the birthing issue would indeed be something like, "it really wasn't that serious" and "I know my body."
i disagree that those type of answers would end the issue if someone in the media asked her on the record these questions:
"your decision to carry and raise a DS baby is commendable. at what week in your pregnancy did you learn of trig's genetic condition?"
"are you aware of the heart defect, gastrointestinal blockage, and other life threatening conditions a DS baby can present at birth?"
-if she just told the reporter she'd known of the condition for ANY length of time, and then admitted not knowing these risks, she would be admitting she did no research on her baby's condition -despite saying previously she had amniocentesis "to prepare" for a possibly medically complicated pregnancy and child.
-if she says "no" she's an idiot right there.
-if she says "yes." she's asked:
"why then did you not seek medical evaluation in texas, or baring that anchorage? i respect you "knowing your body" as the mother of many, but these are complications even a doctor cannot predict before the actual birth. weren't you concerned that trig could suffer or die if your labor changed suddenly at some point in your travels?"
i don't think she can weasel out of these direct questions, unless she admits to having some power to control her labor at will over all that time, which could be immediately pointed out a medical impossibility.
i admit she MIGHT say "i trusted god to look out for us during the long journey." and this might endear her to some of her fans, but the VAST majority of americans would think something like, "uhm, okay then. but didn't god give you intellect, freewill, and modern medical resources to do your part in the care-taking as well?"
if she dismissed it with such a comment it would put her political potential into a new light for most people. i think even most religious americans don't want someone in power to leave "everything in god's hands" on matters of security, the economy, etc.
thanks,
luna
I've been debating the March 28, 2008 photo over on Jack Bog's blog and one Palin supporter used this brilliant explanation for why Palin's stomach seemed so flat in that shot.
Are you ready?
The baby was having a "low amniotic fluid day."
I swear to God. When they can offer nothing more than such lame excuses and the string of invectives they continue to spew, you know you're getting to them.
I agree with Anon at 4:35. We are very, very close.
I agree that the focus should be on the 'flight to Egypt' (oops, Alaska) part of the puzzle, it is the way to stay above the fray and either solution is equally freaky.
Especially in light of the whole 'pro-life' thing. I just talked to a sweet young thing this morning who is all about Sarah because she's pro life, how in the world do they reconcile this with Sarah's OWN delivery story?
The birth story is also what initially made me think she faked the whole thing.
I have one child. It was a high risk pregnancy. When I called the maternal-fetal medicine clinic, more often than not, I would be told to go directly to the hospital. I thought was leaking fluid - go directly to Labor & Delivery. I was traveling out of state in the second trimester and started bleeding - go directly to the nearest Emergency Room. I was having contractions at 27 weeks - go directly to Labor & Delivery.
NO reputable, responsible doctor would attempt to make a diagnosis over the phone. NO doctor in his or her right mind would take a call in the middle of the night from a 44 year old patient with a high risk pregnancy who said, "I think I'm leaking amniotic fluid" and tell said patient that it was okay to go back to sleep, get dressed in the morning, give a speech, go to the airport, get on a plane, fly to another airport, get on another plane, fly back to Alaska, bypass the state's best medical facilities in Anchorage and go out to the Mat-Su hospital in Palmer.
The doctor with whom Palin allegedly spoke that night in Texas could NOT have been able to tell over the phone whether Palin was truly leaking amniotic fluid or had passed her mucous plug. She/he would not have been able to tell over the phone how effaced or dilated Palin was.
ANY responsible doctor would have told Palin to go to the nearest hospital. And let's face it - IF this all really happened as Sarah Palin claims it did, she made that call in the middle of the night, and she would have had PLENTY of time to get to a Dallas hospital and be examined by an Obstetrician before she had to give her speech. So why didn't she get do it?
I've seen some suggest that Palin was pregnant but didn't care about Trig and whether he lived or died, hence the reckless behavior. But if she was pregnant and didn't care, then why call the doctor in the middle of the night? If you're secretly hoping for a stillbirth, why bother calling the doctor in the first place?
Besides, from a "pro-life" standpoint, wouldn't purposely risking your unborn child's life at 35 weeks into the pregnancy, when you are undoubtedly dealing with a viable fetus, be just as bad if not worse than an early first trimester abortion? An early abortion if MUCH easier to hide. Heck, with the advent of medical abortion, Palin wouldn't have had to even go to a clinic. She could have gotten the pills from her own private doctor.
The theory that she was pregnant and reckless but pro-life actually makes LESS sense to me than the theory that she faked a pregnancy and Trig is someone else's biological child.
Annie
This is important. You're doing a good job. Keep up the good work and keep the pressure on.
As with others, it was the childbirth story that raised big ol' red flags to me. I'm not an OB nurse, but I am a nurse, and I'm also a mother. I couldn't see anybody with a high-risk, FIFTH pregnancy, leaking amniotic fluid, not going to the nearest hospital. And no reputable doctor would have okayed this insane sequence of events, which probably explains the doctor's refusal to discuss the situation. I think for some reason Sarah faked the Trig pregnancy, and I think it was probably Bristol's baby. And now I'm wondering where Bristol is. I haven't done a Search for her online, but she ought to nearly at delivery point right about now, right? According to Levi? So where is she, does she look pregnant, and why aren't we hearing more about this? (I admit it must be embarrassing to the Palins that abstinence has been since a resounding failure that her daughter would have TWO unmarried pregnancies within the same year.)
It's not only releasing medical records that would put paid to the story of the faked pregnancy. The nurses at the hospital would absolutely remember dealing with the governor's delivery. Sarah could ask the nurses to publicly confirm that she gave birth that day. She could even say, "Please don't give details. Just assure the public that I did give birth that day" and they would undoubtedly do so... if it was true.
No: I agree with your doctor's observation. It IS a crock of shit. It's completely unbelievable, and I've even speculated that she unconsciously wanted the Down's baby to die so she could accept God's will sadly, rather than raise him. It just doesn't hang together. There are too many oddities.
Ivy Freeborn
I'd probably be the last one to defend Sarah Palin, but what if the story she tells of Trig's birth were true and it turns out she just had (or has) a really incompetent doctor. It's not like SP believes in science or anything, after all.
It was interesting to read the lengths Andrew Sullivan went to with the McCain campaign to get them to provide some proof about Palin and Trig. I hadn't realized this. It is completely amazing that they could have, yet didn't "put this baby to bed" back then. I consider Sullivan a conservative, and he could have been a potential supporter for McCain/Palin. But he wasn't buying the story, either.
Given this reality, what a pile of BS are the comments Palin has made about how the silly press should have just asked for the information and stopped the rumors (most recently to Wolf Blitzer in Florida.)
Right now Sullivan is our closest MSM link and thank goodness he has been relentless about this.
Now, if ADN would just dig back into that story they surely have. They must have tons of photos of Palin from the pregnancy time period in their files. Get on with it!
Thank you for this. Now when the heck is the mainstream media going to write about the facts surrounding this story??
Any one who's grown up in a dysfunctional family knows that many people live a lot of ugly, dangerous, and even preposterous lies, day in, day out. Until finally, someone begins speaking up, questioning the reality everybody else says is "true." First, the speaker is crazy. Then all hell breaks loose, and eventually, if the family is lucky, the lies are uncovered. It's never an easy or pretty process, and it takes strong people with conviction to see the truth through. Thank you again, Audrey. I agree. This is one of your best posts.
Audrey, someone at AKM posted this hypothesis...Bristol preg. finds out baby is DS. The Fundy's have their own"counseling" service's for preg. teens...ie: have the baby and put it up for (other christians to adopt.)
Bristol can't adopt Trig out b/c Trig has DS, and sh e turns 18 in oct. no medical ins. So Sarah says baby is hers, for medical ins. purposes. And to make sure Trig gets DS medical care. Barbie and Dud can secretly adopt Trig.
I have to say it is a plausible story....!
~crystalwolf
sorry for 2 typo's in my last post. should read "i agree SP's reaction" and "as a medical impossibility."
more interestingly, i did find (noting other comments) that dr. CBJ's "palin health letter" states SP had prenatal care:
"including follow-up perinatology evaluations to ensure there were no significant congenital heart disease or other condition of the baby that would preclude delivery at her home community hospital."
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2008-11/43179602.pdf
okay, in keeping with my "direct questions" idea, i've just read many DS, university, and hospital webpages addressing DS congenital health conditions.
i can find no evidence that existing prenatal tests can rule out ALL "common" i.e. heart/g.i. tract defects in DS babies pre-birth. most mention diagnostics preformed at birth or shortly after if symptoms appear. it is also often mentioned that DS babies have lungs that develop more slowly than non-DS babies as a matter of fact, which can make a pre-term delivery more risky than for a non-DS baby of the same gestational age.
are their any pediatric cardiologists or others with similar expertise reading who can comment? i will back down on these particular questions if someone can assure me such tests really exist and are highly reliable.
however, i do not accept that her "wild ride" ceased to provide many other genuine risks to herself and the baby (and others aboard 2 commercial flights in an unscheduled landing.)
regardless, her birth story is a series of unacceptably risky acts, and i still feel putting pressure on both palin and her attending physician -while gathering other comparable medical opinions- will be more fruitful than addressing "the belly" alone.
luna
I would like to draw your attention to a subject which was a bit neglected during the last days - Sarah's newsweek interview at the beginning of March 2008. Only after I had found the right link to all the clips (five of them!), I realised how relevant these interviews are. In all five clips, Sarah is sitting with her LEGS CROSSED for the whole time and seems to extremely comfortable with it! Not bad for a woman who will give birth 6 weeks later!
First we thought that this interview happened at the 5th March 2008, but now Kathleen and I are pretty sure that it was the 3rd March 2008 (which wouldn't matter).
The original link to all five clips is here:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/156190
I also would like to point your attention again to this photo taken at the 1st March 2008, where Sarah bends over to stroke a dog....OUCH, that must hurt, mustn't it....?
;-)
Here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3043593247/
Patrick
I agree, there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence pointing to a fraudulent pregnancy. For the story to finally break through into the mainstream media, you need that piece of evidence that helps to tie everything together into a tightly woven narrative.
That smoking gun piece of evidence could be just one witness coming forward to contradict Palin's story based on his/her personal knowledge; a taped recording of conversations involving Sarah or Bristol Palin referring clearly to Bristol's pregnancy, not Palin's.
Luna - another point - isn't Dr. CBJ just a family practitioner? Mabye MatSu Hospital has a neo-natal stage 2 classification that would make the birth OK there, but surely a neonatal specialist would have to be involved with the diganosis and any advanced testing that you are discussing. Who would that person be? A FP is not going to be doing amnio. And we have already discussed several times about the judgment of a pro-lifer even having amnio, because of the risks.
Oops -- obviously, if Palin is Trig's mother, she is obvlivious to risks, isn't she!
Do we know who the perinatologist is? The doctor's report says that SP was also seeing a perinatologist. Where would he/she be located?
From a post on the Mudflats blog, here are some good illustrations of fetal development and size of mom at different stages of development:
Here is a photo illustration of the different shapes of third trimester bellies:
http://images.main.uab.edu/
healthsys/ei_0082.gif
Here is an illustration with the fetus inside showing the different weeks. Note the fetal development at 33 weeks.
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/
pregnancy3.html
I encourage those who think that it is possible that the photo of SP at 33 weeks is not proof that she is not pregnant to provide us with scientifically-valid evidence of where the fetus, placenta and amniotic sac could be hiding...it's time that they actually had to prove their implausible assertions, instead of just being nay-sayers!
By the way, for those FP physicians out there, I see on-line that they are looking for an FP in -- of all places -- Wasilla AK! Wonder if it's CBJ's old job? Makes me kind of wish I were an FP!!
Grace - Good catch on the perinatologist. Taber's medical dictionary says the perinatal period is the 28 days immediately before and after birth. Dictionary.com says it's from the 20th week of gestation to the 28th day of newborn life and that a perinatologist is an obstetrician who specializes in this period.
It seems to me that Dr. CBJ is saying that another obstetrician was involved. I wonder who that is? Perhaps the mystery OB handled the delivery and CBJ wrote the letter. If so, that would give CBJ plausible deniability and would account for the strange wording in the letter.
Ohio mom
If Palin admitted she mispoke about early labor in Texas, that there was no leakage but just different contractions or she went into a nesting frenzy or thought the fetus dropped -- or something not so dangerous as the amniotic sac rupturing, would that be enough to make the rest of her wild ride story not probable but at least possible? Just curious.-B.
"B" at 2:37pm --
"If Palin admitted she mispoke about early labor in Texas, that there was no leakage ... would that be enough to make the rest of her wild ride story not probable but at least possible?"
In my opinion, it would not be a matter of admitting that she misspoke. She would be admitting that she LIED. Then we wouldn't need to wonder anymore about the wild ride story. She would have pleaded guilty to lying.
And at that point, I would hope that a lot more people would be pressing for her admission of any other lies that she has told the American people.
Then, if no further admission of lying was forthcoming, I would hope that she would be forced to actually prove that she is Trig's biological mother, since it would be very evident (from her own admission of lying) that her own word about it could not be trusted.
Having already told us the wild ride story, she can't just erase it somehow with an "oops". The only thing she can say about it now is either that she lied, or that she was reckless and did not protect Trig's life, thus going against the pro-life values that she claims to have.
DM, mother of 4
I am still just so very stunned (naive, I guess?) as to why the mainstream media is totally ignoring this story.
To DM, mother of 4:
I would like to point out that in the official Governor's announcement about the birth, it was explicitly mentioned that the labour began in Texas!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3088434784/
There is no way that Sarah can get out of that.
Also, I would strongly recommend to listen to this highly interesting audio recording - Sarah Palin talks to the press about the birth, three days after Trig was born:
http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html
(click on: Palin talks about Trig three days after giving birth)
Patrick
Ohio mom, I went back and re-read CBJ's letter. It says she consulted with the perinatologist to rule out heart or other problms. She also said that the consult was to make sure that the baby could be delivered at the local community hospital. That doesn't sound consistent with the perinatologist delivering the baby. I just now researched perinatologists, and it seems that they typically do not deliver babies but sometimes attend the delivery if it is anticipated that the newborn will need immediate medical intervention upon birth. The letter indicates it was quite the opposite with Trig. She seems to make a point of saying that the consult was to allow SP to deliver at the local hospital as Trig did not suffer from any additional problems other than DS. It would still be interesting to know who this perinatologist was.
I don't think the mainstream media is going to take this story anywhere. They all seem satisfied with the doctor's report.
In trying to stumble across 2000/2001 pictures of Palin, I stumbled across this.
Semi-related content: Birthdates and birth weights for Willow and Piper.
Also, odds are improving of finding pregnancy pictures of Palin from her earlier (biological) children. It seems that she worked for KTUU from 1988-1996.
Overall, a well-researched piece.
http://tinyurl.com/6ghrg5
Thanks for keeping up this blog and researching to get to the bottom of this unbelievable story - many of your points are solid and insightful. I've heard it said that the deciding factor will be if Bristol gives birth this winter correlating with the announcement by the McCain campaign. But, the way I see it, if Palin has already gone this far to cover something up, she will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to continue the charade. If this was an elaborate cover up to "protect her family" (or whatever the reason was) then I doubt they would have a problem with coming up with a baby (even if they have to secretly adopt one) and attempting to use the media in order to keep up the image and try to prevent more questions being asked. Especially considering her heightened attention and national future ambitions. We need to know the truth about this.
I believe that mainstream media is ignoring this due to the children. My guess is that SP counted on that.
I agree with an earlier post that it would be good to concentrate on SP and not on Bristol, because of the damaging effects. But, I also agree that it is hard to do so when it was an apparent family charade.
I don't know what would push this topic into the mainstream media. Any ideas there? I'm guessing that another political run (prez, etc) will get it out there. I am passing this information along to both Republicans and Democrats so they are aware of the seriousness of this situation.
I am still wondering if anyone has seen Bristol/pictures of her from the last couple of weeks or so... She has totally dropped out of view after being dragged all over the nation during the campaign.
aThanks, Patrick, for the information.
I think that corroborates what I was saying to "B" at 2:37, who had asked the question, ""If Palin admitted she mispoke about early labor in Texas, that there was no leakage ... would that be enough to make the rest of her wild ride story not probable but at least possible?"
I was trying to explain, in answer to this question, that SP can't get out of it by saying, "Oops. I misspoke." Having represented that her water broke, if she then says it didn't, she's admitting to having lied (or at least going along with her father's lie, which is just as bad). With the info you have referenced, I would add that SP, having said she went into labor in TX, if she then says she didn't, she's admitting to having lied.
"B", I hope this helps answer your question.
Patrick, if there's something I missed, or something I'm not understanding, please let me know. And thanks for all your posts.
DM, mother of 4
Many great posts here! I have enjoyed them all. Luna, Ohio reader, and D.M.--you have done a great job bringing up the true issue of safety for Trig. I am sooo glad that you mentioned the perinatologist section of CBJ's letter. I have been thinking for a while that another doctor may have delivered Trig, so that CBJ, who is Palin's doctor, is not the baby's--and this allows for the possiblity that either the perinatologist or an obstetrician delivered Trig. Who knows, this might never come (are doctor's names on birth certificates?).
But I am glad that your sleuthing has shown that there is truly NO way to ensure that a DS baby will NOT need immediate, specialized medical attention after birth.
That letter and Palin's "gut" could not have protected them if something had happened to Trig.
I searched for perinatologists in Alaska. Apparently there are only three, according to Dr. Nelson Isada, who is a partner with Dr. Sherrie Richey in Alaska Perinatology Assoc. in Anchorage. There is also mention of a neonatologist, Dr. Jack Jacobs; I believe he works for Providence. The perinatologists are in the same building with several OBGYN and Womens Health practices. Hope this is helpful in some way.
Another thought. My hunch is that the McCain campaign found out about this situation, which may have led to comments like "whack job" and "diva, takes no one's counsel, not even her own family" (paraphrasing). What would she have been arguing with her family about during the campaign? If some of the Republican operatives know the truth, it is only a matter of time before one of Sarah's opponents hires them. Does anyone think this would be off limits in a presidential primary? Given the penchant for mud-smearing campaigns, I don't think anyone would spare Sarah and make families "off limits." She might be better off admitting the truth sooner, rather than having this hang over her head, never knowing when it's going to be revealed. If she did this, she could perhaps control the timing and the message to do the least damage politically. Otherwise, she'll be at the mercy of circumstance.
If Andrew Sullivan or Audrey could find out who Palin's medical insurance company is and write to them to suggest she may have defrauded them then they would likely investigate.
Another point that doesn't fit is that DS babies are typically 10-20% smaller for gestational age than non-DS babies. Six pounds is what you would expect at 35 weeks of a non-DS baby.
So, there are only THREE perinatologists in all of Alaska, and, I believe all of them are in Anchorage, corect? So... what business has SP driving PAST the three potential perinatologists, to a tiny little hospital out in the boonies of Wassilla?
Do any of the readers here have DS child? Is it customary for a DS child to be released the day after birth? Wouldn't they keep the tyke for observation for a couple of days?
I believe it should be pretty easy to find out who the health insurance carrier is for Alaska Stae employyes.
Thanks, DM. But if the Palinites here reported to Sarah that Andrew Sullivan and Audrey say the wild ride with leaking fluid is what keeps them going, then Sarah might be tempted to re-explain that part.
She could say that her father was wrong about the fluid but she first heard it in an interview and didn't think or want to say he was wrong. "But I should have."
Then she could say that the labor that started in Texas was just a change in contractions. (Only in retrospect, knowing the chain of events, could I say definitely when my labor started.)
Admitting to lying about fluid would be less serious than admitting to lying about pregnancy, delivery, and adoption.
Which is all meant to say that the nail-in-the-coffin photo and other lines of investigation are just as important to me as the wild ride. -B.
To B:
You have some good points. Here's what I think. If SP were to change her story and say that her water didn't break, and her labor didn't really start in TX, we wouldn't be spending a lot of time on it...EXCEPT for one thing--the fact that Trig was born on Apr. 18 (if not earlier), which was about four weeks earlier than she had said the baby was due.
If she had taken the wild ride, arriving at Mat-Su, only to be told that her water didn't break, and that she wasn't in labor, and to go home, return to work, and come back when something significant was happening, it wouldn't be a big deal. However, although she did return to work very soon afterward, she was no longer pregnant, and Trig was out.
The reason for the wild ride story was to explain Trig's birth, in Alaska, at that time. If she changed the wild ride story, such that she removed the reason for the birth being four weeks early, then she'd have to tell us the REAL reason Trig was born on April 18 (or whenever he was born), and what the REAL circumstances were.
I do think that the wild ride story is the main issue, and I think Luna has an EXCELLENT point, but I also agree that it's important to take other approaches (i.e. with the photos, etc.) as well.
DM
Post a Comment