I apologize for the delay, and before I say anything else (so I am not accused of being an incredible tease) I will say upfront that I am not going to release it until tomorrow. Why?
The reason that the report was so delayed is that the expert and I (over Christmas Eve and Christmas, so not exactly the most opportune days) were exchanging numerous emails that dealt not with his conclusions per se but with confusing issues about how Flickr (the source of the photos) handles photo data. During the analysis of the photos, we discovered that the photos were edited on Flickr by the account holder after they were uploaded on August 31st. As the expert I was working with was not really at all familiar with Flickr, I needed to get some answers concerning just how Flickr handles photos and displays data on photos after they have been uploaded. This took some time.
The post that will accompany the release of the report is going to be long and detailed, and will discuss not only the contents of the report but will give a concrete summary of other questions and concerns surrounding these photos. It is important that this post be as complete and well-documented as possible, because these two photos were (prior to the release of Dr. Baldwin-Johnson's medical letter on November 3rd) the single most often pointed at "proof" that Sarah Palin was pregnant with Trig last spring. I am expecting this to be the most scrutinized post that I have put on my blog, and I can't risk anything less than total accuracy. I simply did not have the time this evening to finish this post. So, again, my apologies, but I truly have been dealing since Monday - over the holidays - with questions that I never anticipated arising when I first asked him to do this work.
Meanwhile, I'd like to offer two comments I have received in emails over the last two days. Both individuals express my feelings exactly, and I thought I'd share their words with you.
This from B******:
I'm a mother of 5, one of those crispy granola homebirthing gals that somehow survived the Reagan years.
And I don't KNOW exactly why it bothers me that Sarah Palin lied about having that baby, but I never believed it...not from the first picture, timeline, breath of information about it. Most of the careful moms I know don't believe it either. It just seems so wrong to me that someone would wave a prop baby around for as unimportant a reason as being elected. It seems wrong that she'd drag Bristol through it. It just isn't nice behavior.
That's hardly a political jeremiad, is it? :oD
So I check into your site occasionally, and I wanted to thank you before the old year ends for helping represent, well, the common sense of women. As Judy Grahn so eloquently put it: "I swear it to you/ I swear it. on my common woman's head/. The common woman is as common. as a -loaf of bread/ and will rise /"
Back to my baking. Happy New Year. :o)
B******
And this from K*****
Watching Sarah Palin through your eyes and the eyes of blog commenters has been educational -- about her psychology, about our psychology as Americans, and the psychology of the media. Although we still don't know the truth, the evidence you amassed proves beyond a reasonable doubt that SP lied regarding her (non) pregnancy and the circumstances of Trig's birth. But no external proof should have been needed. SP was given the benefit of a doubt that should never have existed.
That's by no means a criticism of your work, since the doubts were there-- and incredibly, still are-- but I wonder what would have happened had they been met more forcefully from the beginning by reporters and commentators.
Everyone who questioned her story said she had either been incredibly reckless or was lying. We use "incredibly" loosely, but here the word should have had its literal force. If SP had said last summer that she executed an eight-foot high jump, no one would have said she was either an incredible athlete or a liar. I suppose there's a difference, in that it is physically possible that a pregnant woman leaking amniotic fluid could have pulled the stunt she says she did without having to avail herself of business-class obstetrical facilities at 30,000 feet. But no woman in touch with reality would have risked it, and if SP was out of touch with reality for a moment, Todd was there to say no, but the down-to-earth "First Dude" gamely made the airline reservations. She should have been called out as a liar from the get-go, and her failure to respond with anything more than her own uncorroborated statement that Bristol was five months pregnant and couldn't have given birth to Trig (which, of course, did not prove that SP had), should have ditched her candidacy then and there.
We need to ask hard questions about Americans' apparent need for charismatic leaders, our eager willingness to suspend disbelief, to play along as if we were watching a movie or television show instead of choosing a leader with tremendous power over our lives. (The same was going on with Obama, but at least there is substance to him despite his inexperience, and he and his campaign did respond to accusations, while McCain-Palin simply stonewalled and sought to suppress evidence.) Via the internet, you and others are creating a new "journalism" that is our best hope in resisting the corrupt partnership of politics-as-entertainment and entertainment-as-journalism that will continue to serve up bread and circuses, indulgence and gossip, until the barbarians crash the gates.
God bless you, and merry Christmas,
K*****
97 comments:
Those are some killer emails! Thank you and amen.
Mary g.
An airline cabin is commonly pressurized to 7,000 to 8,000 feet.
As a bush pilot in Alaska, my husband was trying to get a woman in labor to the nearest hospital, almost three hours away by small plane. As I remember it, she was dilated to about 2 or 3 when they took off. At a couple of thousand feet, the change in pressure accelerated her dilation rapidly. He quickly came back and landed at our village. I raced down to the airstrip in the pickup, arriving in time to see the baby being delivered in the back of the Cessna. Youngest baby I ever held, less than a minute old.
So, I don't know if this is an isolated event, but I remember we joked about renting a plane when I was overdue and getting a change in pressure to accelerate things.
Does anyone else have any info on change in air pressure accelerating labor?
Unless this so called expert is revealed his/her credentials listed what makes them an expert, I see the report as just more of what we get here assumptions, guesses and wild accusations.
It will be interesting to see how this address but I have a feeling like so much here, we are not going to get the proper questions answered and are only going to get the part of the story that fits this blog.
@anon at 9:24
I live at 6000 feet above sealevel. Pregnant women are advised not to travel here during the last months of their pregnancy because the change in altitude/pressure very often brings on early labor.
To NOTALIB:
Then why are you here and why do you care?
You just want to argue with someone.
All I can say is that the letter by K*****,
deserves it own place in the history of this entire episode.
THANK you for summing up so eloquently why it matters so deeply that we contemplate how this could have happened.
Note to Audrey - please be sure and personally send Notalib your Photoshop expert's complete credentials, and maybe even his/her social security number and shoe size. We wouldn't want Notalib to think he/she is a phony, now would we? Since Notalib has obviously been anxiously awaiting your photo info post, perhaps you might want to even personally call him/her with the news first. We can wait.
As we have said here repeatedly, and Notalib knows, there is one person who can REALLY answer all our questions. From whom we can get the whole story, sans the speculation.
But Sarah refuses to clear this all up with a few simple photos and documents. She could send us all a big FU - and put this "baby" to rest. For some reason, she is unable to do this. So we continue to wonder - and obviously, Notalib does too.
"notalib" is the new "annoyance poster."
people loved to hate on craig, but in the end he gave some devil's advocate commentary that made people think, i didn't mind him at all in the big picture.
"notalib" (as in not-a[n evil]- lib[eral]? implying it's a dirty word? if so, just go back to reading your ann coulter, hating everyone who might be different than you, and sulk in silence, please. lol!) just wants to be inflammatory without adding to the discussion, as far as i can tell.
that said, the point on "the expert" is a bit valid.
audrey, since you've said you're drawing up this next post carefully -and expecting much scrutiny- it IS a good idea to give the name and credentials of the expert digital photo analyst. if s/he is a professional in this field (and i hope so, since you said it was a paid consultation) revealing the "qualifications" of this individual would not be a breach of his/her privacy in any way.
just trying to prevent your work from genuine, rational angles of discrediting argument, because your work is good. please keep it up.
thank you.
always, luna
People keep referring to Sarah's flight back home from Texas in such hyperbolic terms (such as incredibly reckless, and that only a woman out of touch with reality would do so, etc.), and yet I have yet to read any opinions, let alone what should apparently be a consensus, of medical experts who will match that degree of shock and disbelief.
They just tend to give the basic advisory regarding late-term women, a very general level of concern from a third-party perspective, and a recommendation that they would have advised her to see a local doctor for an examination before boarding a plane.
So, though they tend to express a basic concern, based upon the general circumstances, a number of them have SPECIFICALLY stated that the decision still comes down to Sarah's doctor and Sarah herself, in agreeing what to do.
If this decision was anywhere near as insanely reckless and incredibly foolhardy as people insist in describing it, there is NO REASON for the medical community to have been so tempered in their responses!! Medical experts would have ZERO problems with harshly judging the medical decisions of others, especially in what is being described on this site as clear-cut, complete wanton disregard for the life of a late-term fetus, as well as the mother.
In fact, if such a popular public figure (as Sarah is) was modeling utterly apalling judgement for other admiring and similarly-situated women to emulate, it seems certain that a national OB/Gyn-related medical association would have felt mandated to issue a public statement condeming this action and strongly advising women about the high risk that they are, in fact, taking by doing such a clearly irresponsible act!!!
And yet, no such statement ever appeared, and no published individual ob/gyn assessment has ever matched the outrage expressed by people on this site.
That speaks volumes to me about just exactly what the realistic, professionally-based risk level was for this flight back home.
Was there some level of risk? I'm sure there was, as can be presumed by the actual concerns given by the experts who were interviewed. But Sarah and her doctor did not feel it was an "unreasonable" risk to fly. And the fact that quoted medical opinion tended to ultimately defer to the patient-doctor judgement in this case, seems to confirm that the risk could very well be seen as acceptable.
So, even though the following request will probably be ignored, can we ratchet down the level of outrage and disgust regarding the "wild ride" to more closely match professional medical opinion?
@Notalib
Hello!
Yes, indeed, why are you here?
You and the other ANON who has been accusing this blog/the owner of the blog because they allow anonymous comments. Isn't this amazing? How more hypocrite a person can be? You, Notalib, might be thinking you're not an ANON just because you "publish a blog". C'mon, please give us a break!
Notalib.. please tell us who you're since you ask the Photoshop Expert's identity and his credentials. How about you, yourself? Perhaps you're an important person so let us find out who you're first.
BTW, the way you express yourself is just like SP.. Could it be SP? Of course, it could.
Just read these lines that you wrote:
" It will be interesting to see how this address but I have a feeling like so much here, we are not going to get the proper questions answered and are only going to get the part of the story that fits this blog. "
You sound just like SP:-)
Notalib, now please tell us what you think about SP's pregnancy story(perhaps you know it best, the truth), using her kids for political gain, telling lies one after another, inciting hatred and violence during the campaign, saying horrrible things about Obama.
Please tell us what makes you believe SP is Trig's mother. Please also tell us who you think Trig's father is and why do you think that's the case. Please also tell us what you think about SP and her connection with Mrs. Johnston. Do you think SP didn't know anything about Sherry Johnston's drug business? Finally, I would be so glad if you could enlighten us about Palin's house and how that house was built.
I could go on, Notalib but I gotta go to work( I am on the other side of the pond). Yes, not only Americans but the rest of the world is following this outrageous deception.
By the way, Notalib, since you've been stopping by almost daily for the photoshop expert's report, please note that the Americans and rest of the world are still waiting for BP's baby birth news. Don't you think it's a little overdue?
Finally, Notalib, nobody is attacking or accusing SP on this blog. Everyone is seeking the truth which will be revealed sooner or later. Personally, I know and am convinced that SP is not Trig's biological mother. I don't think BP is either. I mean this is really not a rocket science:-|
Notalib said...
" Unless this so called expert is revealed his/her credentials listed what makes them an expert, I see the report as just more of what we get here assumptions, guesses and wild accusations.
It will be interesting to see how this address but I have a feeling like so much here, we are not going to get the proper questions answered and are only going to get the part of the story that fits this blog.
December 26, 2008 9:27 PM
I realize that many of you view notalib as the gravel in your shoe but he does have a point about identifying the photoshop expert. Think about what your reactions would have been if Palin had released a medical report without identifying the doctor. Consider also the possibility of the MSM picking up the story. No way for them to verify it or contact the expert for more information without a name.
Many, many commenters have pointed out that although Palin's doctor is a physician, her specialty isn't OB/GYN, as if that makes her less of an "expert" on childbirth. That same logic can be applied to an expert in any field, including photoshop. They all have specific areas of expertise.
If he is truly an expert, and I assume he is if he's charging for his services, then he should have no problem being identified and standing behind his conclusions. To remain anonymous just puts him on the list of those with theories and opinions.
I have absolutely no doubt that Audrey's conclusions are correct and the truth will eventually surface, but only with concrete evidence and unassailable proof, not wild hypotheses and anonymous expert opinions. I would hate to see all the time and energy and money Audrey has expended being wasted if the conclusions of the expert are written off because they weren't attributed.
Eva in New Orleans: Well said.
OTOH, you surely must get a chuckle from the desperate impotency of this wheedling, whining troll. I certainly do!
Ir getting Late for Bristol! But, here is something to consider. We have Sherry Johnston going down for Oxycontin. Don't we all have to think she for sure knows the truth about Trig. Don't you think she would take a 50-100K(at least) offer for full disclosure of the truth of the birth. I would bet that she has been offered such by the National Enquirer or any other truth seekers out there. If no one talks soon, then Sarah's version has to be true.
And what exactly are the credentials, Notalib, that make you such an expert? Pray do tell. You have been screaming for days for the release of the Photoshop report and now that you have been told that it will conclusively and accurately be released you are finding new excuses not to believe it.
I am one of those who gave you the benefit of the doubt - read your comments and thought about your arguments. BUT NO MORE!!!
You are a Troll and your presence here is just as much a deception as SP's about the birth of Trig. You pretend that your motives are sincere and that you are JUST questioning the reasoning and conclusions of the posters here - attacking them for hiding behind anonymous names when in actuality NOTALIB is an anonymous name too, is it not? If not, then who are you? Really? Reveal YOUR credentials.
Tell us why we should give your messages any more attention when they patently exist only to cause dissent and disruption and damage the trust that Audrey has built up between herself and her readers.
I for one do not trust you, Notalib. Drink your poisoned chalice yourself and have done with it, why don't you?
TO Eva: Because I don't think this type of witch hunt, and that's all this is, should go unchallenged.
But I guess you are correct why should I care, all no one is paying any kind of attention to this except for people who stumble across this on the Internet. Let's be serious, you are using pictures from a Internet site being "studied" by an "expert" of photoshop.
We have tons of post here of all kind of tinfoil ideas that are bordering on a slander.
There is not one shred of REAL evidence that has been discussed only what-ifs and assumptions.
I know people deny it, but it comes down that the majority of the women are threatned by her here. You dislike she has been successful in life without playing the victim like progressive women seem to have the need to do. You dislike that she has conservative values. You dislike she has religion. But what it really boils down to is she is a threat to all of you because she is a conservative.
As a perfectly happy, successful woman in a field that used to be 'non-traditional' for women, I find it ridiculous that we - our entire gender, apparently - need to like and admire all other women or our own security and sense of self-worth is called into question.
Does this apply to all minorities - which, as a conglomerate, are now the majority? I certainly respect a black person's right to dislike Obama - either personally or politically.
I've got my guess as to which 'category' you belong, and I'm willing to bet that you don't like and admire every successful and ambitious member of that group. (Cough - Blagojevich/Hitler/Nixon - cough!) NOT that I'm comparing Palin to Hitler, by any stretch. Just making a point here.
I think I can speak for others as I say that we women are very admiring of other women who deserve our respect. I think Condi Rice is pretty amazing, and I don't even agree with her politics!
So, get over yourself and please do us all a favor and learn how to proofread your comments before hitting send. In general, slowing down and thinking about what you are about to say is never a bad idea! Every year that is my one of my top New Year's resolutions. I've made some 'thinking out loud' comments on this blog and regretted it.
Having complete sentences, correct spelling, etc. will make people take you more seriously, if that is at all what you are interested in. At the very least, they will focus on your ideas rather than the apparent fact that you are incapable of using proper English!
To anonymous at 2:15 am -
I just made a comment to Notalib and was going to mention the similarity of his/her style to that of SP, but I forgot. Thanks for pointing it out!!
And with regards to my comment, that is just one of the many reasons that we don't feel SP deserves our respect! How insulting is it to women to have the one candidate that has had the best chance (so far) to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, be one with a strange patchwork of a college journalism degree, no interest in reading or keeping up with any news beyond the borders of her state (except watching for Putin's ugly head), and an inability to form complete, coherent sentences? And that's not even counting the lies and all the other shenanigans!
Notalib,
I'm a conservative, and was an ardent Reaganite, so I'm not threatened by Palin because she is supposedly a conservative (in fact, her record of big-spending makes her anything but). I am not threatened by her in an personal sense. I feel my country is under threat if a person so ignorant and mean-spirited could come so close to the Presidency.
PLEASE DON"T FEED THE TROLLS
I'm about to ignore my own advice. Sigh.
notalib says:
You dislike that she has conservative values. You dislike she has religion....she is a threat to all of you because she is a conservative.
Why don't you tell it to Andrew Sullivan?
As far as I know, Sullivan was the first person to call attention to Palin's bogus birth story (even before Audrey started her website). Sullivan remains skeptical and continues to link here from his "Daily Dish" blog--one of the most-read blogs on the net.
Andrew Sullivan is a CONSERVATIVE and a CHRISTIAN. He is the author of The Conservative Soul (HarperCollins 2006) and he constantly writes about conservative and Christian issues. He sees Sarah Palin for what she is: a liar. His blog was relentless in exposing her lies, from "The Bridge to Nowhere" to Troopergate to the wardrobe fiasco to you name it. Like many other CONSERVATIVES (George Will, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Colin Powell, just to name a few), he saw that Palin was not qualified for vice president. Even the CONSERVATIVE insiders in the McCain campaign, who worked with her day-to-day, saw through her. So, notalib, do you think that these CONSERVATIVES also "dislike" Palin because they see her as "a threat...because she is a conservative" ???
The motto of Sullivan's blog is from George Orwell: "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."
Think about it.
Luke
That Sarah Palin is a conservative has nothing to do with this search for truth about the literally unbelievable report she gave of Trig's birth. Some of us ARE conservatives! The search for truth about those who would be our leaders is fundamental and valid.
Many of us are legitimately concerned that SP is a dishonest, narcissistic and immoral power-seeker who must also have her "fix" of celebrity and adulation. The combination is dangerous. How did she get where she is today? I'm not saying she has no talent or credentials; but she is also a major-league liar and a back-stabber with the best of them. We know that she has abused her power; appointed unqualified cronies to positions of power and responsibility; sought earmarks and then claimed she opposed them; charged Alaska's taxpayers per diems for staying in her own home; billed for travel for her kids even when they were not invited to events; was a reckless spendthrift with RNC cash; used her family as props; and there are suspicions that should be investigated regarding how her house was built.
We now know -- thanks to the evidence of the photos from mid-to-late-March -- that she was not pregnant last spring. There is no doubt about that; the "nail in the coffin" and "fun with Photoshop" photos prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
SP could reveal the deception and still get away with it by cloaking herself in the mantle of protector of her family. But there is no longer any reasonable doubt that she lied and created an elaborate hoax.
I think the other thing that bothers me (and possibly others) is that she is self-righteous and imposes her "morality" on others. But when you look more closely at her morality, it is reminiscent of many other extreme moralists who are later revealed to be sinners themslves. These are classic cases of psychological projection as a defense mechanism for their own moral failings and weaknesses. (Here is Wiki's definition of psychological projection: ... psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts and/or emotions to others. According to (Wade, Tavris, 2000) projection occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else..[1] An example of such simple behavior would be; blame for failure, making an excuse for your own faults by projecting the cause of said failure onto someone else, hence blaming them and not accepting the reality of the failure.
In SP's case, we now know -- she said it! -- that her earlier pregancies were all full-term. This means, of course, that she was pregnant when she got married. Yet she advocates and promotes abstinence only and no abortion, even in the case of rape or incest.
The combination of her self-righteousness, projection, and narcissistic personality, and it's now a very dangerous mixture. If she wielded even more power, she would pose a real and present danger.
--Truthseeker2
Want to spend the next 12 months with Sarah Palin? Apparently many people do, as the 2009 Sarah Palin calendar is currently the number one selling "office product" on Amazon.
CNN notes that the calendar was made by Former Wasilla Deputy Mayor Judy Patrick.
Sherry Johnston was arrested to give a reason to call off the wedding plans between Bristol and Levi. Now the baby can be "born" in secret and given up for adoption anonymously. Bristol can now raise her son Trig, and all will be forgotten. Timing is everything.
to Craig:
"If this decision was anywhere near as insanely reckless and incredibly foolhardy as people insist in describing it, there is NO REASON for the medical community to have been so tempered in their responses!! Medical experts would have ZERO problems with harshly judging the medical decisions of others, especially in what is being described on this site as clear-cut, complete wanton disregard for the life of a late-term fetus, as well as the mother."
Do doctors really have "ZERO problems" in publicly criticizing the decisions and actions of other doctors? My impression was just the opposite: that doctors are incredibly reluctant to do so, and will do almost anything to avoid doing so.
Granted, my impression is not based on personal knowledge. I'm not a doctor, and don't have any close friends who are, so I can't ask anyone easily. But that's what I recall reading, in relation to legal cases where people have brought suit against doctors -- that just as there is a blue wall of silence among police, there is a white wall of silence among doctors.
I'm hard-pressed to recall any case in which doctors spoke out publicly about the incompetence or mal-practice of another doctor -- at least not before legal proceedings had already established it. Can you? If you are right that doctors have no problem in doing this, there must be dozens of cases you can cite in which this has happened.
I think it may be equally significant that, to my knowledge, no chorus of doctors has come forward to affirm Palin's doctor and to say there was nothing odd or disquieting about it. Why is that? Shouldn't it be even easier to find doctors who'd be willing to speak up in support of a fellow doctor's decision? And yet I don't recall reading any statements even from Johnson's colleagues at Mat-Su hospital in support of the advice she reportedly gave to Palin.
/
Happy New Year to Audrey, Morgan, Kathleen & Patrick, and a lovely group of others who have been so generous with time and information (and money!). I'm praying for a beautiful, successful year for each of you.
The posts by 'notalib' and 'Craig' are extremely interesting. Their intensity tells me that the Sarah Palin group is genuinely worried about Audrey's blog. Possibly the narrative of the birth of Trig contains some very real criminal acts, and SP is at risk. Please keep on doing what you're doing, Audrey and all! cheers, grammy
To WayofPeace:
A Sarah Palin calendar? Seriously? Oh God, please tell me the April shot shows off her empathy belly.....
Truthseeker and Luke made very valued points, Notalib, ones that you should read. There are conservatives, liberals, and independents on this blog, granted mostly women, and mostly those who have had children. As mothers (no matter what our political leanings), we simply cannot believe the bizarre Trig pregnancy/birth story as SP has retold it herself in the press. It just is not humanly possible. Couple that with these pictures, and you've got more than enough proof to logically come to the conclusion that SP more than likely did not give birth to Trig.
Notalib, are you a dad? Sounds like you don't have a whole lot of experience with childbirth, the focal point of this blog.
I urge you to speak at length with women you know or are related to about their own pregnancy and childbirth experiences, especially those who have had multiple pregnancies and high risk pregnancies. Ask questions, most moms are not uptight when it comes to talking about their kids. You will be enlightened. Then go back and read through SP's pregnancy and birth related interviews. You will quickly realize they just don't add up.
I will not get into SP's ethics and "family values", since we all know how well that has worked for her and her family...she needs to practice what she preaches and get her own house in order.
FW from VA
To Craig and Notalib and other buyers of Sarah's "wild ride" story: I'm certain none of you has witnessed nor personally experienced labor and delivery. Had you any knowledge of the agonizing pain, vulnerability and helplessness a woman endures during the process, you'd have some shred of doubt about her story.
I'd like to suggest you watch a show called "A Baby Story" on the Discovery Channel. At the end of each episode, a woman is filmed giving birth- quite graphically at times. Some have pain blocking epidurals in the hospital, some have home births with no pain medication, some have water births with no pain medication in a midwife center etc.
After you watch a few, come back and tell us if you still truly believe that Sarah, having already experienced 4 births, would get on a 9 hour commercial flight already engaged in active labor.
Audrey, Thank you and your friends for all you have done. Sarah Palin was and continues to be the biggest threat to our country in my lifetime. (And, I am sixty six years old.) It continues to amaze me that men who were scared to death of Hillary embraced Palin with their tails wagging and lips salivating.
If the economy had not "tanked" when it did, we would easily have had Palin for VP This would have been the end of our great country.
Yes, the press has been derelict in their duty to us, but thank goodness we have people such as yourself who are curious and industrious enough to assume the duty of investigation. In my opinion you are a patriot of the highest order. When you get right down to it John McCain was a traitor to his country for putting someone like Palin on the ticket. He betrayed his country to benefit his ego. He's an old man looking for one last chance at the "brass ring." It would have been better if he had just bought himself a red sports car.
Again, Audrey, you are the woman of the year - a real American patriot.
what about the doctored medical records PDF from CBJ? That was supposed to be looked at as well and needs to be examined and explained. I havent seen a doc that doctored since my days in the photo darkroom.
Craig, I've made this point before, but I believe it needs to be reiterated. No competent physician would make any recommendation regarding travel during late pregancy and possible early labor without first examining the woman. There is virtual unanimity on that point among physicians who have commented. Yes, it is ultimately a decision made between the doctor and the patient, but one needs to read between the lines here. It is a decision which would be based on objective clinical data, i.e., physical signs, not discernable from across a continent. I have been a medical professional for almost thirty years. In my experience, physicians are very hestitant to second guess the decisions of other physicians. The unwritten rule is "judge not, lest you be judged." Even if they privately and vehemently disagree with a colleague, they will publicly rachet down their public comments several notches and leave some wiggle room.
Maybe such a decision as SP and doctor purport to have made doesn't reach the level of wanton disregard for baby and mother. How much risk would be acceptable in your opinion? As a mother of five, I try to imagine myself in a similar situation. How much risk would I have been willing to take? To give birth in my home state? None at all.
After Sarah Palin is shown to be the shameless, lying opportunist that she is, let us remember another thin chapter in the 2008 race. That would be of the accused email hacker, David Kernell. As far as I can tell he is innocent. The reason for the the hack (inside job) was to shield Palin's emails from scrutiny during Toopergate. Let us hope that the witch hunt that tried to destroy this kid's life is over.
http://terryfrank.net/?p=3591
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/father-of-hacker-is-tennessee-dem-state.html
"many commenters have pointed out that although Palin's doctor is a physician, her specialty isn't OB/GYN, as if that makes her less of an "expert" on childbirth."
Well... yeah. Since she's not an OB/GYN, she isn't as much of an expert on childbirth as an OB would be. That would be why they have credentialing in specialty fields, so people can develop expertise in varying fields of medicine.
I've been watching for some time, but not yet commented. I am a midwife, lactation consultant, childbirth educator, mother of four, grandmother of three. I've always felt that the entire cycle of pregnancy, birth, and mothering was sacred, above question. My only comment is that I have never in 28 years seen a "pregnancy" treated as did SP with Trig. Before I saw a scrap of conversation regarding this, my gut told me that something was amiss. She acted in a manner unlike any woman I've ever worked with, and continues to do so. Nearly all the women I've worked with are actually more open and somewhat vulnerable during the entire cycle, which, imho, is preparatory for the act of birthing, which is total surrender. Nothing new here, just that I've never seen such rigid control, and my hairs raise when I review the conversation here.
I don't know what it will take to reveal the truth, or if it will be accepted when presented. I just know that her every mothering act flies in the face of every mothering instinct I've ever held.
To Anon at 2:15am and Jeanie:
Bingo! I have thought the same thing since s/he started posting. It isn't just the spelling, grammar and massacre of the English language ... we all know plenty of people who fit into that category (sadly). It is the way she speaks. I have never heard anyone express themselves or their thoughts quite that way. It is almost singular in style. Palinspeak is, indeed, the only way to describe it. Hmm ... the mind reels, at least mine does.
Audrey, you are doing a masterful job of gathering evidence and we thank you!
Personally, I don't care how poorly she speaks, writes, etc., I just want her exposed for what she is ... mendacious, narcissistic and DANGEROUS. We cannot afford to have these types in power ... we have enough problems, at present. Period.
Happy holidays to all,
C.
TO Anonymous regarding Andrew Sullivan, you called him a conservative OH PLEASE he is your typical RINO, lets take a look at this person you bring forth.
He endorsed Senator John Kerry for President in 2004, in 2006, he supported the Democratic Party's takeover of Congress. He can accept legalized abortions in the first trimester. Sullivan endorsed Senator Barack Obama.
He has made remarks about his conversion to "Obamaism". During an appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher on September 19, 2008, Sullivan described himself as a "religious secularist".
This is NOT a conservative.
PS Dekay thanks for the statement so I could update the Sarah Palin Conspiracy page today. Now I wish KoJo would come back she gives me great quotes for that page when she is here.
responding to NOTLIB, SP and all those members of the religious right who just DON'T get JESUS:
'of course the church is conservative for it has so much to conserve.
'but let the church in remembering christ remember that it's conserving the most uprooting, the most revolutionary force ...
'for it was christ who crossed every boundary, broke down every barrier.
'he crossed the boundaries of class
by eating with the outcasts.
'he crossed the boundaries of nations by pointing to a samaritan as the agent of god's will
'he transgressed religious boundaries by claiming the sabbath was made for man and not man for sabbath.
'everywhere he manifested his freedom
and called others to theirs, calling them from families,national and religious loyalties
to loyalty to the world at large.'
–william coffin
Gotta agree with Tullyxred's post regarding medical commentary. I've also been a healthcare professional for years (34 and counting) and doctors do not want to publicly criticize other doctors.
There are just too many risks involved in the Flight Out of Texas for it to be a valid medical decision. It's her (alleged) 5th pregnancy- it could go very fast. She's leaking amniotic fluid, with its associated risk of infection and prolapsed umbilical cord. She's having a DS baby, and they don't know how critically unstable the baby will be- will he have heart defects? She's on an airplane, and they are not pressurized to sea level, they're pressurized to maybe 10,000 feet, which might increase/induce labor as well as reducing oxygen supply to the baby. And she bypasses three perfectly good locations with Level 3 nurseries available: Dallas, Seattle and Anchorage... to go to a small rural facility that doesn't even do twin births. Sarah Palin did this, she said, in order to have a child born in Alaska. (Apparently, Anchorage isn't in Alaska. Who knew?)
My feeling is that for some reason known only to the gods and Sarah Palin, she was faking a pregnancy. She had to get back to Alaska promptly. Instead of saying, "we're moving the flight up to X time; there's a family situation developing" which would have explained the change in travel plans and prevented questions, she tells this insane tarradiddle, thinking it makes her look all brave and plucky, on the order of "squat on a pile of grass and be back in the fields by sundown" sort of way. It never occurred to her that she might wind upwith that story actually being scrutinized. She doesn't seem to have much understanding of how she's coming across to others, or what's realistic and appropriate behavior.
As an aside, let's remark on her complete and utter thoughtlessness regarding other people. Every single person on that plane would have been inconvenienced if they had had to make an emergency landing to get her to a healthcare facility. None of that was considered.
Ivyfree
Notalib, you are starting to wear thin, even on those of us who have tried to defend you.
If you could, wipe that foam off your mouth and listen up. Your reasoning about Andrew Sullivan is exactly what cost the GOP this election. And it's why your girl Sarah is seen by so many as such a distasteful figure.
A person can be a conservative without being a religious conservative.
A person can be a Christian without being a fundamentalist.
The intolerant right wing wants to define conservatives and Christians in a very, very narrow way. People don't generally like to be defined unless they lack imagination or are too lazy to define themselves.
I think that's why the right wing has lost its stranglehold on the GOP. Even many Republican conservatives are uncomfortable with the brand of conservatism people like you would have them wear.
Who are you, anyway, to define what is Christian and what is Conservative?
The two emails you posted, Audrey, are proof of your credibility, professionalism, and hard work. They are articulate and thoughtful and better express the same ideas I've tried to say for the months I've been reading this blog.
Last night I argued with a dear friend, a former NYTIMES reporter, and tried to explain to him why this issue (and your blog) matters.
"She's dead," Bill said. "Palin's old news. She's a loser, and she'll never make it to 2012. Move on to the real stories ahead."
That's the MM attitude. Especially from New York. Those people are isolated from SP's supporters and base. They don't get the real story-- forgive me-- maybe just because they're men.
We've lived through embezzlers and philanderers, drug addicts and sex addicts in politics. We've never faced a political woman who uses her ability to produce life as FRAUD. This is new territory.
Thanks again, Audry, for being the Pioneer to Go There.
Y'all know, that if you ignore Notalib, he would go away. Go on though, continue to feed him. I used to love reading the comments here and today, blah. Mostly debating with Notalib. Take it to his page. It's not getting anybody anywhere. Use HIS comments section.
PS - Interesting about air pressure speeding up dilation.
I must also say that my friend Bill, the ex-NYTIMES reporter, also said, "Palin is a total liar. Everything about her says so. Anyone with a brain saw it. The majority of American people saw through her and voted against her. Serious journalists didn't touch her because it would have been like making fun of a handicapped person. You people should just stop giving her the attention she craves. . ."
An, dear friend Bill. Those are the glib remarks of a smarty pants, intelligent person.
But there you have another reason Palin appeals to that limited fundamentalist base and why the MM won't bother.
___
And I say starve the dissenters who frequent here. They don't pose questions they want answers to. They are agitaters who divert us from the real issues.
Notalib, you call Andrew Sullivan a RINO ("Republican In Name Only") because he endorsed Obama, etc.
You're confused. "Republican" is a political party. "Conservative" is an ideology. The two are NOT the same.
George Bush, for example, is a Republican. He is not a conservative.
Andrew Sullivan is not a Republican. ("Of No Party Or Clique" is the subtitle of his blog.) He is a conservative--a thinking conservative, with a deep understanding of the history of conservatism in the English-speaking world. He sees clearly that Bush, Cheney, et al, have betrayed the true conservative values of Reagan and Thatcher; thus his endorsements of Kerry and Obama.
This discussion is getting way off-topic, but I couldn't let such ignorance pass. Let's get back to Palin's Deceptions, shall we?
Luke
And as far as the Palin calendar being an Amazon bestseller-- how many people do you think bought it as a Christmas joke? I bet it ended up under many hip liberal Christmas trees-- and in the trash can this morning.
_____
What if the high altitude affect on labor could be a smoking gun? What if it would be impossible to fly and NOT give birth if you were in the conditions Palin says she was?
Actually, there would be no need to directly criticize Sarah's doctor. All any commenting doctor would have to focus on is Sarah's judgement in making this decision.
With everything else that the press and the pundits came up with regarding Palin during the election cycle (i.e., mismanagement as a mayor, victim-paid rape kits, tanning beds, travel allowances for her kids, bridge to nowhere, troopergate, church beliefs, Todd's DUI, Track's rumored troubles, etc), how does this juicy low-hanging fruit get ignored?
Just imagine these talking points: "Sarah Palin displays complete lack of judgement in flying home with a late-term DS fetus! Pro-life advocate shows complete disregard for life by putting her own baby in high-risk peril in order to fly home! How can a person with such utterly reckless lack of judgement be trusted to be one heartbeat away from handling the fate of an entire Country?
Think about it. With all the negative revelations that the media put out on a DAILY basis about Palin last Fall, how could they have passed on such an obvious narrative as this to discredit her??? The media showed no hesitation in digging up all sorts of information about her personal life. So why stop here? This storyline would have been a no-brainer to publish and would have been pounced on incessantly by political pundits and the media in general. Why waste time with the cost of clothing, when you could drop a bomb like this among female voters, in which you can speak to such a criminally-unsound decision by a mother to put her baby in such obvious, medically-confirmed, life-threatening danger? It would single-handedly destroy her rep with the pro-life crowd.
So why is it that this angle wasn't used? It's because, although doctors raised some concern about precautions that might have been taken, none of them had the level of alarm or outrage that would be needed to make this story truly resonate with the public. Even the medical community understood that it would be an overreach to proclaim this as the kind of medically unsound decision-making that many on this site want to label it as.
As I said before, a medical association could have issued a statement proclaiming this action of Palin's as being outside of any reasonable medical advise that would be given for this situation. This would still get the message across and yet keep any individual doctor from having to stick their neck out there. Such an association would have felt a moral imperative to denounce an outrageous action by such a high-profile public figure, in order to keep other pregant women from following her lead.
But they didn't. Because the truth is, that the choice made by Palin and her doctor was NOT outside the boundry of "reasonable risk" (no matter how much some people may wish it to be otherwise).
DeKay at 12/27 6:35
That is exactly what I believe.
i take back what i said about craig sometimes providing a "devil's advocate" worth thinking on, now he's just proving he doesn't listen to others well. sad really.
counter-points to his latest argument ("the wild-ride isn't wild! ALL doctors implicitly approve because they're not attacking palin in the press!") has been well addressed in the comments on this thread and others. too bad he isn't processing what's been said.
luna
****Moderation Alert****
Audrey and I have talked and we've come to a decision regarding all the attention Notalib is getting.
We're putting a stop to it.
I admit I got sucked in as well, but as several of you have pointed out, his Troll Goal has been to disrupt and derail this conversation and he appears to have been succeeding.
From this point on, we won't be approving any posts about Notalib and/or his motives, as they've become redundant.
Per Notalib, while he may take part in the debate *if* he has something substantial to say, his redundant spewings stop now. If he wants to carry on, he can do it on his own blog.
We would ask you all NOT to clog the comments section with responses to what I've written, whether it's to say you agree or disagree.
Given the volume of comments, this is just something we've decided as necessary.
Notalib had his fifteen minutes of blog attention here and his time is now up. Let's move on.
Thanks for your cooperation
"Actually, there would be no need to directly criticize Sarah's doctor. All any commenting doctor would have to focus on is Sarah's judgement in making this decision"
I'm a lawyer and I can tell you that most doctors would take any criticism of SP's actions as criticism of the doctor who allegedly authorized those actions. Malpractice premiums being what they are, and doctors' egos and the importance of their reputations being what they are, lawsuits would follow.
A previous poster pointed out the phraseology in the original Bristol pregnancy announcement: "The boy she is planning to marry." It was the media who started calling Levi the "baby daddy." Anyone remember in the very early days after Bristol's pregnancy was announced that Chris Ray was believed to be the father? His MySpace page which had said "I love Bristol Palin more than life" suddenly disappeared. And for a very brief time after B's revelation, his MySpace location said something like "Probably Tokyo soon" or "I wish I was in Tokyo."
Just wonderin' how/if C-Ray plays into this whole scenario.
- Oriole
I received a Palin calendar as a "joke" gift from a friend of mine at Thanksgiving. I laughed so hard I was spitting!! If I didn't have guests to entertain, I would have gotten out my black Sharpie pen right then and there and started to draw all over the stupid thing. I don't know if I should save it or toss it at this point. I wanted to re-gift it for Christmas but didn't. Now I am thinking it might be worth saving as a piece of forgotten history and a conversation piece for any great grand kids of mine in 100 years.
I've been reading this blog almost daily ever since it began. I've looked many times at the pictures that Audrey's having examined by the photoshop expert, the only pictures that show Palin with a sizable bump.
I haven't thought about them so directly before, but picturing them again mentally now while reading these blog posts, I realize that the most salient thing about them is that the bump itself looks fake, exactly like the fake belly an actress would wear. It doesn't have the apparent weight and surface tension of a protruding pregnancy. Her posture, too, is not that of a heavily pregnant woman. Palin is posing as a pregnant woman, but she does not look convincingly "gravid," in short, for the simple reason that she is wearing a fake belly.
I am also quite curious about the expertise of analyzing photographs. I'm wondering if a person who has such credentials might do analysis in crime labs. Is this the professional type of person you have on your team, Audrey?
I am also curious about something else: do you have a sense of how many readers are hitting this website?
Thank you for all of your hard work.
To add to Anon @ 6:36 AM Dec. 27th's response to Craig @ 10:42 PM Dec. 26:
I answered you already about 10 days ago in another blog entry, but here goes again: see http://tinyurl.com/8c9rpf
near the bottom of the blog comments.
Like tullyxred and Ivyfree, I'm not a doctor either, but worked so closely with doctors that I am aware of the internal politics of medical societies (and know that MDs don't get involved in external politics -- except as politicians).
Medical experts, as you call them, handle egregious malfeasance/misfeasance within their community -- and by that I don't mean Palmer Alaska, or Wasilla Alaska -- of peers, namely the local medical society and the medical review committee of the appropriate hospital(s).
They don't call press conferences like some politician or spokesperson to publicly "harshly judge the medical decisions of others". Let me repeat that, THEY DON'T.
The American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology isn't politically motivated either, "to issue a public statement condemning this action", like those frenzied "experts" called in to FoxNews to expound their opinions, simply because the medical profession is bound by ethics most people don't even know about, let alone understand.
Example being the Dallas local ACOG Director, Ralph Anderson, M.D., whom I quoted more than a week ago: "Doctor Ralph Anderson is the local director of the American College Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists. He says traveling late in pregnancy can be risky for women in general. 'By 36 weeks, you should have a good reason to travel,' said Dr. Anderson. 'You don't really have a very good labor and delivery room on the airplane.' "
And this, reported by Alan Colmes of FoxNews, who at least attempted to get another POV: "Still, a Sacramento, Calif., obstetrician who is active in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said when a pregnant woman's water breaks, she should go right to the hospital because of the risk of infection. That's true even if the amniotic fluid simply leaks out, said Dr. Laurie Gregg."
There was such an outcry from neocons over that statement that Colmes took the entire commentary off his blog site, and the only way you can find the text of the above excerpt is on outraged neocon blogs like this one ( http://tinyurl.com/89z7j3
) (so nice that they helped me find another medical opinion! :) )
Now, can you get it through your thick skull, Craig, that you're peeing on the wrong fire hydrant? (and yeah, Notalib, you can quote me on that)
I believe it is best to keep all perinent info secret.
The other day I saw (can't remember if it was the enquirer or what), but on the front page it had Sarah and a blurb about a divorce because of her fame. That showed me people are watching her.
The reason I bring that up is. Todd seems to be a controlling man. But he lost his control when Sarah gained Power (by a certain group of people) not wise people.
The absolute only reason Sarah would go to the extent she has, would be to cover up something very immoral.
No matter if Bristol was 17 unwed & preggo w/a young mans baby, or Track and a older woman, or her sister and whatever exactly that story could be.
All these stories are minor and people could relate to them. They could be forgiven. But the only story that could not be forgiven is that of Immoral Behavior.
That is why this Blog is important.
Because children deserve our protection.
K's comments regarding charismatic leaders is especially important. As reasonably intelligent humans, we should have a fair amount of skeptism as part of our thinking mix. Do you have to be "wired" that way? Frankly, I don't know.
I remember when SP was first picked as McCain's VP. I was shocked and rather excited. Then, I heard the following words: "I said Thanks but NoThanks to that bridge to nowhere." -- with that smug look. Those who "love" SP would possibly also smile smuggly and hang on her every word from that point on. Not my husband and I! As previous long time Alaskans, something didn't ring true. But, even our friends who were never Alaskans felt the same chill.
I'm now very curious about charismatic authority and their smug followers. Here is the website that is getting me started in my readings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority
What I know right now is that when ducks are in our midst, we need to question and analyze. Is it that some don't recognize ducks or that ducks are cute enough to get us to toss them our last bread crumbs?
Craig is quite the armchair expert, whether regarding birth or legal matters. His latest posts, while continuing a line of defense of Palin's stories (there are a few, slightly different versions she herself has offered) about Trig's birth, use the broad sword of rational-sounding argumentation to point out that, when looked at objectively, lecturing, traveling, flying, and driving after early rupture of membranes (leaking amniotic fluid) and symptoms of not-so-active labor are "reasonable risks" to take--why? Because no doctor or medical authority has publicly rebuked Palin or her doctor for these choices.
We have, I think, all heard stories about "accidental" labors and deliveries that occur when a woman--not realizing how advanced her labor has become--gives birth in a toilet. This event, hopefully not resulting in injury to mother or baby, does not cause doctors to send out an APB advising women NOT to give birth in toilets. Doctors don't appear sheepishly on t.v. saying, "Maybe it's true that we harp on hosptitals, or at least beds, as being necessary for giving birth. Maybe we insist needlessly on the presence of certified medical professionals and midwives attending births. We have been over-the-top on these matters, as evidenced by the recent birth of a child in a bathroom stall."
But Craig is actually wrong when he claims that no doctors have made statements about this. In one of the earliest articles appearing in the Anchorage Daily News by Lisa Demer, linked on Audrey's website, Dr. Laurie Gregg says that "leaking" or ruptured membranes must always be checked out by a doctor--not over the phone, either. But this doctor is not going to comment personally and by name about Palin--because no one has furnished the specifics of Palin's situation, and, further, doctors CANNOT comment on ANY individual's medical history or decisions without that person's permission. Andrew Sullivan has at least 6 more doctors who gave similar opinions--no doctor allows a woman to get on a plane or give a lecture with ruptured membranes--or even the fear of RM. They do not need to make a statement about something that is a matter of their medical training and professional ethics.
Cathy Baldwin-Johnson has NEVER commented further on the details of this birth. What she said was fairly evasive and might not even stand up as evidence anywhere. The fact that no one has claimed an injury or filed a complaint means this cannot be investigated further--although maybe the hospital should be investigated.
Most doctors who have ever commented on the story--there is one who appears on t.v. when a Dallas news station did a report on Palin's bizarre account--have all said the risks associated with doing anything other than being checked by a doctor when one even thinks one's membranes have ruptured--is risky and dangerous. Finally, Craig, don't you think that the fact that doctors have not decided to go on t.v. to tell women not to board planes while in labor, etc, has to do with the fact that they don't think such a thing ever happened?--Mary g.
Isn't it interesting that our question here is such a nonissue to so many people:
--Alex's NYT reporter friend thinks it's okay to ignore SP (because she is no longer a threat in his opinion, I gather).
--Various other factions continue to support SP no matter the wealth of clues that have the rest of us reeling.
--Other people I know feel this is too sleazy an issue to address.
--So many of you have written in about the same visceral feeling I had, all along from the first, that something is totally off. And yet, others don't see it.
I remain interested because the more typical issues (enumerated so well by others, above) will always remain too complicated to be crystal clear to everyone. And this issue, in the end, is simple: yes or no; pregnant or not; liar or not.
The other complex issues (like who is the real mother, and why, and how, and who is responsible) are ones that we might each of us have a firm, clear opinion on, but we will never agree, and I bet the facts and even factoids will remain murky. For example, I too have constructed a scenario that I'm SURE is what happened (all the pieces fit). But I don't think we should go there for various reasons, mainly in order to avoid punishing the innocent and relatively innocent. All I want to know, to have in the public record, the public consciousness, is yes or no; pregnant or not; liar or not.
Like Bill Clinton. So many people in my world just could not believe the Monica story, especially with Bill's convincing denial. This world and its issues is so complicated, and I have so many commitments other than keeping up with national news. So, as a first cut, I just want to know who lies and who does not. Old-fashioned? Yes. But important to me.
As another example, I bet when the dust settles we will not be discussing the poor vetting by McCain but instead we will be shocked that part of the GOP forced this veep candidate upon McCain, and he caved. Maybe SP was the best of the bunch. How scary is that!?! But again, we will never really know all of it.
But I do want the clarity regarding yes or no; pregnant or not; liar or not.
Because I am so certain she is a liar -- and if I am wrong, I do want to know that, too, and it would really color my perception of all those other issues.
--Amy the first
From Kay,
Audrey & Company…just got online and thanks for the update (the e-mails made for some good reading). As I stated yesterday, I still think you should wait to release the results but I can see there are some “antsy” people out there. I have seen your website linked on a few of the websites I go for news. Stay strong…we will get to the truth. (December 27, 2008 at 11:15am)
From Kay,
I’m back to my conspiracy theory…I agree with some people here that the doctor in question should be looked at. It has been suggested that she is part of Ms. Palin’s church and adoptions thru the church. It has also been said that she deals with abused children. My theory is that Track Palin and Sherry Johnston are the parents of Trig…so with that said… “Maybe” the doctor is protecting Track because he had been “abused” by Ms. Johnston. And in my opinion that is how Ms. Palin “might have” seen the situation…her precious boy “abused” by that “hussy” Ms. Johnston. Also in small towns there are doctors who are loyal to families…and Ms. Palin’s doctor is a family physician. (December 27, 2008 at 11:30am)
Luna, I DID address the point made about doctor's being unwilling to publicly criticize another doctor. As I pointed out, the focus of the criticism could have been on Palin herself, and not specifically on the doctor.
The AMA is certainly not a fan of Palin's strident pro-life platform, and thus would have had a particular interest in casting a negative light on her if the opportunity became available. They would have had no qualms about issuing a stern press release about the dangerous example Sarah was setting for others by taking such a high-risk action. But they did not do so. Why? Because the choice was simply not as far-fetched and reckless as some people insist on characterizing it.
All I am saying is that this was not a case of NO risk and this was not a case of a reckless level of risk. This was a case of reasonable risk.
Some women would not have made this choice if they were the ones in the same exact situation. That's their personal choice to make, and it would have been understandable.
Are there some doctors in the world who would disagree? I'm sure there are. But based upon the actual doctor opinions that have been quoted here and in other blog sites I have read, the alarmist and damning tone being made by people who are lined up against Palin has simply not been supported in anywhere near equal measure by the doctor's in the field of practice or by the AMA itself.
Some people would rather believe in the reckless and irresponsible level of risk of the "wild ride" narrative, but that view is simply not supported by professional opinion.
This is not exactly a provocative point I am trying to make here.
You may not agree with it, but it can't be dismissed as illogical or irrelevant just because you don't like it.
Anyone know someone who was on one of the flights with Sarah? The flight from Dallas-to-Seattle or Seattle-to-Anchorage?
From some of these posts, I'm beginning to think the passengers were really in peril.
Would something like this qualify for a lawsuit against Alaska Airlines and Sarah?
Just wondering...
Marcy,
Your inference that I must be a part of Sarah Palin's "group" is amusing to me!! How many times do I have to repeat my view on her? She is a one election-cycle wonder. She is a female version of Mike Huckabee. Her national electability will NEVER be higher than it was this year. She will NEVER appeal to a group any broader than a hard right conservative base. If she can keep her approval numbers from falling any further, she may have a future as a senator, but that is it. I would bet on her having a syndicated talk/opinion show in four years before I'd ever imagine her running for President.
Are we clear now?
Hopefully, I can contribute my opinion without any further lumping into some kind of one-dimensional Palin-worshipper caricature.
I simply see the information currently available differently than others on this site, and my standards of proof (versus conjecture) are different than others here.
I'm not afraid to call Palin a liar if the evidence ever moves beyond conjecture.
Debate my points if you wish, or ignore them if you wish. But no one who earnestly seeks the truth should be annoyed or unwilling to simply hear counter opinions.
"my standards of proof (versus conjecture) are different than others here...
But no one who earnestly seeks the truth should be annoyed or unwilling to simply hear counter opinions."
Since the only person who can provide "proof" is unwilling to do so, all that's left in search of the truth is conjecture. People on both sides of the issue can ONLY offer "opinions." SP could stop the conjecture by providing proof. She and her supporters sound ridiculous when they claim that her withholding of the truth means that conjecture is necessarily false.
Craig- I've often thought that men are just being big babies when they act so dramatically "hurt" after being hit in the testes.
Can you prove me wrong?
Craig,
It seems to me that the opinions of all the doctors have been sufficiently clear and unanimous. You are expecting from them inflamed rhetoric such as we might expect from the media.
The level of risk was way too high, not only for a bad outcome, but from a much more petty and personal consideration: I would never have risked the extreme discomfort and embarrassment of giving birth on a crowded plane.
Anyone who would does not belong in a position of responsibility.
Thanks Craig,
I guess I'll just withhold my opinions until this issue makes it to it's appearance as a segment on the series "House."
I'm addressing this mainly to Craig regarding the 'wild ride' and what he perceives as lack of evidence that this is truly medically inappropriate - and risky.
I am a MD, a general practitioner, admittedly, not a ObGyn, but I can say with certainty that the course of action SP took given the clinical circumstances that she has made public, ie; 35wk, grandmultip in 5th pregnancy, Down syndrome fetus, suspected amniotic fluid leak, contractions that differed from her previous Braxton-Hicks contractions (despite the fact they later settled) was medically inadvisable. No competent MD would approve, via a phone consultation, this course of action given this clinical picture. It is risky for the mother and fetus for a number of reasons. Of course, even in a risky situation the outcome may be fine. But no MD would recommend via a phone consultation, that a patient take these risks, for the sake of both the mother and fetus, and their own medicolegal standing.
Please not the emphasis on 'phone consultation''.
Having said that, an MD that isn't involved personally in the case can't make a definitive statement without knowing the complete clinical scenario, the patient history, the pregnancy history, the current symptoms etc etc. And we cannot know these without release of SP's medical records and her doctors notes/statements regarding the discussions they had.
My take on this is that either SP did not give birth to Trig OR that she did give birth to him but the clinical situation was not as she described (i.e she has lied about or omitted certain information), OR if the clinical information is correct, she did not actually consult with her MD as she stated, or chose to disregard her MDs advice.
It doesn't take a medical doctor to realise that the story SP has presented doesn't stack up. Most people visiting this blog have intuited this without having any medical background.
I just wanted to clarify for Craig that the fact that the ACOG or the AMA etc etc haven't made statements about this issue (and why would they???)does not imply that the 'wild ride' was acceptable from a clinical standpoint.
To Anonymous, December 27, 2008 10:05 AM:
A week of so ago Morgan mentioned to me that the site was being hit about once a second! I was floored. Makes one realize anew that Audrey, Morgan & Co are doing one helluva job managing the site, keeping it so orderly and civilized.
I'm thinking if we knew everything they deal with, we'd all be floored!
"Medical experts, as you call them, handle egregious malfeasance/misfeasance within their community... of peers, namely the local medical society...They don't call press conferences like some politician or spokesperson to publicly "harshly judge the medical decisions of others". Let me repeat that, THEY DON'T."
I'm trying to remember any instance in which a medical society issued a public statement criticizing medical decisions involving any celebrity.
Closest thing I can come to was when Princess Diana died, and I read some speculation online as to whether she'd have survived if she had received American-style "scoop and run" treatment, instead of the French "treat in place" type. And it was individuals, not medical societies.
Ivyfree
Audrey, Morgan........and all of the interested people of this blog,
I salute you!
Find the truth.
This blog has opened a very big door!
So very proud of you all.
Anyone interested in watching Bill McAllister on Dec. 1st, being questioned by the Dems on SP's whereabouts?
Go to the ADN and in the middle of the page, you will see SP's picture. Click on "video."
If you haven't seen it, it's worth watching!
Wonderful, thoughtful emails. My heart is warmed to cross cyber paths with Audrey, the authors of those emails, and with the thoughtful, sincere people posting on this blog.
With the social and political dynamics serving as the backdrop and the internet serving as a meeting room, your blog and its community are making a stand for the Truth. Thank you for being the "labor coach" for the Truth.
L.
I have a hard time thinking that she faked a pregancy. If she was covering for Bristol, would Bristol really go out and get pregnant AGAIN? And if the baby really has Down's Syndrome it's much more likely that the mother was over 40 as opposed to a teenager.
SP is a nasty piece of work, with the inability to utter a coherent sentence that was not written for her on a teleprompter. I think it's possible that other misstatements / exaggerations / lies about the trip back from Texas have simply not been corrected. She feels no need to answer the questions put to her in a VP debate! Do you think she's going to clear up this mess?
She is certainly a terrible mother so she wouldn't give a d*** about risking her child's life on an airplane trip. But she may not want to talk about that, either...
It's just hard to imagine someone going to the trouble of faking a pregnancy. And if she was covering for Bristol in April, why didn't she arrange to cover for Bristol during the presidential campaign?
To notalib:
This is a forum questioning the actions of Sarah Palin regarding a series of lies that she seems to have told to her constituents in Alaska and to the American people where she was in a serious race to become the person designated to be president if her elderly running mate should become unable to serve during the next four years.
Considering the state of our economy and national security, the American people could have made a very big mistake by electing her running mate as president.
Regarding Andrew Sullivan, he is a brilliant man who has written an extremely worthwhile book called The Conservative Soul. You can read a review of it here.
To Craig,
I'm not sure if I would be under the heading of a medical expert, but I am an RN and I have worked OB and Postpartum.
I'll try to list some of the reasons why Sarah Palin's actions would go under the heading of, 'Insanely Reckless'.
1. PPROMs (Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes) is very often due to infection. This means infection is already in the cervix. The only way to tell is at a hospital with labs and an examination. The biggest concern with infection is lung disease and meningities. If lung disease developes and the baby's lungs are not mature on top of that, you have got a very serious problem.
http://www.gynob.com/prom.htm
2. Fetal lung maturity needs to be established. Sometimes labor can be held off for a week or more to help the baby's lungs mature. Also, they can be given steriods to help the baby's lungs to quickly develop. 32 - 36 weeks is a grey area. It absolutely needs to be checked out at the hospital. Some baby's lungs are helped after they are born by when they cry, this forces air in and out of the lungs, however, Down Syndrome babies don't cry very much. Since it was said that there was an induction, then we can establish that the doctor is saying it was an infection and the baby had to be delivered.
http://www.healthline.com/blogs/pregnancy_childbirth/2008/04/elective-late-preterm-birth-why-arent.html
We don't need to go back over how dangerious it was for the baby to take a chance on delivering on a plane while forcing the pilot to get permission to make an get to the neariest airport to make an emergency landing. It also takes some time to get permission to make an emergency landing, all the while the clock is ticking. There is also danger to the mother in that situation. If the cause for the PPROM's was infection, (which is often the case and Palin said she was induced.)
3. There is the danger of placenta abruption. If this happens, there is massive hemorraging and the woman can die quickly.
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0002-9378/PIIS0002937807007417.main-abr.pdf
4. There is danger of a cord prolapse with PPROM. If this occurs the baby can quickly die from the cord compression. Medical intervention will need to be done immediately. There is no time to get the plane down and land.
http://childbirth-labour-delivery.suite101.com/article.cfm/umbilical_cord_prolapse
And if all of this does not convince you that this was indeed, 'Insanely Reckless', just ask yourself, would you have made this decision with your own children?
Of course, if she was not pregnant, then it wasn't 'Insanely Reckless'.
Your choice.
Deb
(I'm NextChapter. For some reason, I can't log onto my account)
Excellent post, Deb -- thank you! I have been following this for months, but learned some new things. It is even more obvious what a complete fabrication the wild ride story is.
bravo to deb/next chapter!
this is the kind of rational, medical assessment of the "wild ride" risks -with citations, no less- that others and myself have posted repeatedly, in response to craig, and simply to remind people of these REAL health risks. risks to child and mother.
i have posted previously (with citations) about the potential heart defects, gastrointestinal blockages, and lungs which have developed more slowly (important in a pre-term birth) that a down syndrome baby may present at birth. any of these complications could require immediate NICU support or surgery -neither of which are available on alaska airlines commercial flights or whatever vehicle brought SP from the anchorage airport to mat-su regional hospital. and the NICU isn't even available once arriving at the hospital......
all the additional risks you've detailed only make it crystal clear that SP's travel plans entailed a level of risk rational people would see as unreasonable and not choose to expose themselves or their children to. she could have AVOIDED every risk on the list by simply going to one of the fine hospitals in dallas to be assessed after her "around 4am leaking" and before traveling.
craig will surely ignore everything we've written, as is his habit, but perhaps others will acknowledge the strange, unnecessary, and REAL risks of the "wild ride."
craig, i will ask you one last question:
if you had excellent health insurance as a US governor, and were already with your wife for support should something happen, and you began experiencing symptoms that had a chance of being appendicitis -which if untreated could rupture and end your life- would you go to a near by, top-notch hospital to be physically examined and be SURE your health was not in jeopardy?
or would just hope for the best and then spend many hours traveling without any examination? why take ANY risk at all of dying when you could get checked out and treated if required, or cleared of risk to then travel in peace?
if you choose to skip the hospital you are an idiot. an UNREASONABLE idiot at that.
luna
I do not think Sarah faked a pregnancy.Did anyone ever hear Piper say, "Mom why do you have that pillow under you shirt ?"
Deb, So once again I ask, if this action to fly home was so clearly "insanely reckless", explain how the following political talking point was not pounded throughout the blogosphere, the press and on the airwaves through all the Democratic political operatives, during the election?
"Sarah Palin, a strident pro-life advocate, put herself and her own special needs child in mortal danger by intentionally flying home from Texas while in the early stages of labor!!!"
This devastating talking point does NOT require direct criticism of her doctor. It is based upon a story that was already reported on back in April (in other words, an easy find for any outside reporter or researcher). It strikes right to the very heart of her pro-life base of supporters by revealing her apparent hypocrisy on a very critical issue for them. Given the level of "recklessness" by such a high-profile public figure, it would be roundly condemned by the medical community (not simply questioned in a tempered way). And given the personal information that the media already had publicized about her and her family, there would be no qualms about running this kind of explosive, yet personal, story.
But it didn't happen, because the decision to fly home, while not without risk, was simply not the kind of callous and utterly reckless choice that many people here want to frame it as.
Individual people may disagree, but there was obviously not nearly enough weight of professional consensus behind the story to even attempt to make it stick. And given the petty and partisan attack dog nature of the political blogosphere, their own general avoidance of this line of attack speaks volumes.
The more that people insist upon the "insane recklessnees" of this "wild ride", the more these these claims sound hyperbolic, given the rationale above.
Crag,
I don't know why there has not been more focus on this with the medical community. I can tell you for myself, why it has taken me so long to take a harder look at this.
When I first heard the story (of Sarah Palin faking her pregnancy and the baby was actually Bristole's baby) during the election, I quite frankly thought the whole idea was far too soap opera to actually happen. The idea that a political figure that was the govener to a state, that was nominated for such a high position as the Vice President of the United States, commiting such a major deception and fraud as faking a pregnancy and having her MD go along with it was just too far fetched.
Then I saw the photo of her looking pregnant in the April 13th photo and I thought, 'Well, there you go. Nothing to that story.' that, coupled with Obama suggestion that, "Family is to be left alone." had me skipping over any stories that may have dealt with it. Looking back at that, I feel he was talking about leaving Bristole's pregnancy alone.
My first red flag came when Palin would not release her medical records until the final hours until the election. Then, there were no medical records, no lab reports or procedures done, just her doctor saying basically she was healthy. Also, with waiting until the last hour, there was no time to question why this is all that was released, when you are suppose to be all about "Transparency".
Then, when I heard, (from her own audio clip as she describes the events after, "Membranes leaking at 4:00am") I believed beyond all reasonable doubt that she was lying.
When the documented time-frame photos came out of her pictures from March 18 and March 26 came out and then the one of her looking heavily pregnant approx 3 weeks later appeared, it sealed the deal for me.
I could go into more detail, but I gotta get ready for work.
Please look at the links I provided. Start doing your own research on top of this, that is what this web site/blog is set up for.
Ask a medical MD yourself, preferably an OB GYN what their thoughts are given the set of peramiters of this situation. Would they feel it would fall under the heading of, 'Insanely Reckless'? I would also encourage other people on this blog to do that. Maybe more people in the medical community will begin to take notice. Just like I did.
Deb
PS. Sorry for any misspellings. I just don't have time to proof read right now.
Thanks to Deb/next chapter, luna, gpbag and other sensible medical personnel and informed readers.
The MSM backed off the entire Trig Palin story because they were hounded into silence (not very brave on the part of the fourth estate) and told that family issues are private--although they are not private to fundamentalists of Palin's ilk, who want to dictate everyone else's life. Palin maintains the truly queenly and undemocratic behavior of a person who thinks she is beyond the reach of even her own moral dictates.
The Palin supporters who steadfastly maintain the rationality of Palin's flight are a prime example of the rhetorical bullies who prevent reason from being heard because they scream so loudly. "Everyone's an obsetritian now," said both Todd Palin and Michelle Malkin. That sure answers the question!
mary g,
Your claim is untrue, based upon the number of personal things that the media brought up during the election (Todd's DUI, Track's rumored reasons for going into the military, etc.). Besides, the political blogosphere has no such ethical limitations or authoritative pressure to hinder it, and yet despite all the other unsavory dirty laundry it trumpeted during the election, this particular (prior-reported and readily available) angle was hardly touched upon.
The standard conspiracy line of powerful dark forces silencing all avenues of information sources, just does not wash.
I find the analysis compelling, but what troubles me is that so many people would have to agree to be quiet about this birth if it isn't Sarah's baby. What about Bristol's friends and school teachers? What about neighbors and other acquaintences in Wasilla? Surely someone would have noticed her being pregnant if Trig were hers or Willow's. What about all the hospital personel? It's hard to believe that so many people could be in on the conspiracy. I think these questions need to be answered as well as the ones about the photos.
****MODERATION ALERT*****
We're getting dozens of comments regarding the birth of Bristol's baby. So as not to be redundant, I've only approved a handful.
So if you don't see your Birth Announcement comment here it's not because we don't want a hundred comments all telling us what we already know.
Sooooo obvious that Craig is male (other than the name). Perhaps, Craig, to believe how reckless her behavior was one has to have gone through a pregnancy (in lieu of being an MD). Stop and think for a moment, Craig. The baby could have been born anywhere along the trip home without proper medical support for a high risk pregnancy. It doesn't take an MD to realize that it is imperative to get to a hospital immediately when a pregnancy is showing signs of terminating PREMATURELY! Sheesh!
So now that Bristol has had her child, what's the fallback position? Bristol didn't really have this baby? She got pregnant again right after Trig was born, and this baby was induced early? Another Mom for Trig.
You guys crack me up. If by some chance you're right and Sarah Palin carried off this conspiracy and got away with it, then she's so brilliant she should be placed in charge of the CIA.
anon dec 29 4:32PM,
Comments like yours are all the more reason why I am saying that the "pro-life hypocrite" political talking point that I suggested, would have been, without question, used with deadly effect during the election cycle, if this flight home was so obviously dangerous and incredibly reckless as you (and others) insist on it being. The fact that this known event wasn't put forward by either the DNC, any 527 group, the media or the political blogosphere in the middle of an ugly and divisive election, says more than anything else I could say.
Read my earlier comments on this thread, as I am tired of typing them (and others are tired of reading them).
Sheesh, indeed!
Thanks again for the great work, Audry!
But that person is wrong about Obama. The Fraudulent Birth Certificate has never been "addressed" -- because Obama's camp tried to pull off a scam. And heretofore it appears they have been successful thanks to a complicit SCOTUS. The U.S. Constitution is dead.
Anyone in this country who "believes" in a politician -- Repug or Dim -- is a damned fool. Turn off the TV, quit listening to talk radio, and stop reading the propaganda in newspapers and watch your IQ soar and your critical thinking skills become honed like never before!
Legitimate alternative media is the ONLY hope for this country. She is right about that!
Realist
Well luna, given the fact that the main symptom for appendicitis is unrelenting excruciating and debilitating pain, and my only option upon ignoring it would be certain death, I'd say I WOULD be an idiot to not seek treatment. Good thing Palin's scenario is nothing like that one.
Glad we got that out of the way.
If we want to agree to disagree on the whole public medical criticism, I can let it go just to try to have people get their eyes back on the ball.
In fact, your view of the medical issue just strenghtens the whole "no-brainer political talking point" that I've brought up.
Apart from the "murky, dark and nameless forces who silence all dissent" theory, I'm still looking for a reasonable explanation for how this already known story was passed on by everyone during the election.
"So now that Bristol has had her child, what's the fallback position? "
The fallback position is that apparently, Bristol has had a baby, which has nothing to do with Trig's status. There is evidence that Sarah Palin was not pregnant when she claimed she was. When questions arose about whether she'd given birth to Trig, she announced that her daughter was pregnant- which had nothing to do with the question.
Sarah could easily resolve these issues: she could ask her doctor to publicly confirm that she gave birth to Trig. She scoffed at the rumors while she did nothing to disprove them, and made a spectacle of her daughter rather than do so. The situation is beyond bizarre.
As to how she could get away with it, look at your own attitude. There are lots of people who think that it would be impossible to get away with a deception like this, but the truth is, she hasn't gotten away with it. Audrey's blog is proof that there are people who know she didn't give birth to Trig. And many people won't even look at the evidence.
I don't know whose child Trig is, but I do not believe he could possibly be Sarah's. And I don't believe he is Bristol's because Sarah was only too willing to shove Bristol's pregnancy into the limelight, which I think was pure misdirection. The press could pursue the mystery of Trig's parentage, but they won't. So we do. Because Sarah is still ambitious and while she's an obvious liar and too incompetent and ignorant to be a serious candidate for higher office, she doesn't know that and apparently thinks that she might run for president in 2012. We've spent eight years with an ignorant, incompetent liar in the Oval Office and we don't need to do that again. Anything we can do to prevent that is worth doing. I believe that eventually we will know more, because there is a limit to even Sarah Palin's dumb luck.
Ivyfree
So, if I follow Craig's logic (faulty as it may be), because the RNC, DNC,527 group, the media or the political blogosphere didn't make anything of Sarah's reckless endangerment of the about-to-be-born high-risk baby, there must have been NO reckless endangerment. The degree of recklessness is completely dependent on the amount of reporting that was done on the incident. Is that about right, Craig? Perhaps they had bigger fish to fry at the time. After all, Sarah isn't the one who was about to become president-elect. It was (frightening piano music)THAT ONE!! Pshaw!
craig-
it is obvious you've never had a child, talked to anyone who has had a child about the experience, never had appendicitis, and have no knowledge of medicine, this no longer surprises me.
but i am SHOCKED that you don't know how to google things! you should stop making broad medical statements when you've done zero research and are wrong!
just to inform you (so you don't die if it ever happens) the early symptoms of appendicitis can include sharper pains, but most are diffuse and may mimic heartburn, gas, food poisoning, or stomach flu.
here's what the US national library of medicine tells us:
"Symptoms may include
*Pain and/or swelling in the abdomen
*Loss of appetite
*Nausea and vomiting
*Constipation or diarrhea
*Inability to pass gas
*Low fever
Not everyone with appendicitis has all these symptoms."
http://tinyurl.com/l4wcp
here's a collection of experiences, they range from can't-stand-up-stabbing-pain (what you imagine to be the ONLY way early symptoms can feel) to initial feelings of dull back-ache, heartburn, and suspected gas pains.
http://tinyurl.com/8dshzc
appendicitis can also mimic at least five other conditions (or they mimic it!) ranging from crohn's disease to ectopic pregnancy, and it may take physical exams, blood and urine work, x-rays, ultrasounds or even laparoscopy to figure out what is going on inside a patient and how to treat them.
all THIS made it the best approximation of the vast array of symptoms and complications that could have been signaled by SP's PPROM "leakage" that i hoped you could imagine, as appendicitis is a gender-neutral affliction, and you OBVIOUSLY can't imagine being a female in labor.
i think what bothers me most (other than you thinking you un-researched, un-cited medical OPINIONS are the end of all discussion on a subject) is that you don't seem to grasp that human bodies are not a series of identical machines running identical software. bodies are different -genetically and physically- so nothing in medicine happens one way all the time without exception.
that is the reason symptoms and outcomes vary -and no one can be 100% certain what will happen next in any medical condition. that's why palin couldn't "say i know labor" and be right, all of her births have the potential to be different.
that's why something that feels to some people like heartburn could BE heartburn, but it could also be the onset of appendicitis or even a heart attack.
man craig, PLEASE do some research before treating us to anymore of your medical "knowledge."
thank you, luna
anon 12/30 9:38AM
What the heck are you talking about???!!! The timeframe I am referring to is during the campaign cycle, when much of the attention actually was on Palin. There was practically a new revelation about her being unearthed by the press or the blogosphere EVERY DAY!
So yes, if reports of a tanning bed in the Governor's mansion were considered as newsworthy, why wasn't a readily available story about a pro-life advocate and high-profile vice-presidential candidate taking an insanely reckless plane ride as she was going into early labor while carrying a special needs baby?
If you remove my theory on this, then this situation defies all rational logic.
luna, I'll admit I was being a bit snarky with my statement. I did say that the pain was the MAIN symptom, not the only one.
Regardless, the "crazy risk" versus "reasonable risk" argument will have to be one that we agree to disagree on.
Peace
Yes, Craig, you will have to agree to disagree, especially since you are the only one clinging to your irrational analysis. I'm guessing you are an engineer and after your careful (albeit faulty) analysis, you etched it in stone, and you now can't alter it.
It is obvious that nothing other than Sarah saying that she was reckless will change your mind. Irrespective of the lack of attention given to the "recklessness" by the media, certain facts remain:
1. Sarah's account of the chain of events. Not that her account is factual, but that she gave that account.
2. Based on SP's account, she was in danger of delivering the baby prematurely by as much as 3-5 weeks.
3. It was a high risk birth based on SP's age, prematurity, and the FACT that the baby had Down's Syndrome.
4. OBs do not recommend flying anywhere in the last month as it can bring on early labor.
5. Full-blown labor could have occured at any time with little or no medical equipment or expertise available.
So, no amount,little or great, of media attention can change these things. Added up they equal unbelievable recklessness and disregard for the life of the baby. With that being said, I'm now wondering if she was hoping the baby wouldn't live given the great risks she took before he was born. I mean, who does something like this? No parents that I know of. And remember, Craig, this comes from SP's own account of her actions.
A little off topic, but I can't resist Craig's appendicitis remarks.
One day, I had menstrual cramps. Particularly uncomfortable, but it goes with the territory sometimes. They aren't usually so bad.
But then, that night, they MOVED to another area! Still a good amount of discomfort, but being a non-alarmist and drama avoider, I just figured it was an especially uncomfortable period and it would soon pass.
The next day at work, it was 3PM before I realized I hadn't eaten all day. No appetite.
When I went to bed that night, the only comfortable position I could find was on my stomach, with my butt raised (it eased my back somehow, which also hurt - another symptom of menstruation).
The next day at work, the cramps were worse, but still no period. I told my boss I thought I should get looked at and drove myself to the hospital. I had no particular "urgency" about it, no "drama" about it, but the hospital (one of the best in the country) was closer than my doctor, convenient to work, and I figured I could just get back to work faster (I was an Office Manager, no extreme physical activity or anything).
2 hours later, I had no appendix.
The POINT is that symptoms can be quite tolerable right up until emergency surgery is necessary.
KNOWING one is pregnant with a DS baby, KNOWING she isn't due yet, KNOWING there aren't medical facilities on the plane, KNOWING that labor was imminent, SP shouldn't have made the decision to travel. It goes against every instinct of motherhood.
My decision not to seek medical attention was based on thinking I was having a worse than usual cycle, with absolutely no reason in the world to believe otherwise until blood didn't flow for a couple of days worth of odd pain.
SP had every reason in the world to believe she was in danger. And she stupidly risked both her baby and herself for what? So the baby would have the Great State of Alaska on his birth certificate? Does being born in Alaska really hold that much attraction that risking life isn't a consideration?
What IS the reason she felt the need to travel in that condition? Has it been stated out loud?
Does she really think Wasilla's hospital is worth traveling to and that Dallas is ill-equipped for birthing babies?
This one single event, if it were true (and I don't believe it is) is what would make me absolutely not vote for this woman.
She has a gross inability to make sound decisions based on facts presented to her.
Well said, Linda.
Post a Comment