How to Lie with Statistics: Response to Progressive Alaska Part 2

With Sarah Palin's resignation, the direction of this blog has taken a temporary detour. It has been impossible over the last five days to keep the focus on "Babygate," and ignore the larger implications of her resignation and the "hoopla" surrounding it. And I don't think anyone wants me to.

Is Sarah Palin still a viable national entity? I do not believe so. Her history of quitting is quite striking: she quit as mayor of Wasilla to run for Lt. Governor of Alaska (a race she lost.) She quit a major Alaskan appointment, that of chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Although a great deal has been made of this "protest" resignation, the reasoning is eerily similar to her resignation as governor. She could be more effective from outside of the commission than actually on it. But numerous people in Alaska have put a more mundane spin on this resignation. The job was reportedly a real full-time job with real full-time work. She was expected to produce, not just be a figurehead; she just was not up to it.

And now - with a year and a half left as governor she quit for reasons that she stated as mostly personal: things like adults being mean to Trig. (Whether her stated reasons are all there are is of course open for question, but for now let's take her at her word.)

But that still leaves us with the initial question of this blog, and as I said in the "Sarah Quits; We Won't" post several days ago, I do not intend to let this issue slide. I believe that there still is enough of a chance that Palin might emerge on the national stage that the truth about Trig's birth must come to light, once and for all. I still believe that the elements of the Republican Party that gave us Sarah Palin and kept her on the ticket (while - I strongly suspect - becoming aware at some point in the campaign that she had faked the pregnancy) must be held accountable.

I am continuing now with the multi-part post I began last week, before the resignation, in which I am attempting to consider a very long post written by Lee Tompkins, a labor and delivery nurse, last January, and reprinted several weeks ago by the blog Progressive Alaska.

I have received some criticism for doing this, including a comment from someone I respect, accusing me of doing nothing but "addressing nonsense arguments from a moron first posted months ago." But I disagree. These "nonsense arguments" form the basis of why some very reasonable people, who I do not think ARE morons, and who do not support Gov. Palin in general are still not on board with the idea that she faked a pregnancy, duping both Alaskans and the American people. And the topic of today's post - the Down Syndrome "proof" that Trig must be Sarah's - is one of the cornerstones of this.

__________________

Here's the link to Part 1 in case I have new readers who have not seen it.

This is the second part of my very long post, addressing the points raised in Lee Tompkins' article. In this installment, I intend to (try to) debunk one of the most persistent (and incorrect) assumptions in this whole issue: that Trig's Down Syndrome virtually proves that Sarah is his mother. I do apologize for all the math and numbers here, and realize that at times it's difficult to follow. But the problem is that this statistical proof is cited so often without anyone even understanding the numbers, that they only way to reasonably confront it is with the calculators on the desk.

A couple of Google searches and it's not difficult to figure out that the likelihood of a Down's pregnancy in a 44-year old woman is 25 times greater than that of a teenager. Of course, overall more Down's babies are born in the younger age groups but that is reflective of the greater numbers of pregnancies occurring in younger women than older women. That statistic alone should be convincing enough, but it is probably not.

The writer's opinion here is clear. This statistic (i.e, that Sarah had a 25 times greater chance of having a baby with Down Syndrome) alone should virtually prove to us that Trig must be Sarah's.

This "proof" of Trig's parentage has haunted those of us searching for the truth since day one. Often people who appear to know virtually nothing about the "Who's Your Mommy?" controversy (except perhaps that there is one), all can unfailingly summon this one "fact": Trig MUST be Sarah's because older women have babies with Down Syndrome. I've seen it a thousand times in comments on blogs, gotten hundreds of emails that say the same thing. Trig has Down Syndrome; this proves Trig is Sarah's. Case closed.

What is the reality?

It IS more likely, much more likely in fact, that a woman over 40, on a given pregnancy, will conceive a child with Down Syndrome than a woman less than 20. No dispute. But every year in the U.S. about 300 babies with Down Syndrome are born to women under 20. Not a huge number, but not insignificant either. This is about the same number as babies born deaf to women under 20 (who have no family history of deafness.) Would we disbelieve the story if we are told that a teen mother would have a deaf child?

Furthermore, those who repeat this statistical argument ignore another, equally powerful one in the opposite direction, one that I have never heard confronted head-on, with real numbers, regarding this situation, and that is that Sarah Palin, at 43, had a far FAR lower chance of ever having a baby at all.

Natural fertility drops sharply after age 40, a fact that is now nearly lost in the perception of the general public. Every week, it seems, yet another celebrity well into her forties has a baby. Several in the last few years (Geena Davis and Nancy Grace to name two) have been quite near, even at, fifty. But many - probably the majority - of these women have had these babies with fertility assistance: injections to stimulate ovulation, hormonal support after conception to compensate for a body that is really too old to be having children, and in many (perhaps most) cases where the mother is over 42 or 43, the use of donor eggs. However, these private details are typically not made public, so the public knows only that a baby has been born. They have no realistic clue just how difficult and expensive it was to achieve that.

In addition, women are routinely counseled to stay on contraceptives into their late forties, yet are only rarely advised by their physicians as to how low their actual chances of becoming pregnant are. Because of this, the erroneous perceptions that older mothers conceive often and easily and that pregnancy after forty is likely are firmly ensconced into our national consciousness. (This is much to the dismay and sad disappointment of many women in their late thirties and early forties, who have delayed childbearing and are now discovering that the effects that aging has on fertility often cannot be overcome even with help.)

In reality, what are the chances that a 43 year old woman, who is presumably practicing some sort of contraception and who is not "trying" to get pregnant, in fact will get pregnant at all and then carry that child to near term? The odds are actually extremely poor.

Women who are over 40 face a double whammy: fertility drops every year, and simultaneously rates of miscarriage rise.

Consider the following:
1. At age 40, a woman who is demonstrably fertile still only has a 1 in 20 chance (5%) of getting pregnant in any given cycle. A teen has a 20-30% chance of getting pregnant in a given cycle. And that's age 40. Sarah Palin was 3 1/2 years older than this.
2. At age 40, even using in vitro fertilization, (involving medical assistance with precise timing and hormonal support) the pregnancy rate per cycle is only 10%.
3. The chances of a woman over 40 who is trying to get pregnant via in vitro using her own "old" eggs is one/sixth of that of getting pregnant with younger "donor" eggs. In fact, most clinics will not even use the eggs of women over 40 because the failure rate is so unacceptably high.
4. 50% of pregnancies in women 42-43 years of age end in miscarriage, compared with only 10% for women less than 30.
5. By age 40, 33% of previously fertile couples are infertile, and this rises to 90% by age 45. At age 43 1/2 (the age at which Sarah Palin is alleged to have become pregnant) the chances of her even still being fertile at all were only about 1 in 3. Read that again. Statistics tell us that Sarah Palin had a 66% chance of not being able to get pregnant at all.

Plus - the Palins have been clear that the pregnancy was unexpected, that their baby-having days were over, and that they were not trying to have a child. This can only mean one thing: some sort of family planning method was being used. This would have cut Sarah Palin's already-low chances of becoming pregnant much farther. Oral contraceptives are 95% plus successful in preventing pregnancy. Even condoms are supposedly 85-90% effective in preventing pregnancy if used correctly.

So let's whip out the calculators here. For this little calculation, I am going to ignore the issue of contraception. We can't know what sort of birth control anyone in this equation was using or how consistently and rigorously it was used. So, to simplify things, I am going to, using statistics, attempt to answer the following question. If you have a 43 year old woman and a 17 year old woman who are both "letting nature take its course" (i.e., both sexually active and neither using contraceptives) , what are the relative chances that, in a given single month, each will get pregnant and carry the baby to term?

In a given monthly cycle, at age 40, a fertile woman has a 5% (1 in 20) chance of conceiving. I could not find a comparable statistic for a 43 year old, so we'll use 5% while stipulating that the actual number is certainly lower for a 43 year old. However, don't forget that this is a fertile woman. By age 43, 2/3rds of previously fertile woman are infertile. This reduces that ACTUAL monthly chances of conceiving for a 43 year old to 5% x .33 or 1.66%. A random sexually active 43 year old woman not practicing contraception has only a 1 in 60 chance of getting pregnant each month.

A 17 year old has a 20-30% chance of conceiving per month. For simplicity, let's split that down the middle and say 25%. A random sexually active 17 year old woman not practicing contraception has a 1 in 4 chance of getting pregnant per month.

In other words - the seventeen year old's chances of getting pregnant in a given month are 15 times higher.

But that's not the end of the story because now, the much higher rates of miscarriage come into play.

The 43 year old has at least a 50% of chance of miscarrying the baby. This cuts the success rate in half, to .8%. The chance that a 43 year old woman will get pregnant in a single month and carry the child to term is less than 1 in 100.

The 17 year old, meanwhile, has a 7% chance of miscarriage. (Sources cite numbers any where from 5% to 10% - I am splitting the difference.) This gives us a successful pregnancy rate per month for the 17 year old of 23%. The chance that a 17 year old woman will get pregnant in a single month and carry the child to term is 23 in 100.

.8% for the 43 year old versus 23% for the 17 year old. 29 times more likely. Ironically, quite close to the often quoted statistic that Down Syndrome is 25 times more likely in the older mother. So read that again. Understand what it really says. Yes, Down Syndrome is 25 times more likely in an older mother, but SUCCESSFUL PREGNANCY is 29 times more likely in the younger mother.

And don't forget, this result is for women NOT using contraceptives (Palin almost certainly was) plus this result was obtained using fertility rates for 40 year olds ( Palin was 43.) Both of these factors would reduce this already - low number even farther in this specific case.

Younger women can have babies with Down Syndrome, though it's rare. Older women can have babies with no medical assistance or support, though it's rare. But what the statistics do show is that those who USE Down Syndrome rates to argue that Trig must be Sarah's are totally missing the other bus: We could just as easily use overall fertility rates to argue that Trig must be Bristol's.

So return to the paragraph I quoted from Lee Tompkins article to start this post, now rewritten:

A couple of Google searches and it's not difficult to figure out that the likelihood of a pregnancy carried to term in a 17-year old woman is 29 times greater than that of a 43 year old. That statistic alone should be convincing enough, but it is probably not.

Feels funny when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?

Now, to be explicitly clear: statistics are merely a guideline. Statistics do not prove anything either way. Trig has Down Syndrome. This in no way proves he is Sarah's. Trig exists. This in no way proves he is Bristol's (or any other younger mother's.)

And that's what needs to be taken away from this post.

PART 3 COMING SOON

Pulling A Palin: My Response to Progressive Alaska Part One

Over the week or so, I will post on this blog a multi part series. Today's installment is the first.

In January, Alaskan Blogger Celtic Diva published a "guest post" by a Labor and Delivery nurse named Lee Tompkins entitled The Birth of a Conspiracy; Delivering the Real Issue. Several days ago, a second Alaskan blog, Progressive Alaska, reprinted this post in toto. The theme of this post was simple: both the original writer and Phil at Progressive Alaska believe that the focus on Palin's birth story should be squarely on what they consider the "real issue," which is the very poor judgment she showed in traveling while allegedly in labor with Trig. They believe that Palin's terrible choices so endangered her child that on that basis alone she should be disqualified from any serious consideration for public office.

Both believe Sarah Palin's birth story, specifically that Trig was born to Sarah on April 18, 2008, after a trip back from Texas that I have chosen to call "The Wild Ride." (For those who don't know, I based that moniker on a quaint Disney theme park ride, Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, still operational at Disneyland (and, according to Wikipedia, one of the few remaining attractions that was present at the 1955 opening) but removed from Disney World in 1998. The concept of the ride was based on Kenneth Grahame's children's book The Wind in the Willows, from which Disney had made a cartoon in 1949.)

While Phil at Progressive Alaska obviously continues to take this position (he reprinted this post barely a week ago) i.e., that Trig is Sarah's and was born April 18, 2009, from private conversation with Celtic Diva (again, original source of the post last January though she did not write it), while she may be unsure of the whole truth regarding Trig's birth, she now personally entertains at least some doubts that it occurred as Palin reported. Would she, today, late June 2009, post Ms. Tompkins' guest blog? I don't know but I intend to ask her.

Most of Palin's supporters will not intelligently debate the evidence at all. Their tactics are few - but very consistent - whenever the pregnancy story is discussed. It takes only a moment for a reasonable-sounding authoritative voice, without citing any specifics, to label a theory like ours "irresponsible, incorrect, poorly researched, sensationalistic," or - simply - "bad." It takes much longer to refute these charges. Points, often boring ones, must be made individually. Specific examples, requiring serious research into dates, times, places, and statements, must be discussed. Obstetric minutiae is of little interest to most people, and actually unpleasant to discuss for many.

These are some of the favorite tactics used:
1. Their favorite red herring is Obama's birth certificate. "There's the real story," we are assured solemnly. There may be a story there. I don't know - I haven't looked into it at all. But what I do know is that regardless of where, when, or to whom Barack Obama was born, it's got nothing to do with Sarah Palin.
2. A tactic of "redirection" is employed whenever specific obstetrical facets are considered. Everyone seems to know someone that "never looked pregnant with a fifth child," or whose water broke and she didn't go into labor. All that tells us is that it is "possible" that some aspects of Sarah Palin's story might be true based on others' similar experiences. It does not prove that they are.
3. They simply refuse to believe the evidence in front of their eyes. Shown documented photographs from unimpeachable sources, these folks simply allege (with no proof whatsoever) that the documentation is wrong or suspect and then, because they cannot "verify" the source of the evidence, they will not discuss anything further.
4. The last bastion: Sarah's story is true because Sarah wouldn't lie.

When one (or all) of the four tactics above are employed, it's impossible to have an honest debate with a legitimate exchange of ideas. With Ms. Tompkins post, I can. I can debate her reasoning with my own. What I intend to do here is to go through Ms. Tompkins' post point by point and do my best to, if not refute each one, then at least put forth why I think the real evidence indicates something different: specifically, that Sarah Palin did NOT give birth to Trig Palin on April 18th, 2008. I intend to quote large sections (indicated by blocks) of the original post, though not all of it, just because of length considerations.

Let me say categorically that I think the widely disseminated rumor that Sarah Palin is not the mother of her child Trig is totally false, although I know many well-informed and well-educated people who believe otherwise, and I certainly understand their theory.

I'm going to spend some time discussing the reasons why I think the Palin faked pregnancy story is not true, but first I think it is of interest to comment on why this story has really caught hold of the imagination of many.

... the general public disliked Sarah Palin and when the bizarre circumstances of the birth of her child Trig became generally known, the public wanted to believe that she was capable of faking a pregnancy in order to bolster her standing as a "family values" candidate by avoiding the baggage of a daughter who was about to become an unwed teenage mother. Avoiding that didn't quite work out for Palin as it turned out, but that didn't stop a vocal minority of conspiracy theorists to believe Palin capable of such chicanery earlier. The public wanted to believe the worst of Sarah Palin.

I've stated this before, but I will repeat it for the purposes of this post. I have done more than anyone regarding "Babygate," and while I can't speak for others, I can certainly speak for myself. My initial interest in the story had nothing to do with wanting to "believe the worst" about or discrediting Gov. Palin. I'd never heard of her. I was an Obama supporter and doubt that anything could have made me vote for the Republican ticket but I certainly did not dislike Sarah Palin on any sort of visceral level. In fact when I first heard that a mother of five had been chosen, I was rather thrilled and very very happy for her. I was eager to learn more about her.

In an ironic sense, I set out to defend her, feeling that she specifically and women in general are not well-served when such an unlikely and implausible childbirth story is disseminated. My initial interest stemmed from my desire to set the record straight. Some dim-witted young male reporter who probably barely understood how babies get in much less how they get out, I assumed, had gotten his facts wrong. No experienced mother, having had four prior births, would fly ten hours at 35 weeks while leaking amniotic fluid. Ludicrous. Crazy. Didn't happen.

This was my original premise and it had nothing to do with Sarah Palin at all. It was only after I understood that this WAS her story and she WAS sticking to it, that my B.S. meter went off the chart.

....the evidence very strongly suggests is that Palin was guilty of recklessly endangering the life of her unborn child, which to me is far worse than faking a pregnancy, to protect her political ambition and perhaps the reputation of her daughter. It's just not as sexy of a story, not one the public could latch onto with such fervor. Discussing ruptured membranes ain't exactly something to talk about at the dinner table. And since "life imitates art more than art imitates life" it's highly doubtful the Desperate Housewives' writers will be opening next season with one of the wives flying transcontinentally with preterm premature rupture of membranes.

The public couldn't understand why anyone would do anything other than take the greatest of care and every absolute precaution with the health of a special needs child, whose parent should have been their greatest advocate and protector.

The faked pregnancy theory was easier to believe. And so it was born...

I agree, I think recklessly endangering a child would be worse than faking a pregnancy. Much worse in fact. Where we differ is that I don't think Palin actually did that.

I do not believe that Sarah Palin, under any circumstances, would have risked giving birth on an airplane. Whether she would have been motivated to avoid this by concern for her child (hopefully) or fear of criticism and embarrassment doesn't really matter in the end. What matters is that the consequences of giving birth under such circumstances probably would have been career-ending.

I do not think she would have taken this risk. More to the point, I do not believe she DID take this risk. She was absolutely positive she would not have a baby on the airplane. And how could she be positive? The same way I am positive every time I fly that I will not have a baby on an airplane. I am not pregnant.

We are "working" this story knowing how it ends. We know that Sarah Palin did NOT have a child on an airplane on April 17th 2008. But at 2 PM that afternoon, when Sarah Palin would have been walking down that jetway, she could NOT have known what the next ten hours would hold. If Sarah Palin was 35 weeks pregnant on April 17th, given her obstetric history, not only was it possible she would give birth within ten hours of her membranes rupturing, it was probable. She would had to have guessed, getting on the airplane, that there was a very fair chance she'd have the baby in the air.

She should have known that the odds were against her, and if she did not, any credible doctor would have made it immediately, explicitly, abundantly clear. Several different versions of how much contact she had with her doctor and when that contact occurred on that day have circulated. But if Sarah Palin had been pregnant and had been leaking amniotic fluid, no doctor in the world would have ever told her it was alright even to consider getting on an airplane. Any physician would have made it clear that, if you're leaking amniotic fluid, you have a very high chance of having the baby before you get back to Alaska, certainly BETTER THAN 50/50. That information would have stopped Palin cold. Let's be reasonable. It would stop anyone.

The primary risk she would never take is to her own public image. She cares about what people think - very much. No professional woman - and certainly not the narcissistic governor of Alaska - would have risked for a second the absolutely appalling level of scrutiny and social embarrassment that would have resulted if she had given birth on the airplane... and that is if things came out well. If her preterm baby had been harmed by the choice, she could have been charged with child endangerment and prosecuted!

I have personally seen a baby born after two hours of membrane rupture and one - yes you're reading right - ONE contraction. Palin had boasted, prior to April 18th, about how easy her birth had been with Piper six years earlier, reminding people that after Piper had been born, she'd gone back to work the next day. Sarah Palin may not know the ins and outs of African politics, but she's a practical-minded woman who had given birth four times. She knows where babies come from and just exactly what is involved in getting them out. Do THAT on an airplane? Never. Not in a million years did she chance it.

I have never looked at a map and checked proximity of the hotel where Palin was staying in Texas to a hospital, but in a large urban area, surely she could not have been more than, say, ten minutes away from a good hospital where she could have gone in a hurry. I can accept - and always have - that someone in Palin's position might try to give the speech. MIGHT, though the image of an amniotic fluid "leak" turning into a full-fledged rupture while on stage certainly would have dissuaded me personally. (If you wonder what I'm talking about, dump approximately one and a half quarts of yellowish pinkish kinda funky smelling liquid between YOUR legs all at once. Now picture this happening WHILE giving a speech to other governors. Hmmm. Sort of wrecks the professional aura, doesn't it?)

But no one will ever convince me - ever! - that the image-conscious governor of Alaska risked having to lie down in public, spread her legs, and grunting and panting in a messy puddle of amniotic fluid, mucous, blood, urine and possibly either the baby's excrement, her own, or both, push her baby out on the carpet in the aisle. Risked her own health and her baby's. Risked the public criticism she would have come under for inconveniencing hundreds of other passengers. And taken this chance not once, but twice, on two separate four hour flights.

Would she ever have been able to overcome the eye rolling and snickers? I don't think so. "Oh yeah, Sarah Palin. She's that Governor that had a baby in first class. YUCK YUCK YUCK. Good thing it wasn't coach. HAR HAR HAR." "Didjya hear the one about the Governor that had the baby..." And on and on and on. Millions of people who had never heard of Sarah Palin would have, all at once, and not in a good way. "Pulling a Palin" (or something comparable) probably would have become - for generations - a synonym for: stupidest choice imaginable.

My "comeback" to Ms. Tompkins is that I believe that the faked pregnancy theory (which of course means she was never actually at risk for having a baby on the plane) is in fact far more plausible than suggesting that she risked the incredible level of scrutiny and criticism, possibly career ending, that she would have come under if she'd given birth somewhere over Canada.

And consider this: If you are going to put this forward - that Sarah Palin recklessly endangered the life of her child - you're going to have to be able to offer some plausible explanation for why she did it. That has never happened. Sarah Palin has NEVER offered any credible or even remotely believable explanation as to WHY. WHAT was her utterly compelling reason for getting on the airplane? WHY did she chance this medically risky and humiliating scenario?

So that her child could be born in Alaska.

This is the only reason she has ever offered. So that her child could be born in Alaska. (Or to quote the succinct Todd, "You can't have a fish picker [commercial fisherman] from Texas.") This makes no sense. It is in fact one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

Having a baby on an airplane would almost certainly have ended Sarah Palin's political career, just due to the embarrassment and the criticism she would have come under for inconveniencing the other passengers. If the baby had come to harm, it would definitely had ended her career and might have opened her up to prosecution. If the events of April 17, 2008 occurred as described, at 2 PM on that day when she got an airplane to return to Alaska, she could not know what would happen during the next eight hours. This is the risk the Sarah Palin would not take. This is the risk she did not take.


PART 2 COMING SOON.

Wonkette

Although many others who blog about issues concerning Sarah Palin have mentioned this already, I sure cannot let it pass.

The political blog, Wonkette, yesterday, while jumping with both feet onto the Desecration of Holy Child Special Needs Trig bandwagon, casually called him Bristol Palin's son.

Yes, that's right. "See that photoshop up there of Governor Palin with Bristol Palin’s child, Trig? "

Not one of the comments (and there are many) have yet called them on it. They've not bothered to "correct" it. Not even, an "Oops, our bad. It was just a typo. LOL."

Nothing.

Sarah Palin Pregnancy photo confirmed

As anyone knows who reads this blog and looks at my website, I am trying to be extremely careful to document everything. I think this is one reason that I am actually getting as little "hate" mail as I am, because people can't challenge what I am saying.

There's a photo that has been circulating since the beginning of this that purported to show Gov. Palin in a previous pregnancy. I could never figure out where it came from, or if it actually was Gov. Palin. Here's the photo.



I have confirmed the source of the photo. It was actually in a group of family photos that the Heath family (Palin's parents) released after her VP nomination. I have not however been able to confirm the date on this photo. Most Internet sources have claimed that she was pregnant with Track (her first son) which would have put this in 1989 when she was 25 years old, and sources also identify the other woman as her sister Heather. However, the AP website says that this photo is "undated" and does not name the other person. This is clearly a pregnant woman, and now we know for sure this is Sarah Palin.

This is what a normal woman looks like late in pregnancy. This is what SARAH PALIN looks like late in pregnancy.

Spin, Baby, Spin

Sarah Palin appears quite aware of how poorly some of the information regarding her pregnancy and birth "plays" when subjected to any sort of critical scrutiny. But she has a solution... we're going to rewrite history. We're going to spin, baby, spin. And because everyone is so afraid of the hot potato baby story, no one is calling her on it.

We saw several very good examples of this "history-morph" in two places in the last two weeks: the article in People magazine in the September 22nd issue and a long article published in the Dallas Morning News. For the first time, Gov. Palin speaks at length about why she waited so long to announce the news of her pregnancy publicly and did not even tell her immediate family she was carrying a Down's baby. In the "People" article, she repeats her prior statement that she knew Trig had Down's in December. However, while in numerous previous articles (published in April and May) she speaks only of being briefly "sad" at the news, now, we get lots more info: to People and the article in Dallas Morning News, she describes months of angst as she acclimates to what it will be like to have a special needs child, angst that prevented her from telling anyone (other than Todd) that she was even pregnant! I quote, "Not knowing in my own heart if I was going to be ready to embrace a child with special needs... I couldn't talk about it."

And from this, comes our second spin... the reason that no one noticed she was pregnant. I thought it was because SHE DIDN'T LOOK PREGNANT, but apparently not. Now we learn it was because she was CONCEALING it with "an elaborate game of fashion assisted camouflage," via scarves, shawls, loose-fitting blazers and "artfully-draped" accessories. (Hmmm. Here's the picture taken on Super Tuesday, in early February, 2008, when she would have been 26 weeks pregnant. Just a flat-chested no-tummy Gov. Palin in a running suit, with nary a shawl, scarf, blazer, or accessory, artfully-draped or otherwise, in sight.)(Unless you count the Blackberry. That's kind of an accessory. Maybe her tummy is hiding behind that.)

We're told that at the Vogue photo shoot on Wednesday, December 12th, she was photographed wearing an "enormous green parka." She would have been 16-18 weeks pregnant at this point. Huh? The Super Tuesday picture, above, was eight full weeks later. Why would she have needed a parka, enormous or otherwise? Is she trying to suggest now that she looked MORE pregnant on December 12th, than she did on February 5th?

Here's another photo taken when she would have been around 32 weeks. (Boy, that's some impressive pregnancy-concealing scarf. When I was 7-8 months pregnant with my fourth child and looked like a whale, I sure wish I could have had one of these!)



And then, our third spin. Why did she finally reveal the pregnancy? According to the Dallas Morning News, because "Alaskans were beginning to talk," i.e., speculate that she was pregnant. Really? In every news report from every paper and TV station in Alaska that we can still retrieve, the statement is the same: utter shock, complete disbelief, astonishment. Staffers being quoted that they had no idea. A state legislator who was also pregnant saying the same thing. No one, other than Sarah Palin herself, has ever suggested that people were beginning to notice. Here are two quotes from fellow state legislators, both saying the same thing. No one knew or even suspected. And it would be reasonable to assume that if anyone had heard gossip or rumors, it would be folks in the legislature, who worked with her professionally on a regular basis.

""Really? No!" said Bethel state Rep. Mary Nelson, who is close to giving birth herself.

"It's wonderful. She's very well-disguised," said Senate President Lyda Green, a mother of three who has sometimes sparred with Palin politically. "When I was five months pregnant, there was absolutely no question that I was with child." " (Of course, note that this is a misspeak on the part of Ms. Green... Palin was actually representing herself to be SEVEN months pregnant at this point, NOT five.)

Spin, baby, spin.

The Old Switcharoo: Bristol Palin, Under the Bus

There are many amazing things in this saga, some that I've already tried to point out, and others that I will continue to pursue in the future. But as I think about this, really, one of the most amazing things is the neat switcharoo that the McCain campaign pulled when the questions were raised, beginning on August 30th. It's almost impossible now (nearly three weeks later) to put together a really accurate timeline of how the rumors started and when, but it seems that the "big" hit came when a diarist named ArcXIX posted an expose to the liberal website Daily Kos around lunch time on August 30th. (These posts have been pulled down and were gone from the Google cache before I started collecting my data. I am still trying to get a hold of them, at least from some screen shots.) The summary of the Daily Kos post was - exactly comparable to what I am saying on this blog and website - that many details of the Sarah Palin pregnancy and birth story did not add up, and that the MOST logical explanation (and an explanation that had been floating around Alaska for months) was that she was covering for her daughter.

The story became huge - until it was shut down abruptly with the announcement two days later that BRISTOL Palin was now five months pregnant.

What? Hold it. I thought we were talking about Sarah Palin.

The question is Did Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, give birth to Trig Palin on April 18th, 2008? The question is NOT: Did Bristol Palin NOT give birth to Trig Palin on April 18th 2008? The McCain campaign wants us to focus on this question, but it's not the core question.

To repeat: The pivotal question is "Did Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska give birth to Trig Palin on April 18th 2008?" Saying that Woman B did NOT have a baby proves nothing about Woman A, no matter how cleverly the "spin" might be crafted.

Twenty two years ago I gave birth at home to a son. If someone walked through my door a minute from now, within four hours I could provide substantial and irrefutable proof that I gave birth to him, proof outside my immediate family. I would have the testimony of a credible and experienced midwife whom I am still in touch with. I would have the eye witness testimony of an additional 3-4 women who were physically in the room when I gave birth. All of these women would be delighted to tell anyone who asked that the idea that I had not given birth was ridiculous. I would have the testimony of many people who saw me hugely pregnant before the birth, and scores of people who saw me breastfeed him at one point or another, many of which I could still get in touch with. I have birth photographs. I could provide all of this within hours. And this is a home birth - twenty two years ago.

Now... let's go back to Gov. Palin. We have no photographs, no eyewitness testimony. We have one fairly tepid statement from her physician that she "did not think it was unreasonable for her to fly back," given to the Anchorage Daily News on April 22nd, and then, nothing else. (Which of course, if one REALLY wants to read between the lines, was 100% true. It would have been completely reasonable for her to fly back to Alaska if she wasn't pregnant!)

In spite of rumors that were extant in Alaska both before and after the birth, and then, of course, the incredible scrutiny given this situation since late August, Dr. Cathy Baldwin Johnson, as far as I can see, has never been willing to stand up in front of a camera, and say, "This is nuts. Of course, Sarah Palin had the baby. I was there." Ditto any nurses. Ditto any other women who were at Mat-Su simultaneously. No Susie Smith smiling on camera for CNN saying, "Of course, we ALL knew Gov. Palin was there at the same time I was having Johnny. It was very cool to have my baby at the same time as she did." Nothing. The silence is deafening.

(Actually, this is not accurate. We have one alleged statement given by one woman who was there simultaneously who has stated that she did NOT see Sarah Palin - she only saw "Todd in the hall," and that when they did see Gov. Palin "several days later," it did "not look like she had just had a baby." Links to these statements can be found on my website proper.)

My speculation? There exists a small but real number of "inner circle" people who know the truth. There must have been some "plan" as to how this birth was going to be managed, a plan that went down the tubes when Bristol Palin went into labor 4-5 weeks early with Sarah Palin inconveniently out of town. None of them are willing to lie by "commission" (i.e, go on camera and say they were at the birth) because of the very real fear that at some point the truth might come out, and then they look, at best, like lying idiots, and at worst, criminals. For example, if it ever does come out unequivocally that Sarah Palin did not give birth to Trig, whatever doctor signed that birth certificate would surely lose his/her medical license and might, quite literally, go to jail. So what they are all doing at this point is lying by "omission," praying no one else talks, and holding their breath.

And, then, the switcharoo. The McCain campaign (obviously with the complicity of Bristol Palin's parents) in panic mode, quite literally threw a 17 year old child under a bus. It's simple. The way we "prove" that Sarah Palin DID have a baby is to (supposedly) "prove" that Bristol, now "five months" pregnant, could not have.

Honestly, this is amazingly slick. The McCain campaign managed to lay to rest most doubts about whether or not Sarah Palin gave birth without ever discussing Sarah Palin OR the birth. Not one tiny "real" detail about Sarah Palin or Trig Palin that was not already known was released. And, by framing it in these terms, they get a second benefit. Since this has now become "about Bristol," pursuing it any farther becomes "going after families." Of course, again, the fact that they released the info that she was pregnant in the first place is conveniently ignored.

What? Did this really happen?

The only thing crazier than that they did this is that the news media and the Democratic National committee has allowed them to get away with it.

I still can't swallow this one...

One of the sections in the website proper speculates about the odd lack of any photos from the hospital around the time of the birth, which would have been an incredibly easy way of dispelling ALL rumors about "Who's Your Mommy?" In fact, all details of the birth have always been a bit "thin." But just recently, Gov. Palin shared with People magazine some touching new info about the birth that has never been shared before. Allegedly, Bristol, Willow, and Piper all did in fact gather "around the bedside" of their new brother, and Willow, according to her mother, noticed that Baby Trig had Down's even though she had not been told beforehand.

As I stated, I by no means am expecting any explicit birth videos. But I know that the vast VAST majority of families in America today choose to take photographs at their births, and many shoot video. (Heck, even the Amish women who give birth at our small local birthing center ask the nurses to snap a few pictures!) The lack of any photos of the whole Palin family at the time of the birth is one of the things that has just made me go "yeah, sure" from the very start of this. It's so utterly implausible, and has become more so now that it's been confirmed that in fact they were supposedly all there! What proud Papa would NOT want a photo of his three beautiful daughters, lovely wife, and new son? What normal teen would not snap a photo of new baby bro with her cell phone? Especially considering that there's a big brother who is far away and whom, we've been told, was participating BY CELL?

But no. Guess no one thought of it. And isn't that just too bad, because this left the McCain campaign only one other option for "proving" that Sarah Palin is "really" Trig's mommy: telling the entire country that 17 year old Bristol is pregnant now.

Yeah right.