Saturday 7 November 2009

Sarah Palin's speech in Wisconsin: Trig's pregnancy story (revised version)


Sarah Palin spoke yesterday in West Allis (Milwaukee County) having been invited by "Wisconsin Right For Life". Like in Sarah's speech in Evansville, Indiana in April 2009, it was again a speech which heavily featured one of Sarah's most favourite subjects to talk about: Trig. There were some revealing details which she gave yesterday. For the first time we received an insight into Sarah Palin's "revised pregnancy story" which she undoubtedly will present in greater detail in her upcoming book - because apparently she discovered that the "first story" contains some "holes", and now, in her mega-selling book, they need to be filled.

We have not only one, but two accounts about what was said yesterday in Wisconsin - we don't have the exact wording, because in typical Palin fashion, recordings were not permitted. The "Sarah Palin Truth Squad" has an impressive list of all the items which were not permitted to take into the venue - "transparency" has never been Sarah Palin's greatest virtue. I guess she will put out a facebook version soon!

What we have so far is a "long version" of the speech in Wisconsin as reported in Mudflats. In this version, the relevant parts about "The Trig story" are described as follows:

"Two years ago I had an ultra sound. I was 12 weeks along. The technician said she saw boy parts. I was like, yes, what could be better than a little baby boy? Then she said the baby’s neck was thicker than usual. I was like yes, that’s great. Then I thought, oh oh. I recall the fear, knowing what a thick neck may mean. More tests. My baby had Down Syndrome. What is amazing is who this child is. My family’s life is so much richer because of this beautiful baby boy named Trig. He’s awesome! Groups like this affirm the value of every life.

That is what I had to hold onto – that seed of faith—when I was afraid.

We know that 80-90% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted. They’re aborted because they live in a society of some people’s idea of perfection, not God’s.

Talks about Bristol and how she’s faced challenges as well, but chose life.

Today I thank God for all of these circumstances. I never thought I’d be asked to walk the walk. It took me a while to get there through my pregnancy. I asked God and I asked Todd, “Why us?” Todd said, “Why not us?”

I want to help you help people to be less afraid and make this world more welcoming for every baby."


The second, shorter account is from the Milwaukee publication JSOnline. In there, it says:

"Palin spoke movingly of her youngest son, Trig, who has Down syndrome. She recalled that when she was pregnant, she underwent an ultrasound and the technician told her, "I see boy parts."

Later, the technician told her that the baby's neck "is a little bit thicker," an indication that there might be an extra chromosome. A few days later, Down syndrome was confirmed.

"I was scared," Palin said, adding that she asked her husband, Todd, "Why us?" He responded, "Why not?"

"My family life is much richer thanks to this beautiful baby boy Trig," Palin said. "He is awesome."

So what is the problem here?

Well, the original pregnancy story read a bit differently, and there was an obvious need to "fill some gaps". That's what Sarah Palin now attempts to do, and we will certainly see this in its full glory in her new book.

Fortunately, we have a very detailed account of the "original version" of the pregnancy story, written by Lorenzo Benet in his biography "Trailblazer". Lorenzo Benet did not "make this up" - far from it. In the description of "Trailblazer", the following is reported:

"People magazine assistant editor Lorenzo Benet met with Sarah Palin and her family just weeks before the announcement that she would be the Republican vice-presidential nominee. He spoke in depth with Governor Palin; with her husband, Todd, the "First Dude," as he likes to call himself; with her children; and with other members of her extended family."

In "Trailblazer", starting on page 181, Benet said:

"Sarah kept mum about the pregnancy until October.

Todd had figured it out but was discreet enough not to say a word. When Sarah finally gave him the great news, she said with a shrug, "Life is full of surprises", she told People magazine. Todd was ecstatic. He had already wanted another son, friends said, and his oldest boy had just signed up for a stint in the Army, and the country was in the middle of a war. There was no telling what might happen if Track were called to serve in the theater, which he eventually was.


For the next five months, Todd and Sarah kept the pregnancy a secret. Any thoughts of breaking the news early to their kids were scuttled when Sarah learned her baby had Down syndrome after having amniocentesis at thirteen weeks. Todd was away working when her family doctor, Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, called with the news. Sarah drove over to Johnson's office, discussed the implications, and received some reading material on the disorder. Then she headed home to ponder her fate.


Over the next couple of days, she read everything she could on the disorder. (...) Some children cannot speak until age four, and half of the infants are born with a hole in the heart, as was the case with Trig. If the holes don't close, surgery is often required (Trig, fortunately, avoided surgery).


(...) There was never any question about keeping the baby, and Sarah explained later that the one reason she did amnio was simply to be prepared for any eventuality. It was time, she said, to walk the walk and not just talk the talk.

When Todd returned from his trip, she broke the news to him gently during a quiet moment at home. Tears welling in her eyes, she said: "The good news is we have a boy. But we have a challenge." Unwavering in his support, Todd said: "Awesome! I am getting another boy."


It may not have been part of their plan, the couple believed, but certainly it was part of a greater plan. "Why not us?", Todd said. Sarah continued keeping her secret from the public and her children. Not discussing the pregnancy with her daughters, she felt, would shorten the process for them and spare them from unwanted attention. "I didn't want Alaskans to fear I would not be able to fulfil my duties", she told People."


Therefore, the "ultrasound story" which Sarah presented in Wisconsin is brand new. Doesn't it sound sooo much better now? Conveniently, we don't know the "exact" wording of what Sarah has said in Wisconsin.

Clearly, the account of Lorenzo Benet that "Sarah explained later that the one reason she did the amnio was simply to be prepared for any eventuality" doesn't go along at all with the version that Sarah presented in Wisconsin, because there she gave the impression that indications for Down syndrome had been discovered during an ultrasound and that further testing was basically a necessity back then.

But we have another "problem", and this doesn't directly result from her speech in Wisconsin, but from the speech that Sarah Palin gave in Indiana on April 16, 2009. Sarah said back then:

"I had found out that I was pregnant while out of state first, at an oil and gas conference. While out of state, there just for a fleeting moment, wow, I knew, nobody knows me here, nobody would ever know. I thought, wow, it is easy, could be easy to think, maybe, of trying to change the circumstances. No one would know. No one would ever know.

"Then when my amniocentesis results came back, showing what they called abnormalities. Oh, dear God, I knew, I had instantly an understanding for that fleeting moment why someone would believe it could seem possible to change those circumstances. Just make it all go away and get some normalcy back in life. Just take care of it. Because at the time only my doctor knew the results, Todd didn't even know. No one would know. But I would know. First, I thought how in the world could we manage a change of this magnitude. I was a very busy governor with four busy kids and a husband with a job hundreds of miles away up on the North Slope oil fields. And, oh, the criticism that I knew was coming. Plus, I was old . . .

"So we went through some things a year ago that now lets me understand a woman's, a girl's temptation to maybe try to make it all go away if she has been influenced by society to believe that she's not strong enough or smart enough or equipped enough or convenienced enough to make the choice to let the child live. I do understand what these women, what these girls go through in that thought process."

Wait a second!

In the "Trailblazer" book it was reported in great detail that Todd already knew about the pregnancy before the testing was done, However, in the speech in Indiana, Sarah gives the impression that "Todd didn't even know" - but what didn't he know about? The result of the amniocentesis or the fact that Sarah was pregnant? Well, her remark wouldn't make much sense if she was just talking about the fact that Down syndrome had been discovered, because when she first said in the speech "No one would know. No one would ever know" she clearly refers to the fact alone that she was pregnant. Therefore, when she said a few sentences later "Todd didn't even now. No one would know. No one would ever know" connects to her previous remark, and the only possible interpretation in my view is that she wanted to express there that Todd didn't know about the pregnancy when the amniocentesis was done.

Therefore one of the two versions has to be false. Which is fascinating, because it appears that Lorenzo Benet's account is based on what Sarah had told him herself in his capacity as journalist for People magazine.

I am curious to see what the full version in her book will be.

As usual, Sarah's advice "quit making things up" doesn't apply to herself. Sarah's pregnancy didn't happen. None of this did happen. It is made up. Sarah Palin is a liar, and not a very good one, either.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan wrote a post about the same topic on his blog on Sunday, and I am very happy to say that Andrew not only picked up on the same points that I had mentioned here, but that he also linked to my post on Palingates.


Please click on the title of the blogpost or CLICK HERE before using the toolbar below for sharing.

248 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 248 of 248
Anonymous said...

Sane, why are you so insecure about Sarah Palin? And if you don't care what we think, why are you here?

Archivist said...

sane .. and yet ... it took you less than 5 minutes to respond to me (winkie winkie)

....... I'm thinking that you DO listen!

Sane said...

Archivis,

You confuse me with a Palinbot.

Just because I think your blogging and commenting is not working to get at Palin doesn't mean I think she hung the moon, or that I even care what she does. She will never be president or hold public office again, so why do you care about her private life so much...obsessed maybe.

Archivist said...

OK Sane, fair enough.

I don't obsess about Sarah ... I am, however, fascinated by her 'followers' ... I have never been around people like them; functionally illiterate, totally incapable of rational thought, willingly ignorant of issues, and just plain stupid.

They are like dogs with a bone! Growling and threatening anyone/anything that comes between them and their bone. A blind loyalty that only a dog shows his master. That master can beat it, lock it up, not feed it for days and YET .... a dog will slobber and beg for attention and gratefully forgive anything the Master does.

The real problem is: dogs (like Palinbots) are pack animals. Worse than dogs though .. they VOTE .. and they constantly demonstrate that they are totally unqualified to make an informed decision.

My blog is about them: the Palinbots who blindly follow Sarah, whatever BS she feeds them. It's downright scary!

Anonymous said...

Palin is irrelevant except for the last remains of the old brand. It is not about wanting her to do anything. It is about enjoying that it is coming to an end. She does not have to prove or show anything to anyone except the authorities. That is what matters. Not any of the opinions or proof games. She is no John McCain, he will probably die before his legacy is exposed. She was on his coat tail but not able to extort or cover as he did. She is going to be dressed down like some old moose cow her daddy killed after he took his quota and used someone else to buck the system.

Crunchwrap Supremes and Wal-Mart Jammies said...

From Trailblazer:

"Todd was ecstatic. He had already wanted another son, friends said, and his oldest boy had just signed up for a stint in the Army, and the country was in the middle of a war. There was no telling what might happen if Track were called to serve in the theater, which he eventually was."

Shouldn't Todd say his oldest child had just signed up for the Army? Until Trig joined the family, wasn't Track his only son?

Maybe this is just a case of poor word choices, but it sounds like Todd thought of poor Trig as a substitute to keep around in case of Track's death. Ugh!

comeonpeople said...

KaJo and Arm Chair Jane:
IF IF A technician sayed "it has boy parts" or "the neck is too thick" it WOULD NOT BE A HIPPA VIOLATION. The tech is caring for Sarah . It may be outside their role or scope of practice, but it is NOT a HIPPA violation. Now, if the tech got on the elevator and was talking to another hospital worker and said "I just did the governors ultrasound and she might be having a down syndrome boy" that is a HIPPA violation. Respectfully I say we need to have a proper understanding of what HIPPA really means and what its intent is and under what circumstances it can be safely bypassed . But a medical person rendering an opinion to a patient is not a HIPPA violation.
I just love how anyone can say CBJ letter is professionally written. If that is a representation of the state of medical care in Wasilla Alaska, thst's disturbing. Also, too, and, why on earth would the letter be sooooo focused on Trig's birth?? Blatantly suspicious.

Anonymous said...

It's "HIPAA."

comeonpeople said...

My bad. The rest is accurste.

comeonpeople said...

accurate. gessus christmas i can't type today.

Anonymous said...

Sane and Jesse-What you fail to recognize is that as long as the blogs keep digging, the truth will come out, maybe that's what your afraid of?? If you believe the story Sarah is telling why are you here worrying about what we think?

Do you think she will ever run for a national office without all of her past gates coming out, she will never run for Pres, she's riding the money train and doesn't care about you.

L.A. in S.F. said...

You know I've been a reader and poster on all these sites for a long time. I just said something similar to this on Bree: this reactionary stuff to everything she says and does simply feeds her minions. If there is "proof" - and no, I don't believe any of this is proof - then I wonder what the end game is, as someone else asked on ImMor. Truly, is there an article in the works? A book coming out? Because while all these photos and conflicting, indeed lying statements from her are strong evidence, they are not proof. We do look sort of nutty just rehashing everything and reacting to everything she does. I mean, why would your sources and Gryph's sources be talking to all of you, knowing that you are writing blogs, unless they know you plan to put something in writing? And if that's the case, then spell out exactly what this high up Republican official has said. Use some quotes. Look at the standard used by some of the MSM that everyone bashes, and then hold yourselves to that standard. I know this won't warm your hearts, but there it is.

comeonpeople said...

I wish there was an edit button on comments so we can fix spellings and other errors. Is there one that I am missing?

Anonymous said...

LA in SF, there is a book in the works. Have you followed IM? (And it's not Gryphen's)

Anonymous said...

I had to deal with the FBI once. They asked for all the documents I could get together. When you report a crime you can go in and speak with them in person. There is not always enough evidence. Say you saw an arsenal of weapons at the Mayors house. That's it, you are the only one that saw it and it is the Mayor. It is not like they will get a search warrant or bust through his door.

You take in all the documents you can and you lay out a summary of the crimes you are looking at. They will not tell you every thing they are doing about it. More like you'll get no information unless they need more from you.

The people who saw and know Palins condition at the time she was pretending to be PG are the ones that should go to the FBI office, if not in Anchorage (remember how they worked for Van Flein). It may take a trip out of state. The witnesses to a crime are the best to contact DoJ, FBI or others. With the help of those who have been documenting things I don't see why it would not start the investigation. That may have already happened and it's not to the place where it is made public.

Anonymous said...

""" Anonymous said...
Sane and Jesse-What you fail to recognize is that as long as the blogs keep digging, the truth will come out, maybe that's what your afraid of?? If you believe the story Sarah is telling why are you here worrying about what we think?

Do you think she will ever run for a national office without all of her past gates coming out, she will never run for Pres, she's riding the money train and doesn't care about you."""

Do not presume to know my true intentions.

Anonymous said...

I agree with those that say it is time to find a way to get the witnesses to the right authorities.
The documentation will follow.

I don't look to the blogs as the final proof so I like what they are doing.

Great work and a great blog.

Anonymous said...

23:17 - I agree. The blogs are doing a great job and there is additional work being done elsewhere (or so I understand).

ArmchairJane said...

(Part 1)
comeonpeople,

Yes, you are correct in your example. And I just wrote a long, and probably very boring to most people, comment explaining the difference between "scope of practice" and HIPAA. And I am with you on wishing there was a correction button so I could fix typos! But usually I let them stand rather than deleting and completely reposting.

Fortunately or unfortunately, my previous HIPAA vs "scope of practice" comment got lost when I accidentally clicked while refreshing the page to check my "preview". So looks like people will be spared my longwinded explanation. Believe it or not, this is the "short version".

The upshot:
"no diagosing or interpreting health information" unless training and licensing allows it = "scope of practice". Usually this means doctors only, with a few exceptions for highly trained people such as nurse practitioners(NPs) who still often practice with "oversight" from a physician and who usually have a more limited scope of practice. This is why you usuallly are not told test results by technicians. Scope of practice for NPs and others depends on the state.

Often health care workers will not reveal even "raw data", even at times data so routine as blood pressure, especially in certain settings (like the doctor's office), to avoid the questions that often follow that could lead to the patient wanting "interpretation", which could quickly get the worker in trouble. In most cases the disclosure of the medical info is delayed until the doctor can interpret and diagnose. So it's not actually HIPAA but scope of practice primarily stopping these disclosures to the patient. (HIPAA however could come into play if the place they take the blood pressure is an area where the data said out loud could be overheard by people in the waiting room. So the nurse may not reveal the data at that time for THAT reason, and in that case it would be for HIPAA privacy reasons. See, it gets complicated.)

HIPAA = keeping the medical data aka "personal health information", both raw data and diagnosis, private and secure, and away from anybody but the patient and people who need the data to do their jobs. NO data may be released to any others without the patient's written permission. Often blanket permissions are signed when getting treatment so that certain data can go to insurance companies for billing purposes. They in turn must keep the data private and secure. People can also authorize in writing for their information to be released, including release to their families, or to other doctors.

This means no lab tech, delivery nurse, doctor, or anybody else involved in her care can confirm or deny to the public anything about Palin's pregnancy OR non-pregnancy without her explicit permission, or they risk job loss, license loss, heavy fines and legal jeopardy including prison if the violation was severe enough. That is what HIPAA does. It is a strengthening of older privacy principles in place, backing them up with big legal penalties to stop people from leaking medical info. (Actually, there is much more to HIPAA, but this is a summary of the privacy component. Also, job loss and license loss for violations are not part of HIPAA, but are instead responses of employers and other entities who want to maintain standards. Fines and prison can come if complaints are lodged with the Federal Office if Civil Rights (OCR). OCR administers fines in civil cases, the Federal Department of Justice prosecutes criminal complaints, and can give prison sentences)

ArmchairJane said...

(Part 2)
However, "regular" people who know someobody ie not caregivers, or for instance another PATIENT that saw a person in a particular medical office can talk about that. HIPAA does not regulate gossip. Interestingingly, very few people (friends, acquaintances, coworkers, neighbors) have talked about seeing Palin doing any of the usual pregnancy-related actitivities.

In conclusion, while HIPAA and "scope of practice" are two completely diffrent things, in the real world they can get tangled up and confusing even for health care workers. The example of telling a patient their blood pressure in an area where it could be overheard is an example. The person can know their BP without it violating HIPAA, but it's NOT okay for other patients to be able to overhear it. And the person taking the BP may or may not tell the numbers to the patient, depending on setting and policy in place where the care is taking place. Because medical assistants and other such personnel are not alllowed to make the *diagnosis* of high blood pressure, they may not give the numbers simply to avoid an awkward situation of the patient wanting an interpretation on the spot.

comeonpeople, if you see any major flaws here feel free to speak up. I would not normally spend this much time explaining but medical privacy keeps coming up as an issue. And I definitely agree that the so-called CBJ letter is a terrible example of a "medical document" and has never been authenticated.

ArmchairJane said...

Arrgh! "Interestingingly"
Where's that typo button when I need it?

Anonymous said...

comeonpeople said...I just love how anyone can say CBJ letter is professionally written. If that is a representation of the state of medical care in Wasilla Alaska, thst's disturbing. Also, too, and, why on earth would the letter be sooooo focused on Trig's birth?? Blatantly suspicious.

CBJ letter = the state of medical care in Wasilla Alaska! Egads! No wonder all those people died.

Anonymous said...

The tone of Sane's last comment does not sound like someone who has full confidence in the truth of what SP is saying...it sounds like someone who knows SP IS lying and is taunting the people who blog and comment here.

Anonymous said...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/palin-in-wisconsin-ii.html

Andrew Sullivan is not buying ANY of it.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the Andrew Sullivan tip, it's a must read.

Palin And Amniocentesis
Why would a pro-life woman choose the procedure that could lead to the death of her unborn child rather than the safe, less invasive procedure? I don't know. It's one of many mystifying weirdnesses in Palin's own account of her pregnancy.

comeonpeople said...

Went to the HIPAA site and found some reasons HIPA can be violated:

Public Interest and Benefit Activities. The Privacy Rule permits use and
disclosure of protected health information, without an individual’s authorization or
permission, for 12 national priority purposes.28 These disclosures are permitted,
although not required, by the Rule in recognition of the important uses made of health
information outside of the health care context. Specific conditions or limitations
apply to each public interest purpose, striking the balance between the individual
privacy interest and the public interest need for this information


So, it seems to me the countr has the right to know if she did or did not birth Trig, as she uses the fact that she did to run for pbli office and to try and influence public policy.

Another reason HIPAA can be violated:

Serious Threat to Health or Safety. Covered entities may disclose protected
health information that they believe is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious
and imminent threat to a person or the public, when such disclosure is made
to someone they believe can prevent or lessen the threat (including the target
of the threat). Covered entities may also disclose to law enforcement if the
information is needed to identify or apprehend an escapee or violent
criminal.40

I think Scarah is a threat to this country lol.....

Anyway, the site is interesting to browse and I think with enough research we/someone could come up with a good reason to launch an investigation involving her medical records.

Here is the site:
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/privacysummary.pdf

ArmchairJane said...

Great piece by Sullivan, so glad to have been alerted to it. He really made some excellent points. And it comes just as the "new and improved" version of the Trig story, the one that will probably be in "the book", has made its debut in Wisconsin. Excellent timing!

comeonpeople, you are making some VERY good points! Yes, threat to country, check that box, lol! We still have no good explanation of the sudden, breathless, quittin' speech, maybe somebody HAS already come up with something they are investigating... There seem to be two things that really scare/enrage Palin: threat of exposure of the fake pregnancy, and threat of exposure that the marriage appears less than happy.

Molly said...

On timing issues:

She is claiming to have found out about the DS at 12 wk US, followed up by, presumably, either CVS or early amnio at 13 weeks, results to follow in, say, a week or two. This is supposed to be in about November, give or take, given a May due date.

So, she knows about a DS pregnancy in November, but does not tell her children, her parents, her sisters, or any of her staff until March of 2008 that she is even pregnant? And then, once it's all over the local news, she STILL doesn't tell her children, her parents, her sisters and their families, her friends and her staff that the baby has been diagnosed with Down Syndrome? The reason we know this is because the newspaper said that it was on Friday after she had her baby that she sent out a mass email to FAMILY AND FRIENDS about the fact that Trig has been born with DS, but that he would be loved and cherished and all that--the letter signed from Trig's creator, our heavenly father....

Which all makes me tend to think, once again, that the whole deal is a lie--that the infant known as Trig was NOT prenatally diagnosed, that nobody knew ahead of time, that the diagnosis was not confirmed until suspicious physical characteristics were confirmed through a chromosomal test on the newborn, and, his public presentation seemed like a Good Time to announce the DS.

How does that grab the rest of you?

'Cause if we follow SP's version, she was actively attempting to get a diagnosis as early as possible in order to "make a decision" about the pregnancy. Even *I*, an older mother, allowed for early ultrasound (mainly to see the little dickens!) but refused any more involved screening on the grounds that any info obtained would not change the outcome of the pregnancy--I would carry a DS to term. AND I'M PRO-CHOICE!!

If she wanted follow up testing to confirm the diagnosis, she could have waited a few more weeks until amnio was safer, or had another diagnostic US, or had maternal blood screenings.......if she only wanted to know to know, she should have waited---Lord knows she waited until 7 months along to inform everyone else she was even pregnant. Her version is so full of utter bogosity!!!!!

Molly said...

Oh, and, implicit in the above theory, of course, is that Trig was born before April 18th, at least long enough beforehand that they were able to announce in the "wild ride" interview that he had DS.

Anonymous said...

So far JC's position is defensible since there is no evidence to the contrary. Sure it's frustrating because most people believe on preponderance of the available circumstantial evidence Sarah is not the bio mother of Trig. However, circumstantial is not going to get it, in this case.

I'd still like to know why noone has publicly set up a fund to solicit information regarding this topic. It seems easy enough to do and through Paypal, too. In this economy someone in Alaska will talk when the purse gets big enough.

So, Patrick why won't you do it?

Anonymous said...

anon @ 8.32

Patrick must be doing something right because Andrew Sullivan linked to this blog post last night. That is the second time in two weeks that he has linked to Patrick's posts.

Anonymous said...

comeonpeople - That's interesting.

Anonymous said...

@8:32 - if you are so interested in setting up such a fund, why don't you do it yourself?

Anonymous said...

ArmchairJane, your comments are among my favorites. I appreciate what you do.

I like all the theories and fun parts of the blog but I'm more interested in documents and what can be verified. I was naive and had no clue that it could be a problem to have a letter like the CBJ letter authenticated. It seems if there was any question about a document the matter would automatically be looked over and all questions answered. That is not how it goes, it is easy to pass off a fake document during an election.

Why bother to have any candidates submit medical records if that is the standard for future campaigns? We could get rid of the whole FEC if they are just working for the scam artists to pull the wool over our eyes.

What is this about threats against Obama? Is that on SarahPac? Is that the wave of the future for PACs now? Palinbots are among the ones that want the military to take over and for citizens to riot in protest. You can't start a revolution if you can't jack up the rhetoric, fear and hate speech. They are just doing what they are manipulated to do.

I would be disturbed to see hate speech tolerated on any PAC. What would Romney do if that was his PAC and they were threatening another? Why don't we have any regulatory systems to deal with revolutionaries who are inciting death? If it was the far left extremists the media would be all over it and they would be called traitors.

ginny said...

It only just occurred to me...why would $P have ever even made the claim to have had ANY early testing? Why instead (assuming she did not give birth to Trig, of course) did she not simply feign surprise that Trig had DS when he was "born" on 4-18-08? Wouldn't that have been a simpler lie to tell? Or do we just chalk it up to her deep love of story embellishment?
Just wondering if anyone else has questioned this and has any reasons why she would have even pretended to know ahead Trig had DS but not tell anyone till he was "born".

Anonymous said...

@ginny, I stopped looking for logic with this crazy gal's whoppers last year. We think she leaves clues but she's just delusional. She likes to make herself look "heroic" so that's how she will tell any tall tale--such as someone who is 5"2 being a HS basketball star.

Anonymous said...

Ginny, that's an easy one to answer. The reason for the prenatal testing "story" was to show everyone that she knew the baby had DS and chose to have him anyway. Boosted her pro-life cred's immensely and, as others have posited, cinched her selection as the VP nom pick.

I am 110% certain that is the "why" she had Trig (in collusion with the political far right/dominionist agenda). It's the "where" or "how" she got him that remains unknown.

I will agree that the circumstantial evidence that this and other blogs have accumulated is not "proof," however, it overwhelmingly justifies reasonable suspicion. Ask a cop, they don't have to have "proof" when they pull you over, just reasonable suspicion. Everything else goes from that point on, just as this will.

Regina, Patrick - I normally feel no need to respond to what JC says. But what he said earlier up in this thread really does sound like a threat.

Susan in MD

wv - eptingsi (like csi, except pregnancy testing scene investigation...lol!)

ArmchairJane said...

Anon 17:18, thank you for your kind comment! I am glad if I helped show just why it IS so hard to document the whole Babygate situation. Pictures ARE documentary evidence, though, and so we have to use them too, especially since Palin has really not been very open. And now she is telling new versions of the Trig DS story...

One of the telling things is that the ADN tried to help Palin debunk Babygate. I think it would not have taken much proof since the ADN was taking a lot of heat over the issue. And the ADN was also making a lot of money from the State of Alaska from advertising and other sources of revenue. However, Palin actively stonewalled the effort to offer any proof other than her own word and the "CBJ letter". The ADN editor finally gave up trying to disprove Babygate because he could not get enough support to do it.

As far as elections and medical records, recent candidates have produced varying amounts of medical records in controlled situations, had doctors write letters about their health, or some combination of both. McCain allowed a small group reporters 3 hours to look through 1000 pages of his medical records, no photocopying or pictures allowed, only note taking, for example.

The public expects to learn at least something about a candidates health, but there is no requirement for disclosure. However, candidates are usually asked by the press to give a health summary or to explain already known conditions that might be a risk. What goes out to the public really varies, but Palin's very late, eve of election, oddly written letter seems to be the least disclosure of anyone who actually ran on a recent ticket. Still, many of her fans claim Palin "released her medical records".

To be fair, no candidates just completely open their records to the press to allow them to view and copy and endlessly dissect every tidbit, and I can think of a lot of good reasons why they don't.

But the CBJ letter is not written like a normal health summary would be written. It reads nothing like, for instance, a summary of a health exam for a life insurance policy. And Dr. CBJ has not authenticated the letter or explained the oddties about the style and content. The timing of release, focus on Trig, everything about it is strange.

The failure to stand behind the Palin "CBJ letter" is nothing like what you have seen other doctors who have written or reviewed other candidate records do. They were willing to go on the record, often at press conferences where they explain the findings. The annual presidential physical is an example of when in recent times there has been some limited info released and discussed about the president's health, and since about half the time the person will be running again for another term, this is another time the public gets information about the health of candidates.

This next web address is a good short piece to read that talks a bit about presidential candidates revealing their medical history. It gives some recent examples and an idea for some things to consider, and a brief verview of the challenges and ethical issues involved:
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/covering_candidates_medical_re.php?page=all

The idea of a commission to review candidates records has been discussed but seems to be going nowhere. It's a tough problem. Palin was able to get by with the CBJ letter in part because McCain/Palin lost the election just hours later. In the future I would hope that if such a letter had been presented earlier, medical journalists would have scrutinized it and explained the issues with it to the public, and that Dr. CBJ would have agreed to a press conference about the findings.

ArmchairJane said...

ginny, I agree with Susan in MD/anon 20:36. Just having Trig was not enough. She needed to know in advance about the DS so she could say she "chose life". To get the max pro-life points she needed to have been tempted to "maybe try to make it all go away", but because of her faith and the support of Todd, she overcame and "walked the walk".

It is a classic tale of fall/temptation followed by redemption. It casts the marriage in a good light as well, as Todd is depicted as "always supportive", even though when he actually finds out about the pregnancy and DS is rather confusing and seems to vary with each telling of the tale. Reminds me of one of those "big fish that got away" stories that just keeps getting better and better as the teller keeps telling it.

ginny said...

Thanks for the opinions, Susan in MD, anon 20:36, and ArmchairJane. That does make perfect sense, well, if you are thinking like $P, LOL! Of course the story isn't as good if she wasn't tempted (just like Jesus was, right?).
I guess, in her first version of the story, where she gets an amnio, she "forgot" that pro-life woman don't do that, LOL!

Anonymous said...

There is a reason why you can't document your crazed theory, ArmchairJane, because it did not happen! There is no evidence. There is not an official testimony from even a single doctor who will say that Sarah Palin was not pregnant based on the photographs you provided.

Now tell me another thing. If the letter by Cathy Baldwin-Johnson was forged, why do you think she did not speak out against it? You could say she was part of the conspiracy, but if that was the case, then she would just write a letter containing false information herself. There would be no need for it to be forged. Your own idea are not logically consistent.

You see, because Cathy Baldwin-Johnson has not affirmed the letter to be written by her own hand in some press conference does not mean she did not write it.

You don't have anything, never did, and never will.

comeonpeople said...

kids are home from school.......

ArmchairJane said...

Hmmm, official testimony by doctors: well, normally doctors don't give "official testimony" or testimony about patients not of their own, unless it is in a court of law, or perhaps a Congressional hearing. So I am not sure where the forum would be for this "official testimony".

Plenty of doctors have expressed their personal opinions about the ridiculousness of the wild ride, and others have expressed that in their opinion Palin does appear to be pregnant in many of the photos. So have other health care workers. We're entitled to our opinions.

If it comes to a court case, that's when we would see "official testimony", and if it DOES come to a court case, some things that are now secret could be revealed. Things like DNA.

Some people need to work on their reading comprehension AND their logic. It should be pretty clear why Dr. CBJ would not speak out against the letter if one reads up on the privacy of health information. It would be a legally dangerous task to undertake without a good reason.

If Sarah wrote the letter herself, I would expect it to read just the way it does: like it was NOT written by a doctor. That letter is not well written and has holes one could drive a truck through. Logically, one should be able to see that.

Sorry folks, I did give him a crumb, that's the only crumb I am giving him today.

Anonymous said...

ArmchairJane, thank you again for the information about elections and medical records and specifically the "CBJ letter" questions.

I hope the latter moves people to action, whether they form a committee or something else to improve this flaw that Palin brought to light. It's not only about if the letter is a fraud or forged. The look of impropriety creates an atmosphere where people lose trust in the system. We need to know the doctors are authentic and willing to answer questions if needed. If they bring their lawyer, well, it may be a bigger story. The public needs to know the candidates medical records are reliable and they aren't hiding something.

I didn't think a candidate medical records would be open but I couldn't recall anything like this, and no details or follow up. More professional doctors do make an effort to back up the clients medical records the best they can. The "CBJ letter" deserves a special place in this history, like a freak of some sort. I have heard CBJ is professional with a nice bedside manner. Why would a pro suddenly start to behave in a manner that is out of character?

The part where she writes about Trig is out of place and goes into the "protest too much" category. Why put that in there?

It is a red flag, like when Palin changes her story. With the photos and Sarah speaking and making claims in writing I believe it is not that much longer when the law can inform the public that they have enough to really get the ball rolling.

Anon 17:18

Anonymous said...

You win the grand prize, ArmchairJane!

Doctors cannot give a proper diagnose to an individual without first examining them in person. No doctor would ever go on record and say that Sarah Palin was not pregnant based on those photos.

Now that being the case, if a person educated in the medical field would not make such an assumption, why should I trust people who are not employed in the field of medicine to make a similar assumption?

The fact is, you have neither the expertise nor judgment necessary to reach such a decision about Sarah Palin's pregnancy. When you do so, you look like a fool, speaking of matters of which you know nothing.

So yes, spout your opinion. However, it would be best if you used evidence to support it.

As for the writing style of the letter released by Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, how do you know it was written unprofessionally? Demonstrate the capacity of your profound logic and show me how it was written poorly.

Anonymous said...

Please don't feed the trolls. Do your best to ignore them completely. If a genuine person posts a dissenting view, please reply politely. If the discussion descends into something fruitless and annoying as the recent performance we saw here, treat as trolling and simply ignore.

Thank you

Anonymous said...

Just a note of sanity, re this insane woman.

The bill would have come with the right words on it - no white out. Reason being, 99.9 percent of the doctors now have computerized billing systems.

Ummmm. Caught again in another lie?

Anonymous said...

Some info-

The most traditional method of baby gender prediction involves using a sonogram, also known as an ultrasound. In the case of a level three ultrasound — performed in cases where there are concerns about the baby's health or the mother's health — the baby's gender can be determined as early as 12 weeks into a pregnancy. Notably, level three ultrasounds are not performed solely to find out the baby's sex, so this is not an option for many pregnant women who want to find out if they're having a boy or girl.

The baby's gender can be determined using level one ultrasound as soon as 15 weeks of pregnancy, but some women have to wait much longer to determine if it's a girl or boy. In many cases, the baby's position in the womb is such that the it's impossible to make an accurate gender prediction until much later in the pregnancy.

Expecting mothers can also learn the sex of a baby as early as 15 to 18 weeks of pregnancy using an amniocentesis, which involves penetrating the woman's belly with a needle to extract a sample of amniotic fluid from the sac surrounding the baby. This method of determining baby sex has a more than 99% accuracy rate, according to WebMD, but like a level three ultrasound, amniocentesis is not available to all women. This procedure is usually performed in cases of advanced maternal age (35+) or in situations where birth defects or other fetal health problems are suspected.


http://pregnancychildbirth.suite101.com/article.cfm/baby_gender_tests_for_pregnant_women

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 248 of 248   Newer› Newest»