
The photo above was taken on April 11th at the Alaska Association of Student Government conference held at Juneau Douglas High School, only 7 days before she gave birth. Does she look pregnant? I can't tell one way or the other.
The photo came from the Alaska government website. Either there was an intentional scheme (poorly implemented) to take the photos down, or the webmaster who runs the site is incompetent. However, the missing web pages can still be seen in the Google cache!
This photo was also taken April 11th. Once again, you can't see anything.
This photo was taken April 22nd, four days after she gave birth. Is it normal for 44-year-old women to be up and around givng speeches four days after giving birth?
This photo was taken March 11th, 38 days before she gave birth. Once again, you can't tell anything.
A March 9th photo. Once again, nothing to see one way or the other.
She's an ex beauty queen. I'm sure that she knows how to cover up that bump so that she isn't slotted in as a pregnant woman that you have to be gentle with.
Posted by: Shnugi | August 30, 2008 at 04:27 PM
Some women just don't show as much. Oh also, THERE'S A BIG FREAKIN" PODIUM IN THE WAY!!! Or else she's wearing a winter coat. I knew a women who was pregnant but the doctors thought she had a stomach tumor and balsted her with radiation. A few months later she went in for another untrasound and they found out it was a baby. She gave birth to a healthy baby boy. I met him and he's perfactly fine.
Posted by: | August 30, 2008 at 04:30 PM
As Jesse Jackson said " If she makes your cock stir, you must vote for her". Or was that John Edwards ?
Posted by: Randite | August 30, 2008 at 04:41 PM
It's impossible to tell from these photos. However, from the last post on the matter, she definitely does look a lot more plump in that one photo than she did on television last night.
Posted by: tommy | August 30, 2008 at 04:41 PM
Why don't they interview the doctors? Really.
Posted by: ckdh | August 30, 2008 at 04:47 PM
i think the DS baby is the biggest prior. she does look a little fatter....
Posted by: razib | August 30, 2008 at 04:57 PM
http://alaskapodshow.com/index.php/2008/08/30/sarah-palin-pregnancy-scandal/
This is a blog post by a guy who took a hike with Palin while she was pregnant.
Posted by: amir | August 30, 2008 at 05:01 PM
http://alaskapodshow.com/index.php/2008/02/20/my-visit-to-juneau-alaska/
In this movie as she is walking you can see a bulge. She looks pregnant to me.
Posted by: amir | August 30, 2008 at 05:06 PM
I think that this is all silly. Ed Morrissey writes today:
"This popped up on a Daily Kos diary and has unfortunately been repeated by bloggers who should know better. The rumor is a weird reversal of the John Edwards story, only this time, critics refute Palin’s maternity. Supposedly, so the story goes, the baby really was their eldest daughter’s (currently in high school), and not hers. The proof? At six months, Palin didn’t “look pregnant”, and supposedly her daughter had mono and took some time off from school. That’s it.
This is, simply, despicable. Babies born to teen mothers rarely have Down’s Syndrome anyway, whereas the possibility for that with a mother in her 40s is about 1 in 20. Athletic women sometimes do not show until late in the pregnancy. The whole rumor rests on the notion that the state’s most visible woman could carry out a fake pregnancy in front of the press while simultaneously hiding her daughter, and then pull a switcheroo — and for what possible purpose? To cover up a teen pregnancy, in this day and age? Give me a break."
Posted by: Dan Morgan | August 30, 2008 at 05:20 PM
Apparently she was able to cover it up for 8 months of pregnancy without the news media guessing. Alaska may not have as many news sharks, but even so, that's some skulduggery skills.
Posted by: anonymous_coward | August 30, 2008 at 05:21 PM
I'm starting to think this is a hoax. How do we know Bristol really missed school for 4-5 months? Is that from a reliable source? 4-5 months sound like a long time for mono. And if she was home sick, wouldn't you expect her friends to visit her?
Posted by: amir | August 30, 2008 at 05:22 PM
She looks pretty pregnant here:
http://community.adn.com/node/118874
Posted by: Dan Morgan | August 30, 2008 at 05:45 PM
She was pregnant with Trig. Take a closer look at the video of her walking posted by razib. She is always shapely but in that video, the shape is gone and there is a belly bulge. I tend to believe Trig is her baby because of down syndrome.I am a nurse, OB nurse, for 40 years and it does not surpise me if I see a woman in her last trimester with a "non-pregnant belly".
Posted by: mariq | August 30, 2008 at 05:55 PM
She's a pretty tall woman, isn't she? The taller and bigger-framed a woman is, the less the pregnancy tends to stand out.
Bumps come in a variety of shapes. She could have carried the same way I did, long and vertical. It's easy to conceal from the front, especially in a dark suit or coat. But when the woman turns to the side -- like in that photo from Dan Morgan -- it's a different story.
You'd think if she were trying to fake a pregnancy, she'd have worn bigger clothing. She could also have worn padding or a fake pregnant belly, they're easy to find (for trying on clothes).
Likewise, it seems if her daughter were trying to hide a pregnancy, she wouldn't have worn a skin-tight sweater like she did in that family photo. Some women do naturally have belly orbs, especially women with narrow waists. Think of those naked women in the Old Master paintings.
Posted by: Spungen | August 30, 2008 at 07:01 PM
FYI- more children with Down Syndrome are born to mothers under the age of 35 than mothers over 35.
Posted by: | August 30, 2008 at 07:25 PM
This whole line of inquiry is now well into "9/11 Truther" territory. Seriously, in all of these photographs, Palin enjoys dress and lighting optimized to hide a belly-bulge. It shows the woman knows fashion and lighting. It may mean she's vain. It does NOT mean she isn't pregnant.
Posted by: Φ | August 30, 2008 at 08:18 PM
Spungen: exactly. And aren't empire waisted dresses, which make you look pregnant even when you aren't, all the rage now?
Posted by: anon | August 30, 2008 at 08:29 PM
Come on. In the March 1st photo, six weeks before she gave birth(?) she CLEARLY doesn't look pregnant at all.
Posted by: Kelly | August 30, 2008 at 10:34 PM
With my first pregnancy, I showed like a house. My second, I hardly showed at all until the last two months or so. Give the woman a break. Either way, it's none of our dang business. She has a baby with down's syndrome. She's a hero in my book.
Posted by: Ura | August 30, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Maternal age influences the chances of conceiving a baby with Down syndrome. At maternal age 20 to 24, the probability is one in 1562; at age 35 to 39 the probability is one in 214, and above age 45 the probability is one in 19.[14] Although the probability increases with maternal age, 80% of children with Down syndrome are born to women under the age of 35,[15] reflecting the overall fertility of that age group. Recent data also suggest that paternal age, especially beyond 42,[16] also increases the risk of Down Syndrome manifesting in pregnancies in older mothers.[17]
Posted by: maria | August 30, 2008 at 11:59 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republican_race/galleries/sarah_palin_family_photos/sarah_palin_family_photos.html
photos from the nydailynews of her when she was pregnant i believe with the previous child.
Posted by: d | August 31, 2008 at 07:17 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republican_race/galleries/sarah_palin_family_photos/sarah_palin_family_photos.html
photos from the nydailynews of her when she was pregnant i believe with the previous child.
Posted by: d | August 31, 2008 at 07:19 AM
As a person who has actually been pregnant, I can tell you that some women just don't show. I didn't show until the very last month. She is obviously a very thin woman so its not surprising that you can't tell.
What is your problem with her? She is a really good choice. I hate both parties, but I would vote for her if she were not on McCain's ticket.
Posted by: verde | August 31, 2008 at 09:18 AM
You forgot the fact that after her water broke she took an 8-hour flight from Texas to Alaska. The flight attendants didn't notice that Palin was in labour.
Posted by: Mikkel | August 31, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Say it's true. Say there are no duplicitous insurance issues. Does it matter? Not a bit. Anyone who's a mother gets it.
Posted by: | August 31, 2008 at 02:07 PM
ASk McCain, he supposedly met her only once six months ago. If her son is only 4 months old, then that would have made her about 7 months pregnant. Even if her son was 1 month premature McCain still should have noticed that she was pregnant. Where are the photos of her obviously pregant? If she is so pro-life what is there to be ashamed of? Why not scream it from one end of Alaska to the next, especially if being a proud prolifer is your platform?
Posted by: mimi | August 31, 2008 at 11:02 PM
here's a better picture of her:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30076181@N02/2814979078/in/photostream/
Posted by: | September 01, 2008 at 12:28 AM
i guessed my co-worker was pregnant in the first tri-mester. she didnt even have a belly. but there are a million other things that give it away - mood, coloring, energy level, etc.
Posted by: hmmm. | September 01, 2008 at 06:27 PM
Let's let it play out - the photos do not prove anything one way or the other. She will be scrutinized as she should be within reason. Too bad our media did not press further before our fiasco in Iraq. If cruel people are dragging her daughter into the campaign, shame on them. People need to pull back and let the information come out about her daughter's health and her new child's progress. If, however, there is a coverup on her side, this is really, really bad. If there is more to this story than some dumb blogs, she and her handlers are really hypocrites. I hope the truth comes out completely, no matter what it is.
Posted by: Joe | September 01, 2008 at 09:32 PM
http://www.alaskapffa.org/
second from the top
Posted by: Anon | September 03, 2008 at 02:51 PM
Palin could dispel all the rumors with a simple DNA test.
Posted by: Joey | September 07, 2008 at 01:29 PM
For a thorough discussion of this issue, with good documentation of all sources, you should visit http://www.palindeception.com
Posted by: Audrey | September 27, 2008 at 12:21 AM