What's the real story about the pregnancy?

Andrew Sullivan is still questioning the story of Sarah Palin’s alleged fifth pregnancy:

I find the account of her pregnancy and labor provided by Palin to be perplexing, to put it mildly, and I have every right to ask questions about it, especially since we have discovered that this woman lies more compulsively and less intelligently than the Clintons. If a story does not makes sense or raises serious questions about the sincerity of a candidate's embrace of a core political message, it is not rumor-mongering to ask about it. It is journalism. And in the absence of any information from the Palin campaign, I have aired every possible view trying to explain it. What else am I supposed to do? Pretend these questions don't exist? Pretend her story makes sense to me? I owe my readers my honest opinion. That's not rumor-mongering, it's fulfilling my core commitment to my readers.

The reason the press is finally angry is because they are sick of being lied to so aggressively and contemptuously and being denied any meaningful access to a person who could be elected vice-president in six weeks and technically assume the presidency within a few months. All my factual questions of more than two weeks ago, moreover, remain unanswered by the McCain campaign. They are all factual questions demanding simple factual answers that any campaign that wasn't bent on deceit and lies would be more than eager and perfectly able to provide.

I too still think that something is being hidden, but everyone else seems to have lost interest in the story. Maybe the National Enquirer will find the truth.

Comments

[anon]

so let me get this straight ...

mccain, a complete two faced psychopath, picks a woman to be his vice president, and the "most important" inquiry is whether she faked a pregnancy of a down syndrome baby?

i'm not an expert, but i believe older fathers/mothers are more likely to have down syndrome children, so that's almost enough evidence for me on its face.

her answer on the "bush doctrine" was probably sufficient to ruin her as a national candidate, but many potential critics have already undermined themselves by falling into the fertility-insanity trap.

bottom line: who cares. the issues alone should sink palin. wait for the debates. focus on what matters ... like mccain's massive immigration flip-flops.

[Rain And]

A friend of a friend got an email from someone from the Wasilla hospital saying the baby is Palin's. So case closed.

No doubt some will insist this is all part of some vast white trash conspiracy, the same conspiracy that had a doctor say she delivered Sarah Palin's retard baby, that silenced an entire hospital staff in a tiny, boring town where no secrets can obviously ever remain secret, and doctored a picture of a pregnant Palin, all to create the false impression that she was pregnant when she was really not.

[trumwill]

The main problem I have with the theory is the rapid-succession of pregnancies. It carries with it the assumption that she not only got pregnant on her first post-birth ovulation, but that she had the earliest possible post-birth ovulation of 25 days*.

If she got pregnant 25 days after Tryg was born, that would be 5/13. Bristol goes to the doctor because she thinks she's pregnant. Because she hadn't had a period since the delivery of Tryg, the only way to date the pregnancy is via ultrasound. The ultrasound would tell them that the dating is roughly the same as that of a woman having a last menstrual period of 4/29. That is inconsistent with being "5 months pregnant" at the time of the announcement.

That would be a pretty big lie on the part of the Palins and not one that's particularly easily covered up in the scrutiny of the VP's office.

So this theory requires the following assumptions:
(1) She ovulated relatively early following delivery. Average time to first post-delivery ovulation in non-breast-feeding women is 45 days, with a range of 25-72 days. (It takes even longer for women to resume ovulating if they're breast-feeding.)
(2) She happened to have sex right around the time she was ovulating. Women aren't generally interested in sex 25 days after delivery.
(3) She happened to get pregnant the first time she ovulated after delivery. While physically possible, the combination of the above three events is pretty unlikely.
(4) The Palins lied about something which they have limited control over. In order to get away with the lie, they would have to (a) get really lucky and have Bristol deliver early, (b) induce Bristol's labor before the term is up, with all of the risks of prematurity for the baby, (c) hope to god that the new baby isn't legitimately late, and (d) rely on the relative disinterest of the press.
(5) The Palins lied about something of which they have limited control when the truth would not have been damning at all. Even if the baby was known to be conceived on 5/13, it wouldn't prove anything particularly damning. It'd still be (and is) extremely unlikely that she got pregnant that quickly after giving birth. That's a lot of risk for something that helps them relatively little.

Unless there's something obvious that I'm missing, the above makes a Sarah Palin hoax far less plausible than a number of alternatives.

So... do you believe the above assumptions are reasonable grounds for speculation or am I missing something?

[trumwill]

One more thing about all this.

Half Sigma has said repeatedly that he considers it suspicious that Palin did not have an OBGYN. I may be able to shed some light on that

Different states are differently receptive to family docs delivering babies. The northeast is very inhospitable to the idea. The west is more open to it generally and no state moreso than Alaska.

I know this because my wife is a family doc that has much-more-than-usual OB experience and we get more calls from job offers in Alaska than any other state. Sure, there are OB specialists in the state and given the problems of the pregnancy it may have been wise to get a specialist, but it's not really suspicious that she didn't.

[PA]

So much interest in a hot 40-something's reproductive matters. C'mon fellas, go back to drooling over Lara Croft in Tomb Raider.

[Roy]

Andrew actually thinks she lies more compulsively than the Clintons. She is probably the most honest person in this election (not that that's saying much).

Andrew's crush/worship for Obama makes his opinions on this election meaningless. Its like listening to the ravings of a 13 year old girl talking about the Backstreet Boys.

[Half Smart]

Half Sig, you come off as a raving loony like Sullivan for maintaining suspicions in light of the overwhelming evidence that the child is Palin's. This really undermines the notion that you have sound judgement, and in fact makes you sound like the crackpots back in the 90s who talked about Hillary Clinton's MURDERS.

[Wade Nichols]

What's this? The "Press" is "angry" and "sick of being lied to"? Andrew Sullivan has "every right to ask questions"?

Why no inquiry into Baroque O'Blarney's background and murky history? All of a sudden, the "Press" and Andrew Sullivan are interested in doing their best "Woodward and Bernstein" acts?

I'm no fan of Palin. The "Press" should equally investigate both of these turkeys, O'Blarney and Palin.

[Warning]

"...Hillary Clinton's MURDERS."

If I were you, I'd shut the fuck up about that. You wouldn't want to end up committing suicide or anything.

[Turambar]

It would be amusing if Geraldo hadnt already shut down Willowbrook- then Sullivan career could have the coda it so richly deserves.

Just like Obama says "hides the hand that throws the stone" when he does it himself, Sullivan stamps his foot and insists all sorts of things he knows arent justified:
"I have every right to ask questions"
"it is not rumor-mongering"
"I owe my readers my honest opinion"
"They are all factual questions demanding simple factual answer"

Maybe Sullivan is jealous of Palin's fecundity. Maybe he is wed to the idea its all a Desperate Housewifes plotline.

I dont know, and I dont care what Sullivan's issues are. But it does point out what a disaster having a high IQ person like Sullivan in power would be; providing a context to the Obama IQ posts.

[rightsaidfred]

Sullivan claims "I have every right to ask questions about it" but if he is going to become a kook about it, we don't have to pay attention to him.

[Peter]

I didn't think anyone still read Andrew Sullivan.

[rightsaidfred]

>>>> But it does point out what a disaster having a high IQ person like Sullivan in power would be...

Yeah, something like a kinder, gentler Kaczynski with social skills.

[The Griffyn]

At Daily Kos, jhastings speculates Sarah Palin is bipolar. See http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/17/13652/5430/398/601684

Half Sigma, what do you think? Does Palin meet the definition of being bipolar? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder

Maybe we should discuss this? Unless the country has confidence that the McCain campaign vetting was so thorough that this isn't even a possibility....

I dont think Obama was vetted. Can we discuss that?

[dearieme]

lies "more compulsively ....than the Clintons". Bah; that's a logical impossibility.

[The Griffyn]

Someone hacked Sarah Palin's email account. See http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_Yahoo_inbox_2008

[bbartlog]

'but i believe older fathers/mothers are more likely to have down syndrome children...'

'The main problem I have with the theory is the rapid-succession of pregnancies...'

If a giant coverup is taking place, the Palins could easily lie about these things too. They could of course be found out, but by then it would be rather late for it to matter. Unless medical records are released, we have no hard evidence that the youngest Palin actually *has* Down Syndrome (though the baby does look slightly mongoloid to me) - and lying about it would provide a number of benefits, notably
- score big points with pro-lifers for keeping a Down Syndrome baby
- make further inquiries about the baby seem even less appropriate
- make the preponderance of the evidence appear to support the idea of Sarah as the mother (she being the one old enough to be at risk for a Down Syndrome child)

Mind you, I still think it's somewhat unlikely that there is a coverup. But I wouldn't lay any long odds against it either. There is a picture floating around of the whole Palin family, taken supposedly when Sarah was about 5 months pregnant with Trig, and Bristol is the one with the very slight tummy bulge, the hands clasped protectively in front of her belly, and a funny self-conscious look on her face. Of course all that could come just from being 16, but it looked pretty suspicious to me (you can find it pretty easily if you google image search for Bristol Palin).

[Rain And]

"There is a picture floating around of the whole Palin family, taken supposedly when Sarah was about 5 months pregnant with Trig..."

Duuuuude. Where av' you bin?

http://www.halfsigma.com/the-sarah-palin-conspirac.html

[trumwill]

If a giant coverup is taking place, the Palins could easily lie about these things too.

Lie about what things, precisely? Trygs birthday? That Bristol is currently pregnant at all? The first is an incredibly difficult lie and the second would involve lying about Bristol being pregnant in order to cover up that Bristol got pregnant. It would have been much easier in the latter case simply to fudge some paperwork.

They could be lying about how far along she is, which I mentioned, but the likelihood of being exposed on it increases with the relevancy of the lie. If she conceived at the earliest opportunity then the truth (that she was four months along) would have been close enough for people to assume that it's too early after giving birth for her to be pregnant again (which would be true for the vast majority of women). If she conceived later, then the gap between how far along she is and how far along they're saying she is becomes so huge that there would be no possibility of getting away with it at all.

They could of course be found out, but by then it would be rather late for it to matter.

It would be too late to matter for the 2008 and election maybe, but whether she becomes vice president or not Palin will be running for president in four or eight years and she's putting all of this at risk...

And for what, exactly? The likelihood of being exposed is both substantial and outside their control. The consequences of being exposed are career-ending. And they're taking all of this risk in order to... what? Avoid having to admit that their daughter conceived out of wedlock? Get a relatively minor boost of having not aborted a Downs baby?

The liabilities are so great and rewards so minor that it's not only a stupid risk but one so breathtakingly stupid that even someone with a lowly 110 IQ would see the holes in it.

we have no hard evidence that the youngest Palin actually *has* Down Syndrome (though the baby does look slightly mongoloid to me)

Are you serious? This will become pretty apparent with time. However uncertain one may be looking at a baby, it's one of those things that is only going to become more obvious with time. Why in the world expose yourself to that kind of risk (where once again, the ability to conceal it is completely outside your control) when you're already on the road to going places?

There is a picture floating around of the whole Palin family, taken supposedly when Sarah was about 5 months pregnant with Trig, and Bristol is the one with the very slight tummy bulge, the hands clasped protectively in front of her belly, and a funny self-conscious look on her face.

As Rain And points out, that picture (at least the only picture that I am aware of) has been discredited as evidence of Bristol being pregnant with Trig. Even if that weren't the case, there are alternate explanations even beyond teen growing pains. Maybe she was even pregnant during this time... but thus far there I have not seen sufficient foundation for this to be a reasonable line of inquiry.

Unless medical records are released,

One thing I'm relatively convinced of is that there are no medical records in the world that will convince everyone of what they firmly believe that they know. They'll just say that they're doctored.

This all started based on conjecture of an image that was taken waaaay before the conspiracy buffs thought. When something resembling an airtight alibi cropped up (Bristol was busy getting pregnant shortly before Tryg was born), the conspiracy just got larger to accommodate it. Actually, not even that. It's just altogether ignored. I haven't anyone even try to explain how the back-to-back pregnancies are possible.

[Half Smart]

Based on his recent posts, I would put Half Sig's IQ in the low 90s

[Audrey]

I've been investigating this for nearly a month now, and I cannot say categorically that I know what happened in Palmer Alaska on April 18th 2008. But make no mistake here. What the McCain campaign did was nothing short of genius. Faced with some very legitimate questions about the circumstances surrounding Sarah Palin's giving birth in April of 2008, they managed to diffuse the entire controversy without ever releasing a single piece of information about Sarah Palin or the birth. Instead, the story was re-framed to be about a seventeen-year-old girl, and then, immediately became off-limits because, conveniently, families are off-limits. That they were able to get away with this switcheroo is astonishing. It seems to occur to no one that it was the McCain campaign that threw Bristol "under the bus" to begin with.

As a medical professional who has spent much of my life around childbearing women I can state this with confidence: Her birth story did not happen the way she said it did. No 44 year old woman, pregnant for the fifth time with a special-needs child would make the choices she made, and no doctor would support them. She traveled out of state during the 35th week of her pregnancy. After experiencing premature rupture of membranes and some contractions, she waited nearly ten hours to give a speech then traveled nearly twelve hours more, taking two separate flights both of which had flight times of around four hours, with a layover of approximately two hours in between. Expected duration of labor for someone with Gov. Palin's history (four previous vaginal births) would be well under ten hours. It was not only "possible" that she could give birth long before she arrived back in Alaska, it was probable. And, while it's just barely believable that she would remain at a conference and wait to give a speech she was "determined to give" (since a modern hospital was only minutes away), there's no way one can apply this same reasoning to her subsequently getting on an airplane for two separate four-hour flights.

Yet, after somehow beating the statistics on the flights, once arriving in Anchorage, she did not drive to the only hospital in the state with a neonatal intensive care unit (six miles from the airport) where her doctor had privileges. Instead, she drove an hour to a rural health facility (only 39 beds in the whole hospital), that had no high-risk facilities, and had as her physician a family practice doctor who is reported on the hospital's website as having done only three births in the previous two years! None of these choices makes sense. Taken all together, it's crazy. And, to repeat, we're also supposed to believe that somewhere there is a doctor who went along with all this.

With this as the "starting point," then you have to start looking at all the other coincidences and "weirdness." Any one of these items, alone, could be easily shrugged off. Without a birth story that resembles Mr. Toad's Wild Ride more than anything else, one of two of these would be insignificant. But, all of this together? What are the chances?
* Gov. Palin never looked pregnant at all before the announcement, and even afterward people had their doubts. (One writer in the Anchorage Daily News asked facetiously one week after Gov. Palin's announcement, when she would have been around seven months, "Where is she hiding that baby? In her pocket?"), yet we have a photograph of her in her first pregnancy in which she looks... very conspicuously pregnant.
*Credible rumors existed before Gov. Palin announced her pregnancy on March 8th that Bristol was expecting. This has been confirmed by Palin's own spokesman. What did Palin do to counteract them? She told people they weren't true. Wouldn’t it have been a lot more effective to appear in public – just one time - with your non-pregnant daughter?
*Bristol was removed from one school in late fall 2007 but apparently never attended another one, due to "mono."
*Not one photo of the Palin family exists from around the time of the birth, even though Palin has stated that all three of the Palin daughters were at the hospital.
*Palin's doctor, beyond some very brief (and frankly non-convincing) statements made last April in the first 2-3 days after the birth, has never once been willing to give the simplest statement to the press. Wouldn't having your doctor, perhaps accompanied by the hospital's CEO, do a press conference and announcing "Yes, I was at the birth of Trig Palin on April 18th, 2008, and Sarah Palin is Trig's biological mother." be preferable to telling the whole world that your seventeen-year-old daughter is pregnant? Wouldn't the doctor want to do that in the face of "ridiculous" "hurtful" and "insulting" rumors, and to spare Bristol the notoriety of becoming the most famous pregnant teen in America? Apparently not.
*Alaska Air officials, faced with the announcement of the birth on April 18th, made a point of announcing that Sarah Palin's "stage of pregnancy" was not obvious on the flight the night before, nor were there any signs of labor or distress. They specifically called a news conference to do this.

Photos exist of a pregnant Gov. Palin that have widely touted as settling the issue as well. They do nothing of the sort. The allegation is that she faked a pregnancy. To fake a pregnancy one would have to do more than just talk; one would have to, at some point, look pregnant. Therefore, photos of her looking pregnant prove nothing. We would expect that there would be some photos of this nature. This never seems to occur to those who have turned to these photos as proof. However, curiously, these photos do show one thing: careful analysis of those that do exist from the period of 3/6 to 4/17 show an inexplicable variation in size, shape, and positioning of the pregnancy. Two photos exist taken only three days apart just ten days before the birth. In one Gov. Palin can barely get her arms and hands around her noticeably pregnant belly; in the other, she does so easily.

The announcement from the McCain campaign that Bristol is, as of September 1, five months pregnant put the brakes on the whole story, but it shouldn't have. Gov. Palin has used the fact that she gave birth to a child in April knowing that he had Down's as part and parcel of her political persona. This moves the whole issue out of the private realm, and into the public. In the face of legitimate evidence that the event did not happen the way she claims it did, the public does have the right to get some real answers. As of yet, we have not gotten them.

Want documentation for everything stated here? Go to http://www.palindeception.com