September 16, 2008

If you are truly opposed to abortion, why would you have amniocentesis -- as Sarah Palin did -- knowing that it might kill the unborn child?

Andrew Sullivan raises doubts about whether Sarah Palin is really as pro-Life as she claims. The premise is that to have amniocentesis is to act in a way that reflects a belief that abortion is a possibility.

I note the additional question: If amniocentesis really means that, why did Palin disclose that she had it? The answer would need to be that she wanted to tell the world that she knew she was about to give birth to a child with Down Syndrome and wanted pro-Life credit for her... I was going to say decision. Which brings us back to Sullivan's question.

(Sullivan has more here, where readers have attempted answers.)

ADDED: This question is being discussed on Metafilter, with many good comments, especially this from anastasiav:
And if, for whatever reason, the parents are sure that they will not abort the child, then there is no point in getting tested because the information gained is of no use.

I'd like to speak to this. I was tested. If our son had Down Syndrome I would not have terminated the pregnancy (although I might have if some of the more horrific abnormalities that are possible had been present) -- but it was important to me to know. In advance. Not find out the day my perfect and dreamed of child was born, but far enough in advance to plan and learn and grieve if I needed to. Far enough in advance so that everyone would know and no one would recoil in surprise and then try to put on their "oh what a lovely baby" mask. Far enough in advance to be able to understand what I was getting into before I was standing in the middle of the field.

Its commonplace now to learn the gender of your child in advance "so you can plan." I see this testing as no different. Its a way to be prepared. To plan.

178 comments:

George said...

The current recommendation is that women who will be age 35 or older at the time of delivery consider having an amniocentesis for fetal chromosome testing...

Overall, amniocentesis is a safe procedure with the risk of fetal loss at generally less than 1%. Since there is the possibility of losing the baby from the procedure, amniocentesis should be performed only when clearly indicated. Many parents ask for the procedure to "reassure" themselves that everything is perfect. It should be emphasized that a normal amniocentesis does not guarantee that the baby will be "perfect." Many birth defects cannot be detected by amniocentesis. Besides fetal loss, other risks associated with amniocentesis include bleeding, cramping and leakage of fluid from the vagina. These problems occur in about 1% of women undergoing the procedure, and generally resolve on their own. If these symptoms arise following the procedure, the woman is often advised to stop work and remain at bed rest until the symptoms cease. Subsequent activity will be proscribed by the doctor. Occasionally, the fetus is poked with the needle during the testing, but this is generally harmless.

Amniocentesis is a relatively safe and painless procedure that can provide helpful information. The procedure can be offered to selected women after reviewing the risks and benefits involved.

medicinenet

Nick said...

My wife had amnio when she was pregnant, even though we had no intention of aborting. She was in a higher risk group, and is a horrible worrier. For her it was worth the small risk to put her more at ease and have a happy gestation.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Oh for crimeny's sake. Is there anything more ridiculous than a bunch of man and gay ones at that trying to second guess why a family might need to have amniocentesis done during a pregnancy. Sullivan demands that she disclose this information as if it is any of his/our business.

There are many reasons to be prepared for the birth of a child who might have some severe birth defects. Amnio is one way to be positive about just what those are. Some of those defects require extraordinary medical procedures at the time of delivery. Spina bifida. Hydrocephalus to name just a few.

The mere fact of having an amnio doesn't mean that the person is in anyway considering an abortion.

I thought the liberals were all about keeping government out of our wombs and decisions about our bodies (CHOICE) to ourselves. Maybe they should try that, and leave Mr and Mrs. Palin's reproductive decisions alone. Hmmmmm??

Revenant said...

For a woman Palin's age, it is riskier for both the fetus and the mother to NOT have an amniocentesis performed than it is to have one. Sulllivan, as usual, is trying to manufacture a scandal where none exists.

George said...

Sorry, that was wrong..The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as of Jan. 07 recommends that all pregnant women, regardless of age, be offered amnio.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Is there anything more ridiculous than a bunch of man and gay ones at that trying to second guess why a family might need to have amniocentesis done during a pregnancy.

DBQ, is there any doubt in your mind that if Sullivan played WoW he'd be a Blood Elf.

Not that there is anything wrong with that....

OT: Lich King is coming out in November...woo hoo

slarrow said...

I would say it's all about foreknowledge and preparation. Some people don't want to know the sex of their child beforehand; we did so we could mentally adjust to our new arrival (AND know what clothes to buy.) For an older woman, knowing the health risks and potentially preparing for a special needs child seem well worth the very small risk of harm involved in the procedure.

There's also the possibility of more serious health risks that would cause natural death just hours after birth. I've read about a few cases like that, and the poignancy of a parent who holds or sees a child their entire life is heartbreaking. It's the kind of thing I know I'd have to work up to.

Oh, and if this were a face-to-face conversation, the husband would probably have broken Sullivan's jaw by now for his desperate attempt to harm this woman's candidancy by combing through her personal life and her family decisions. Jerk.

Peter V. Bella said...

Decision or Choice?

MadisonMan said...

amnio gives knowledge. Even if you don't abort, it's important to know what you're facing.

What a stupid question.

MadisonMan said...

(Andrew sullivan's question, that is)

Erik said...

You might as well ask why a parent might want to find out the gender of a child if they aren't planning to abort the girls.

bluemoonpaul said...

I agree with Nick above. My wife and I were in a similar situation years ago, and had the amnio done, though we wouldn't in any case have aborted. My wife was in knots about it, and regardless of the outcome of the test, it would help us both to have the information,

I used to like Sullivan's writing, but he turned a corner with the proposed marriage amendment, coloring all his thinking. I wish he give up stuff like this.

Maguro said...

The real scandal is that Palin had amniocentisis while wearing a fake pregnancy suit inside her taxpayer-funded tanning bed. Or something like that. I demand answers now!

J said...

"Which brings us back to Sullivan's question"

Or, "circular reasoning", if you will. Is it possible her Dr recommended it?

vbspurs said...

My wife had amnio when she was pregnant, even though we had no intention of aborting. She was in a higher risk group, and is a horrible worrier. For her it was worth the small risk to put her more at ease and have a happy gestation.

If Sullivan had deigned to watch the Greta van Susteren special on Sarah Palin's life, he would've found out why she had the test.

Heather, Palin's sister says:

"Sarah likes to be prepared"

Come on, she is 43 years old, and it's a worry. Only to Sullivan, still trying to fake concern for Trig Palin, but also to keep sowing doubts about his parentage, would this scenario be troublesome.

Simon said...

If Sullivan would have taken a moment in the last couple of weeks to open his eyes and look down, he'd see a shark passing way underneath him.

vbspurs said...

Ah, I see Maguro and I are thinking the same way about Sullivan's motivation.

Hugo Chavez said...

If Sullivan is suggesting that Palin had the amniocentesis because she was uncertain as to whether she'd want to keep an abnormal child, well, I can't imagine who wouldn't have second thoughts on that score no matter how much she opposes abortion in principle. It's indicative of what a cartoon Sullivan has become that he doesn't understand this.

If he's suggesting that Palin had the amniocentesis because she wanted a child with Down syndrome, in order to use it for political gain, Sullivan is utterly demented.

Odd that the only consistency in Sullivan's political positions through the years, including his turn on a dime when Bush announced support for the hetero-only marriage amendment, is rank misogyny. He displayed it against Hillary, and he's displaying it now.

Harsh Pencil said...

As the father of 5 children all born after the mother was considered high risk because of her age, I can surmise what happened. By measuring limb lengths during a sonogram and through a blood test, you can get a lot of information regarding the probability of a Down's baby without doing amnio. We would never abort, but we had all this done anyway, and probably would have done amnio if these earlier tests had indicated problems. Before the whole Sarah Palin thing ever came up, I asked my wife why test when it wouldn't change our decision came up and she gave exactly the same answer as Palin: "I want to be prepared."

So Palin probably had initial tests that indicated a higher probability of Down's and did the amnio as a result of those tests.

Oh, and I agree that Todd Palin should punch Sullivan in the face.

Stephen said...

My wife is currently pregnant and we are going to have the amnio done in the next few weeks. Personally, I am pro-life, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to psychologically prepare myself for the challenges of a special needs child. I would want to do research ahead of time and perhaps even attend counseling with my family to make sure that we are ready and that we understand all of the challenges ahead. A child is a blessing no matter what, but I don't have the first clue about how to handle a special needs child and would want every opportunity to prepare myself.

vbspurs said...

In Ann's second link, where he received replies from readers, he ends his post like this:

I have no idea if the stress caused by expecting a child with DS is greater than the demonstrated risk of an amnio to an unborn child. But I do think it's worth asking Palin herself to elucidate her reasons, and how she balanced those reasons against her pro-life principles. Is that deferent enough?

Does anyone get the sense Sullivan just wants to have a nice long medical chat with Palin, and he's upset she's ignoring his calls for DNA tests, and amniocentesis rationale?

A man with HIV must be very conscious of the importance of medical testing.

Bissage said...

We had amniocentesis done on Mrs. Bissage and confirmed that she was carrying a perfectly healthy baby girl. Then we aborted it.

Peter V. Bella said...

a) if you are not considering an abortion, there isn't much point in having an amniocentesis…

How about if you never were considering an abortion, it would be good to know if you were bearing a disabled child so you can make the necessary preparations to care for the child ahead of time and also know the special needs that the child will have. That would seem the intelligent thing to do; Mr. Sullivan seems to lack intelligence.

So 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?

DUH, Reliability and accuracy.

Why do you need to know for sure that your baby has DS…

So you know if there will be special medical needs for the child and you have the knowledge of what to expect as the child matures? Is that maybe why you need to know?

Andrew Sullivan has proven that there is not only no intelligent life on his side of the political spectrum, but there is no common sense as well.

I am surprised Andrew Sullivan did not pose the following question:
Why would a woman who is over forty years old, knowing full well in advance, the chances of bearing a disabled child are high, actually have sex? Since most birth control is not 100% effective, would it not have been more appropriate for her to abstain or to have a tubal ligation to prevent such an atrocity from occurring. Wouldn’t that be the prudent and politically correct thing to do?

vbspurs said...

LOL, Bissage.

tarheel said...

"The premise is that to have amniocentesis is to act in a way that reflects a belief that abortion is a possibility."

Andrew's premise is wrong. In the case of many women and especially those in the high risk category, it is to be prepared in case there is an issue.

Nixon Hailfire Palin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
former law student said...

I never paid much attention to Andrew Sullivan before I started reading Ann's blog. And now that I realize his philosophy on medical diagnosis is "Ignorance is bliss," I will go back to ignoring him.

vbspurs said...

Nixon Hailfire Palin said...

Hi Wurly! :)

kengoodsmith said...

We had amnio done even though we had no intention of aborting a "problem." My wife was 37 and we had two boys. Amnio let us know whether we'd need extraordinary delivery procedures and allowed my wife to come to grips with not having a daughter before she had to deliver son #3.

They're really stretching to get at Palin.

bleeper said...

That should read "Down syndrome".

Peter V. Bella said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...
Oh for crimeny's sake. Is there anything more ridiculous than a bunch of man and gay ones at that trying to second guess why a family might need to have amniocentesis done during a pregnancy.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU THANK YOU for being the voice of common sense and reason.

vbspurs said...

PVB channelled Andrew Sullivan:

Why would a woman who is over forty years old, knowing full well in advance, the chances of bearing a disabled child are high, actually have sex?

Since she is pro-Life, and she probably has a good 3 years before genuinely being in menopause range, the possibility of the Palins abstaining from sex during that time is exactly "Nil".

So I think if she and Todd announce another pregnancy, the Left of America will have a collective cow. They will demand she be guillotined, and then have her head displayed on a pike.

MikeR said...

So did we. Sullivan has really gone around the bend.

Revenant said...

One other thing occurred to me:

The premise is that to have amniocentesis is to act in a way that reflects a belief that abortion is a possibility.

Palin does believe that abortion is a possibility. She supports it in circumstances where the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. So there wouldn't be anything inconsistent about "acting as if abortion is a possibility"; Palin is only 100% anti-abortion in the fevered dreams of the Left.

Thomas said...

Wait--has Andrew given up on raising doubts about Palin's maternity of Trig Palin? My reading is that he hasn't abandoned those. Instead, while continuing to keep that issue as open, Andrew wants to pretend he's moved on to address...another issue involving Sarah Palin's uterus!

Isn't it clear that Andrew isn't just frightened by female fecundity, but actually disgusted by it? (Recall his fascination with stories about fake menstrual blood as torture.) Why are discussing the deranged reaction of an obviously damaged man?

Pundit Joe said...

I feel pity for Andrew. I feel pity because he is so consumed with ill will that he cannot even be honest with himself about why a pro-life woman would want to have the procedure done.

No answer exists that will satisfy him.

It is a sad and mad world where one cannot be honest with ones own thoughts.

daredevil-66 said...

Ann this is your blog and run it how you see fit, but why do you have to throw SullyChum into the water? Honestly, he is a shell of what he once was and its painfull to see what he is doing to himself. He constantly argues in bad faith (the examples are becoming nubming) and does not have any ability at this point to admit he was wrong about Palin Stope feeding the Sullivan troll!

tarheel said...

By the way, nothing Andrew Sullivan writes should raise doubts in ones mind. I started reading the Daily Dish at what was then AndrewSullivan.com during the 2000 presidential campaign. My signing up at Pay Pal was to contribute during his annual request for funds to support his blog. Something snapped in his brain in 2003. He has not recovered.

HIV is a horrible disease, but Andrew Sullivan's mental/emotional condition is worse than his HIV. He just makes up stuff and throws it out there. It's a pity because his is an exceptional writing talent.

Triangle Man said...

Were the people who have had, or are planning to have amniocentesis offered any of the other less-invasive and less-risky screening tests first (nuchal translucency, or any of the serum tests)?

I am not certain I understand the need for amniocentesis if the earlier screens did not indicate a problem.

George said...

Amnio can also show the presence of other genetic disorders, including spina bifida, for which in utero surgery now exists, at least on an experimental basis at some hospitals. This is believed to reduce the risk of brain damage and paralysis in such children.

Amazing photo

Synova said...

The real message, of course, is to ALL pregnant women who have this done that they are needlessly putting their baby at risk. Like pregnant ladies aren't already psychotic about every little thing. Sheesh.


For the record... my OB offered genetic and other testing for my last child. I think she was required by law to do so. (And many mothers feel like anything a doctor offers is a recommendation and we want to do what the doctor suggests.) I asked her if *she* wanted the information from the tests... if there was *any* medical need for her to know what was up ahead of time. She just repeated her "required by law information" and refused to give her own opinion AT ALL.

So I said no.

We did, however, ask for the sex of the baby since she was our fourth and we had one boy and two girls already. It would have been horribly unfair to her if, when she was born, our first thought was, "Oh, dang it! That's sure going to mess up being fair about bedrooms and roommates."

Peter V. Bella said...

But I do think it's worth asking Palin herself to elucidate her reasons, and how she balanced those reasons against her pro-life principles. Is that deferent enough?

But I do think it's worth Andrew Sullivan minding his own fucking business. Sarah Palin owes no one, not even the rabid leftists or the rabid rightists, a reason for any decision she made regarding her prenancy.

Someone should tell Andrew that he should not smear, demean, or debase a woman who can shoot and owns guns.

I would suggest that Todd Palin put a boot in Andrew's ass, but Andrew might enjoy that too much.

Triangle Man said...

They will demand she be guillotined, and then have her head displayed on a pike.

No arguments with the head on the pike, but are you saying "guillotine" specifically because it is French and the Left is francophilic?

jdeeripper said...

If you are truly opposed to abortion, why would you have amniocentesis -- as Sarah Palin did -- knowing that it might kill the unborn child?

Andrew needs to know that the answer is that Sarah Palin wanted to find out if her unborn child was gay.

She is not opposed to killing unborn gay male babies. Or even adult gay male babies.

Watch out Andrew, she's coming to get you.

Donn said...

Sullivan lost all creditability with his smears about Palin right after she was announced, and I couldn't care less about anything he has to say from here on out.

Henry said...

I wondered if Sullivan's mini-sabbatical last week was the result of his Atlantic editors saying, "Hey Andrew, get a grip."

Apparently not.

Peter V. Bella said...

I just figured it out. Andrew Sullivan knows Palin is going to win. Andrew Sullivan has a deep seated need to be secretly lashed by a powerful woman who hates her foes.

Joe said...

I'm astonished at the ignorance of the shrill left on issues of pregnancy and child rearing. I don't think the ignorance is just posturing; it's obvious that many of the critics on the left have no personal experience with pregnancy, whether their own or a personal friend. (Unfortunately, they've also listened to the John Edwards of the world and the fear mongering Parenting magazine.)

Amniocentesis is but one medical procedure a doctor may use, not just for psychological reasons of the patient, but to understand how to proceed medically with a pregnancy.

Beyond that, any surgery carries a degree of risk, yet three of my children have had surgery. In Andrew's little mind, I must not really be opposed to murder. Heck, I went under the knife eight years ago--I must not really be opposed to suicide.

Sweating Through fog said...

Sullivan is obsessed with smearing Palin simply because she is a religious woman who is pro-life and who does not support gay marriage.

Her religious views make it imperative for him to find something that casts her as some hypocrite, because he cannot tolerate people that have views like her. When you oppose Sullivan politically, you are subject to the most exacting examination of every personal act you've ever taken. He's no better than a Joe McCarthy.

Joe said...

Peter, you highlight a rather telling point--the group that demands "reproductive rights" seems to not actually believe in them at all. (Okay, not exactly a profound insight. We also know that "equal rights" means nothing of the sort in the wee minds of the left.)

Methadras said...

I think that Sullivan has Downs Syndrome now from his hyper-obsessive bleating about this. Dude, dead horse, okay.

MadisonMan said...

joe, it's not the left, it's Andrew Sullivan.

Just imagine what happens if she becomes pregnant again!

vbspurs said...

Thomas wrote:

Isn't it clear that Andrew isn't just frightened by female fecundity, but actually disgusted by it? (Recall his fascination with stories about fake menstrual blood as torture.)

There is something very mysterious about women for some men. Except that for some, that mystery turns into "frightening".

It's what allowed women to be branded and burnt as witches for millenia...

Why solely women were Vestal virgins, Delphic oracles, and gypsy soothsayers...

And why even today, amniocentesis evokes ghoulish visions of liquid emanating from a woman's body in the mind of a very very sick man.

William said...

Andrew Sullivan is a professional writer. Doesn't he even realize how contemptible he looks when he offers such a criticism? The hyperbole of the praise for Obama is matched only by the hyperbole of the criticism directed against Palin.

Theo Boehm said...

We are older parents of two school-age children, and, to reinforce what has been said above, my wife had amnio both times because we wanted to be prepared for the child, NOT because we would ever consider abortion. We did not want operating room surprises, simply because we wanted to be ready to do the best by our children.

My wife is a very devout Catholic (we're both Catholics, but my wife puts me to shame in her ability to live her faith), so the very thought of an abortion was out of the question. My wife, who plans to vote for Obama, has absolutely no problem with Palin's decision, and, in fact, completely identifies with her in this regard. My wife won't vote for her, but she is in total sympathy with Palin about the direction of her life.

My wife is not going to vote for Palin, but still admires her greatly. That, BTW, is an attitude that would have done the Democrats a service to adopt, but they're too far down the road to try to destroy her to change now.

My wife's amnio was an easy decision, because she was over 35, and her ob/gyn group strongly recommended it. Our youngest was born when my wife was about the same age as Palin, so it was considered a high-risk pregnancy to be monitored closely.

That was for the sake of the health of the mother and child, again, NOT because abortion was an option.

Sullivan writes about all this from the perspective of someone who has NO idea what he is talking about.

It's really amazing what some people get paid for.

RR Ryan said...

I don't think Todd should punch Sullivan. On the other hand, I'm totally down with Sarah doing it.

vbspurs said...

No arguments with the head on the pike, but are you saying "guillotine" specifically because it is French and the Left is francophilic?

Heh, no, but maybe subconsciously, Triangle Man.

Further exploring it, perhaps I used it due to my nightmare visions of pure Nick Berg having his head cut off by a sword.

(A video I wish I never EVER had watched online)

Josh said...

It's amazing to me that The Atlantic continues to let him trash their brand by running what's little more than a glorified Kos diary at this point. And it's a shame that good people like McArdle may get smeared by association.

Simon said...

William said...
"Andrew Sullivan is a professional writer."

He gets paid to write. I'm not sure that should be regarded as the same thing.

vbspurs said...

joe, it's not the left, it's Andrew Sullivan.

No. It's the Left.

vbspurs said...

Josh, re: your point about The Atlantic.

It hasn't been a good month for The Atlantic, what with having to muzzle Sullivan earlier, and now the Greenberg debacle -- unless one considers "bad publicity" better than no publicity at all.

Synova said...

"Just imagine what happens if she becomes pregnant again!"

I'd pay money. ;-)

Though I half-way expect she really will. (I wouldn't exactly say that out loud in the wrong place though.)

Bill Kilgore said...

I think Sullivan makes a great point. I especially like that he was able to make the point without getting a drop of water on his jacket.

For fun, I think the Althouse crew should try to predict the "letter" that Sullivan will receive from a "reader" confirming his world view. I'll go first.

Dear Andrew,

I am lifelong Republican (sorry seven) who has been reading you for many years. Prior to your post on Ms. Palin's amnio, I had never considered voting for Barack Obama. Now there is no question, thanks to you, that I will do just that.

As you have continually written, the Republicans just don't get it. I mean, how I am suppose to believe that Palin had an amnio for a child that wasn't even hers unless she wanted to abort it. The fact that McCain/Bush is basing his entire campaign on this amnio convinces me that it's time for change.

Andrew, even though I am a lifelong Republican, I'm with you and for Barack.

Pierre de Villepin, President, Young Republicans of West Hollywood

Chip Ahoy said...

This is looking like third stage dementia to me.

Actually, I made that up. I'm imagining dementia to have stages. Soon his sentences will begin ot kolo ikel hist.

Alex said...

It's not that the right wing is biased and thinks Andrew Sullivan is demented.

He really IS demented objectively speaking.

Theo Boehm said...

Touché, Pierre.

Amy Kane said...

I call on Andrew Sullivan to release his mental health medical records for the good of the country and the future of rational political discourse.

Alex said...

oops:

Palin's other Bridge

$600 million for a bridge to Wasilla? This could KILL the McCain campaign.

vbspurs said...

Theo wrote:

My wife is a very devout Catholic (we're both Catholics, but my wife puts me to shame in her ability to live her faith), so the very thought of an abortion was out of the question. My wife, who plans to vote for Obama, has absolutely no problem with Palin's decision, and, in fact, completely identifies with her in this regard.

I wish stories like this would make it to MSM, Theo. You almost never get to read seemingly "contradictory" viewpoints like your wife and her support of Obama.

Obama, the man who is so pro-Choice, he even supports partial-birth abortion, leading to this woman who survived the procedure, to attack his stance.

It reminds me of the woman I blogged about, who didn't like blacks and whites dating, but had no problem seeing Obama become president so long as he could fix the economy.

Only for extremists, do human beings act in lock-step, without contradiction in their views, all the time.

chickenlittle said...

Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic blogger and author of The Conservative A-Soul How I lost mine yet remain spectacularly incurious about getting it back

Revenant said...

She just repeated her "required by law information" and refused to give her own opinion AT ALL.

If she recommended against it and you ended up with a Down's child you would rather have aborted, the doctor would be on the hook for millions of dollars in malpractice claims.

If she recommended in favor of it and the procedure caused you to lose a healthy baby, the doctor would be on the hook for millions of dollars in malpractice claims.

That's why she didn't say anything.

mcg said...

My wife and I elected not to have an amnio done with our daughter, for the very reasons elucidated. We were in the high-risk category but ultimately decided that the information gained would not be acted upon, so it was an unnecessary risk.

But that's because it was something we were really on top of, did our own research, asked our doctor pointed questions he didn't seem used to, and went against his recommendation. It seems to me that amnio is something that is "just done" these days, and a lot of people aren't aware or don't think of these kinds of tradeoffs.

Since the prevailing culture isn't anti-abortion in these cases, I don't think doctors really think about it as a risk tradeoff in the same way a pro-lifer does, and so they don't discuss it that way.

Alex said...

Since the prevailing culture isn't anti-abortion in these cases, I don't think doctors really think about it as a risk tradeoff in the same way a pro-lifer does, and so they don't discuss it that way.

So most OB/GYNs are soulless ghouls?

Theo Boehm said...

Sir AAArrchy!! Where are you??

YOU'RE supposed to survey the Lunaticks around here.

You're falling down on the job.

We want to know what kind of Physick you recommend for Sullivan's condition, and how long he should be in Bedlam. (And whether they should give him quill & paper with which to importune the Publick.)

BTW, just how do you fire a ghost, anyway?

Alex said...

The Atlantic is going down the tubes. Megan McCardle is the only respectable writer they have left.

George said...

Actually, its an open question whether amnio increases the risk of msicarriage or not. At least one very recent study I read (when my wife and I were faced with the question) suggested that there is no statistically significant difference in miscarriage between a population of amnio patients and a controlled comparison group without miscarriage. It is possible that some facilties have higher rates of miscarriage than others, however.

Donn said...

At least I respect The Atlantic for their response to the photo snafu. I would REALLY respect them if they fired Sullivan for his Kos-like writing.

I wrote them a few days ago and said I will never buy another mag if they don't get rid of Sullivan (and yes, I used to love this mag, but enough is enough).

Alex said...

Let's start a letter-writing campaign to "The Atlantic" to fire Sullivan.

Methadras said...

Come on. We all know that Little Miss Sullivan is just jealous that she doesn't have a uterus, can't conceive a baby on her back with her legs up in the air, and couldn't possibly fathom what it is like to have an amnio even if she wished her mythic baby had downs syndrome. Little Miss Sullivan has put on full display the journey of utter derangement that she has been on. She was never a conservative of any note, but nothing more than a mole who is now pissed that Sarah Palin is not only a mother of 5 who has been tapped on the shoulder for the Republican VP slot, but a better Christian than she could ever hope to become.

Rick Moore said...

My wife was 37 when she was expecting our second child. We would not have aborted under any circumstances, but we requested the procedure so we could be prepared if anything was wrong. We weren't looking for "pro-life credit". I'm sure that's what Palin was doing as well.

The risks of the procedure are small - just like brain surgery on Sullivan.

Palladian said...

I think we should perform amniocentesis on Andrew Sullivan's head. You know, just for fun.

Fen said...

Thats Sullivan's argument? What the hell? Demanding Palin's birth records wasn't enough? I guess since he's lsot all credibility, he's letting it all hang out.

I'm calling it - Sullivan has some form of brain rot from his disease. I bet that within a year he'll be admitted to ICU and then graciously be given a morphine drip to make his last days more comfortable.

What a waste. The man had talent.

AlphaLiberal said...

Don't know. Don't care.

I do find it funny that they said Bristol Palin "made a choice" to keep her baby. They don't believe she should even have that choice!

I do think the right wingers crying "unfair" who were also rummaging around in Bill Clinton's personal life are hypocritical WATBs.

George said...

Hey, george 3:28, are we the same person or what?

Lower case people like you are okay with me.

American Liberal Elite said...

"Let's start a letter-writing campaign to "The Atlantic" to fire Sullivan."

I tried that with Kristol and Krauthammer, but their unprincipled employers refused to see the wisdom of my argument.

Peter V. Bella said...

Maybe he is not HIV+, maybe he is in third stage Syphillis.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

I was offered an amnio for my first pregnancy and I looked at my male, Catholic OB-GYN and told him I think it's a search-and-destroy mission because of the 1% of amnios that end in a termination. My girlfriend got the preliminary [non-invasive tests] done and they indicated for her a possibility of Down. I talked her out of having the amnio because either way, she wasn't aborting and there's nothing different/more risky about delivery for a child with Down. Her daughter, indeed, does have Down.

That said: it ain't nobody's business but the Palins and their doctors whether to have the amnio or not.

Fen said...

Synova" "Just imagine what happens if she becomes pregnant again!"

I already know - the Left would induce a miscarriage with all their stalking and harassment.

Fen said...

AlphaLiberal: [...]

You should probrably get tested too. I think Sullivan passed something on to you.

Theo Boehm said...

Victoria: My wife likes Obama despite some of his positions, including his pro-choice stance, which, as we all know, is a sine qua non for the election of a politician in any but the reddest of states. She discounts that, just as she does in deciding on Massachusetts pols, because Obama's other virtues, in her mind, outweigh this negative.

If Obama were ever to be in a position to seriously influence abortion policy, she might change her mind, but the President can do very little directly about abortion. He can, of course, appoint SC Justices, but that is several removes from any real-world influence on abortion.

No, my wife likes Obama because of all the hype so far: She views him as a unifier, someone who will project a positive image of America internationally, and someone whose social views are more in line with hers than McCain. Also, she likes Obama's health care policy, so far.

My wife lived in Europe for some years, and I think that experience has led her to look at American politics from an international perspective, which, of course, greatly favors Obama.

I, too, initially had similar views. Unfortunately, to me, Obama has proven a great disappointment in almost every way. I'm going to have a hard time voting for McCain, so I may leave the top of my ballot blank yet again.

But the one thing my wife and I, our friends from Church, our Evangelical friends, our Lutheran friends, and even some secular friends who have had female pioneer ancestors still the subject of family tales, all agree on, is that Sarah Palin is a remarkable and, in many ways, admirable woman.

We're not all going to vote for her, but, please, give her some credit for her remarkable fortitude and strength to live by her principles.

Trooper York said...

It is very interesting how Sarah Palin makes some people crazy.

I just don't get it.

Alex said...

It is very interesting how Sarah Palin makes some people crazy.

I just don't get it.


She threatens their entire liberal bubble.

Trooper York said...

I mean John Edwards and Dan Quayle didn't make them that crazy.

Does lack of a dick make that much of a differance.

Synova said...

Ya know, AL... the fact is that Bristol *does* have a post-conception choice and made it. That's reality today.

And ya know... knowing teenagers... she probably made the pre-conception choice too. The conversation goes like this... "What if I/you get pregnant?" "What are the chances?" "Not huge, but I/you could. What then?" "Well then I suppose we have a baby." "Mom would have a cow." "I know, but she'd get over it." "Besides, it's a pretty small chance."

After that some one pounds on the fogged up window of the car... "Stupid kids! You can die of carbon monoxide poisoning doing that? Do you really think it's worth it?"

Donn said...

Troop,

It's that Palin is the ultimate "Christianist."

bearbee said...

It is very interesting how Sarah Palin makes some people crazy.

Intolerance thrives in Palin's Pacific Northwest

There is no evidence that Palin was ever affiliated with white-supremacist groups during her years in Idaho or at home in Alaska. On the other hand,.....

Of course we are NOT saying she IS racist but you neeeever know....

slarrow said...

AlphaLiberal, couple of points: you're right in saying that some of us think that in a better world, no one would be able to choose to destroy a human life before it saw the light of day. Likewise, those who oppose the death penalty think in a better world, no one could choose to end a human life, regardless of the crime committed.

However, we live in a world in which both of those are real choices. Therefore, pro-lifers commend those who choose life, just as anti-death penalty people praise those who do not choose that penalty for the convicted. Just because people are working to make what they view as a wrong choice illegal doesn't disqualify them from praising when what they consider the right choice is made.

Finally, please recall that President Clinton was under investigation for sexual harassment and that his continual stonewalling and unwillingness to admit guilt led to the search for corroborating behavior. It was also alleged that he used his office both in Arkansas and in Washington to arrange and protect his extramarital affairs. If you can claim with a straight face that the current calls for personal information on Sarah Palin are parallel, then feel free to use the hypocrite charge. Otherwise, I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Fen said...

She threatens their entire liberal bubble.

Yup, according to liberals, women aren't supposed to have a career AND children. They're supposed to keep having abortions [waves to Maureen]

Donn said...

Bear,

If you believe the crap in that column, you're as crazy as Sullivan.

Sy said...

I also found it strange for the left to point out that Palin is pro-life even in the case of rape and incest. IF one truly believes abortion is murder, how can one logically justify abortion in case of rape or incest?

Murder is murder. Palin's position is consistent of a pro-life position. Anything else is a halfhearted compromise except for the life of the mother.

Fen said...

Finally, please recall that President Clinton was under investigation for sexual harassment and that his continual stonewalling and unwillingness to admit guilt led to the search for corroborating behavior

I've already patiently explained to Alpha why Jones had a right to discover any information re Clinton that established a pattern of sexual abuse in the workplace.

He already knows he's wrong, and according to his own twisted logic from yesterday, that makes him a liar.

Don't treat Alpha gently. He's a propaganda troll that doesn't deserve your time and energy.

AlphaLiberal said...

It is very interesting how Sarah Palin makes some people crazy.

David Brooks column in today's NY Times is a bit of a surprise. He finds Palin very lacking in qualifications.

Don't forget to call him names.

Hugo Chavez said...

Bear,

If you believe the crap in that column, you're as crazy as Sullivan.


Donn,

Read Bear's comment more carefully please.

martha said...

Andrew Sullivan's obsession with Sarah Palin's obstetric history is bizarre. I am pro-life and had amniocentesis for 2 or my 3 pregnancies because of my age at the time of the pregnancies (35 and 39). One of my children did have a birth defect (spina bifida). Because I had had an amnio, we were forewarned and therefore able to optimize preparations for the delivery and post-natal care and to minimize further damage to the infant.

A woman's obstetric history, her reasons for undergoing any prenatal test, and her decisions regarding her pregnancy are no one's business but hers. Sullivan's obstetric obsession is deranged.

PatCA said...

An amnio would also give the mother a chance to correct some anomalies, would it not? Andrew is just betraying, among other things, his lack of knowledge of "breeder" culture.

Fetal Medicine

Donn said...

HC,

Got it, thanks.

sydney said...

I was 36 when I had my last child. My obstetrician and I had an argument about the amniocentesis/ blood test decision. I argued that I didn't want to have testing done because I knew I would never abort a baby. I didn't care about being prepared. I would deal with whatever fate dealt us when I had the baby. He very forcefully argued in favor of the testing so he would be prepared. He wanted to know ahead of time if he would have to call in the neonatal intensivists and have the transport ready to move the baby across town to the Children's hospital. Maybe Palin's OB wanted to be prepared, too.

Andrew Sullivan has become extermely strange. They won't fire him, though. He brings in traffic with posts like this. He could probably get even more traffic by posting porn. Would they put up with that, too?

Palladian said...

"I mean John Edwards and Dan Quayle didn't make them that crazy.

Does lack of a dick make that much of a differance."

Speaking for myself, lack of a dick makes me extremely crazy.

erniecu73 said...

Hugo Chavez said...

4:16 PM



Alabao! Es el mono de Barinas!

Speaking of pregnancies, we were few and Catana gave birth...

John Lynch said...

My wife is opposed to abortion and had one.

There's all kinds of fetal health problems that can be diagnosed and prepared for if you know that they're coming.

One thing I've learned from the Palin baby smears: a lot of people out there are not parents.

slarrow said...

Fen: fair enough. The misuse of the term hypocrite is just a pet peeve of mine. One of these days, maybe I'll get one person, just one, to think twice about what the word actually means.

paul a'barge said...

You're going to Andrew Sullivan for content on which to comment?

Have you no shame? Althouse, have you no shame madam?

Simon said...

AlphaLiberal said...
"David Brooks column in today's NY Times is a bit of a surprise. He finds Palin very lacking in qualifications. ¶ Don't forget to call him names."

You miss that David Brooks spent most of last year in the tank for Obama, and still exudes an urgent desire to like him enough to vote for him. I've given him a kicking enough times already this year - long before Palin was announced as the pick - so it's someone else's turn.

Interesting that you're not so quick to link to the withering of the troopergate story.

paul a'barge said...

OK, if you really wanted to know why a woman would have amniocentesis would it not make sense to ask women? After all, men just don't get amniocentesis.

And if you needed to ask a woman about something this personal wouldn't it make sense to ask with an open and fair mind.

So, who is the least likely person to be able to ask with an open and fair mind a question of a woman?

A homosexual.

Now, add to that fact that Andrew Sullivan is a bottom feeding, morally repulsive homo.

So, who is the one human being least likely to have credibility to comment on this kind of a decision by a woman?

Andrew Sullivan.

Breathtakingly perverse.

Theo Boehm said...

As we've seen in this thread, people of strong pro-life convictions can make different decisions about amnio and other pre-natal testing. These are based on differing medical and personal considerations. Amnio and other tests are NOT one-size-fits-all. The goal of preserving human life is the same, but the means may differ.

Sullivan knows nothing about this, and writes complete, offensive drivel. Ruth Anne, mcg, my wife and I, and others may have differed in our decisions about the best course in each case, but the differences are ones based on the balancing of many considerations to reach the same result.

For me, the various recent Andrew Sullivan controversies have "fallen pale and nugatory on a tiring eye," until this one. I generally glance at him and go, Yas, Yas, so, what else is new?

This, however, is about something my wife and I have lived, and Sullivan has proven to be as full of merde (a tip of the had to our international friends) as possible. I'm now starting to work through some of his recent stuff, and, I've got to say, he does seem like he could use a dose of whatever Physick Sir Archy might prescirbe.

When before has a columnist of his stature come so visibly and painfully off the tracks?

knox said...

I thought an amnio was just common sense if you're an older mother...

Fen said...

AlphaLiberal: David Brooks column in today's NY Times -

I don't know why you keep bothering to show us articles from the NYTs. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes have more credibility.

knox said...

Andrew Sullivan needs to just stfu already. He's making an utter fool of himself. I mean, even more so than usual.

Wen said...

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why a 4 month old baby with Down Syndrome is the hill that Andrew Sullivan wants to die on.

TMink said...

"Is there anything more ridiculous than a bunch of men and gay ones at that trying to second guess why a family might need to have amniocentesis done during a pregnancy."

Nothing springs to mind!


Trey

SMGalbraith said...

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why a 4 month old baby with Down Syndrome is the hill that Andrew Sullivan wants to die on.

Sarah Palin must be stopped from doing...er, um, well, something.

So, what the hell: use a disabled child.

Yeah, he's fallen that far.

mcg said...

So most OB/GYNs are soulless ghouls?

Uh, did I say that? 90% of Down Syndrome babies never make it to term. That's just the fact. You make the value judgements, Alex.

mcg said...

I do find it funny that they said Bristol Palin "made a choice" to keep her baby. They don't believe she should even have that choice!

That tired old canard again. Too bad it's idiotic. Had abortion not been an option, adoption would have been. Choice would still have been present.

lurker2209 said...

My extremely pro-life parents had an amnio when a blood test indicated a higher than normal possibility that my youngest sister might have Down Syndrome. If the test result was positive, they wanted to move to be closer to family who could help with her care. This is just silly!

Synova said...

"Murder is murder. Palin's position is consistent of a pro-life position. Anything else is a halfhearted compromise except for the life of the mother."

I think it's more the thinking behind Jesus explaining that the OT didn't allow divorce because it was okay, but because people are weak.

Yes, it's a consistent pro-life position that a baby conceived through rape or incest isn't guilty of anything and doesn't deserve to die. But I think that most people who think so also recognize that people are weak and compassion toward a woman who's been raped and doesn't think she can deal with having her rapists child, innocent or not, is reasonable.

Health of the mother is also reasonable, even if it's something less than life threatening... just please, more than stretch marks and swollen feet, hm?

vbspurs said...

Ernie, cuida'o, mi amor. Lo que se puede decir en castellano, suena muy pero muy malo en ingles...

Cheers,
Victoria

storkdoc said...

I am an obstetrician and I tell my patients that they should have an amnio if

1. they would abort the pregnancy if it's abnormal

or

2. They just need to know so that they can get ready.

The risks are quite low.

If you won't abort and you don't need to know ahead of time, then the amnio is never necessary. I have many patients who will not abort but get the amnio so that they can be prepared just in case.

If you are truly opposed to abortion and why would you have an amnio line is just B.S.

goesh said...

I realize my degrees are getting old and rusty but come on! I've never heard of this freakin' word. Weeping Jesus! the working people of America really could give a shit about this....this is supposed to make some jaws drop or what?? It will be all the talk in all the break rooms in all the factories starting the 3rd shift right now - I'm about to piss all over myself!

erniecu73 said...

vbspurs said...
Ernie, cuida'o, mi amor. Lo que se puede decir en castellano, suena muy pero muy malo en ingles...

Cheers,
Victoria

5:29 PM


True, they can call me *gasp* racist. Sorry, but I couldn't help it. Seeing Chavez around makes react almost like Sully with Palin...well, not quite...by far, but you get the idea.

Paul Zrimsek said...

For someone who nicht sprechen kann, Sully's doing an awful lot of spreching. The widespread assumption of a week ago-- that his bosses at the Atlantic finally sat him down and explained their lack of ambition in the supermarket tabloid market-- appears to have been false.

jdeeripper said...

AlphaLiberal said... David Brooks column in today's NY Times is a bit of a surprise. He finds Palin very lacking in qualifications.

Don't forget to call him names.


OK, David Brooks writes for the New York Times.

There I said. It was vicious and mean and I meant every word of it!

rhhardin said...

How much risk? You risk your unborn child's life by driving out for pizza.

Life is full of traffic fatalities.

Many for unnecessary trips!

TMink said...

"Yes, it's a consistent pro-life position that a baby conceived through rape or incest isn't guilty of anything and doesn't deserve to die."
Well said, I used to hold this position and thought that way.

"But I think that most people who think so also recognize that people are weak and compassion toward a woman who's been raped and doesn't think she can deal with having her rapists child, innocent or not, is reasonable."

Again, well said. The point that turned it for me is that the rapist would have visitation. So the mother would have 18 years of further contact with the pervert, the child would have standard visitation with the pervert, and the mother is innocent as well in the case of rape. There was no volition, she has no responsibility.

In consesual sex, abortion is murder. It comes down to free will and responsible behavior.

Trey

storkdoc said...

The rate of miscarriage following an amnio varies from 0.97% to 2.3 % depending of which studies you look at. The control groups (that is those that didn't have an amnio) the loss rate varied from 0.84% to 1.5%.

In a series of 7 articles that looked at loss rate, in 4 of them there was no significant difference in the loss rate between cases and controls.

It's very safe.

blake said...

They need her to be completely anti-Choice, or she's not enough of a boogie man. (Heh.)

They also need her to be a hypocrite because that is the worst thing that anyone can be.

It's not difficult to figure out.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Hoosier says: DBQ, is there any doubt in your mind that if Sullivan played WoW he'd be a Blood Elf..

None whatsoever. I just wish that belfs were alliance so I could whomp their sissy asses with my Tauren War Stomp.

Not that there is anything wrong with that....

OT: Lich King is coming out in November...woo hoo


Pre ordered!! Btw: I seem to remember you are an alliance priestess. Bet I've killed you in AV. Take out the healers first!!

:-)

carosmama said...

I am pro life. I also had an amnio because I was over 35, and because my husband really wanted to know if there was anything to be prepared for, other than a "normal" baby.

Andrew Sullivan has truly gone off the rails. Unfortunately, he is not a rare exception with the media right now.

What he, and the rest of the nuts on the left don't seem to realize is that they have turned this "hold my nose and vote for McCain" voter into a "crawl across broken glass to vote for McCain" voter.

eaglewingz08 said...

Doesn't Andrew owe everyone an explanation about why he posted porn pictures of himself on gay websites and engaged in drug abuse with strangers? Did he use protection? Is any protection used sufficient. Does he have video proof of each of his encounters to prove he has abided by safe sex dictates in order to minimize the spread of AIDS and other venereal diseases? What did Andrew's physcians say about his profligate sexual habits and drug abuse?
Oh yeah, Andrew claimed the public didn't have any right to know anything about his private life.
HYPOCRITE!

Michael McNeil said...

So if Todd Palin did sock Andrew Sullivan in the face, would it help or hurt the Republican ticket?

Fen said...

What he, and the rest of the nuts on the left don't seem to realize is that they have turned this "hold my nose and vote for McCain" voter into a "crawl across broken glass to vote for McCain" voter.

Yup. I left the GOP because of McCain's games with illegal immigration. Now I'm a campaign volunteer for McCain/Palin

Fen said...

So if Todd Palin did sock Andrew Sullivan in the face, would it help or hurt the Republican ticket?


No idea. But I'll do a field test next time I cross paths with Sullivan.

Hugo Chavez said...

So if Todd Palin did sock Andrew Sullivan in the face, would it help or hurt the Republican ticket?

When Harry Truman offered to sock in the face of a hack Washington Post music critic who dumped all over Margaret Truman's piano recital, it didn't help his short term political prospects.

On the other hand, while Truman and the hack are dead, people still remember the offer to sock, favorably, 60 years later.

Go Todd!

daredevil-66 said...

As gratifying an image of Todd Palin cracking Andrew Sullivan's face open I think the resounding public reaction would be "Who the hell is Andrew Sullivan?"

Trooper York said...

"David Brooks column in today's NY Times is a bit of a surprise. He finds Palin very lacking in qualifications.

Don't forget to call him names."

I just don't get why the Democrats hate this woman so much that they have to spread smears about her pap smear. Is she that bad? Is she so terrible? Do they fear her so much? I mean they really hate her.

I don't think I hate anyone that much.

Well except for anyone who ever played for the Red Sox.

And their yuppie scum fans.

And Robin Williams.

And Sarah Jessica Parker.

But other than that, I don't think I could hate anyone that much.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Do they fear her so much?

Ding, ding, ding. Give that man a cookie!

EDH said...

Was Andrew Sullivan filmed by a CNN news crew outside Lehman Brothers today?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=adb_1221494431

Beau said...

Someone above me said...

How about if you never were considering an abortion, it would be good to know if you were bearing a disabled child so you can make the necessary preparations to care for the child ahead of time and also know the special needs that the child will have.

Which makes their decision to not seek out medical attention and travel for 10 hours in a pressurized plane once her water broke contradictory to the best interests of the child.

She knew she was having a male, Down syndrome child, that was arriving a month early.

Down syndrome children have a high rate of respiratory problems, male infants moreso. With one less month to develop in utero they took an enormous risk so the claim that they wanted to be prepared doesn't match their behavior.

At the very least she should have been given antibiotics to protect herself and the infant once her water broke.

Having amnio has become standard practice for most pregnancies in my area so I don't find it strange. I do think it careless that they didn't do anything with the information to protect their infant. They dodged a bullet.

Peter V. Bella said...

Alphaliberal said…
David Brooks column in today's NY Times is a bit of a surprise. He finds Palin very lacking in qualifications.

Don't forget to call him names.


Obama is very lacking in qualifications. Hillary Clinton is very lacking in qualifications. David Brooks is a LIAR.

Happy now.

Joe said...

Beau, don't be an ignoramus about pregnancy. Palin traveled with the advice and consent of her obstetrician. Moreover, the risk was EXTREMELY low. Stop believing all the crap the John Edwards lawyer bastards of the world and other fear mongers churn out.

Beau said...

Joe,

I'm an Infant Development consultant for children at risk. This is what I know. They took a huge risk, which is their's to take.

Zaplito said...

Why does Sarah Palin drive the left crazy. In part it's buyers remorse. All the leftards who said they had to have abortions to have it all now see a woman with five kids, no abortions and about to have it all. If I were them I'd be pissed too.

Sheila said...

There's an obvious reason to get an amniocentesis--

So that you know what medical care your child will need.

I had a son with Down Syndrome whom we had no intention of aborting, but a heart defect showed up on the ultrasound. We had an amnio to know which chromosomal anomaly we were dealing with. If it was something fatal, we wouldn't intervene. If it wasn't (and it wasn't), we'd arrange to have me deliver at a high risk centre so that he could get the best medical care possible.

Of course you want an amnio. It's to protect the baby when you need to make health decisions (not death decisions!).

carosmama said...

Wouldn't an "an Infant Development consultant for children at risk" know that "their's" isn't a word?

I love the sudden concern for the unborn when it's politically expedient.

Methadras said...

AlphaLiberal said...

Don't know. Don't care.

I do find it funny that they said Bristol Palin "made a choice" to keep her baby. They don't believe she should even have that choice!

I do think the right wingers crying "unfair" who were also rummaging around in Bill Clinton's personal life are hypocritical WATBs.


Everytime you try to make a moral equivalence of Sarah Palin's baby or Bristol Palin wanting to keep her baby with Bill Clinton and Lewinski only discredits you even further. How low do you want to go down that totem pole, hmm?

Distinction #1: Sarah Palin is the Governer of Alaska who bore a Down's Syndrome child willingly. Bill Clinton was the President of the United States who seduced 20-something year old intern and asked her to suck his dick just outside the oval office.

Distinction #2: Bristol Palin becomes pregnant out of wedlock with her hockey playing boyfriend of a year. Either they used contraception and it failed miserably, or they didn't hence the pregnancy. Either way, they, she are deciding to keep the child and get married. Not the greatest of situations, but they are doing the right thing. Bill Clinton on the other hand pointed his finger in front of a camera to chastise his political enemies for trying to smear and besmirch his good name while Hillary Clinton stood by his side and decries the vast right-wing conspiracy to try and destroy them both.

Distinction #3: When Sarah Palin was being vetted for the VP slot, she essentially told the McCain Campaign and McCain himself that she has a pregnant daughter that got pregnant out of wedlock but is planning on getting married to the father. McCain didn't have a problem with and chose her as his VP running mate. Bill Clinton in sworn deposition testimony gave us three things to deal with; What the meaning of is is, his perjury under that testimony, and that getting a blow job doesn't constitute sex.

So you want to tell me again, you insipid moron, that right-wingers crying 'unfair' which in the face of and in consideration to the severity of the attacks against Palin and her family vs. the proper indignation of a sitting President who dragged the country through a scandal because he thought he was above the law, figured his enormous ego and charisma could carry him out of the situation he put himself, his wife, family, and the American people through are not only morally equivalent, but somehow consistently equative at all? I know you are stupid individual, but you've really lowered the bar on this one.

Not only are the two not similar, they aren't even in the same universe, but in your twisted leftist mind they are. Rummaging around Clinton's personal life is the last thing America wanted to deal with. He foisted this onto us, not the other way around. But because he's your little liberal hero, it's okay to portray him as the victim, right? How typical is that of the leftist/liberal wing of your empty ideology. It wasn't just a personal matter since legal proceeding to impeach him due to his perjury were in effect. You couldn't be more wrong then as you are you now.

Sarah Palin and her family, as far as the research I've been able to due on her hasn't really hidden anything and since nothing has come out to discredit her, outside of the viciousness of the sleaziest smearing I've ever witnessed of anyone running for VP has been conducted on this woman and her family, you have the nerve to call people who had to endure Clinton's lies, cheating, and staining of the oval office hypocrites?

Not only are you stupid, you are deranged. You are completely discredited in your baseless characterizations of two, wholly, and completely separate issues? You don't know what you are talking about and your charge of hypocrisy is moronic, insane, ill-informed, and incompetent. If you were smart (which you aren't obviously), you would shut up, tuck tail, and not degenerate whatever semblance and iota of remaining credibility you have left. You couldn't a bigger fool and a tool as you are now.

Methadras said...

Trooper York said...

It is very interesting how Sarah Palin makes some people crazy.

I just don't get it.


Also, consider who is doing all of the complaining and it isn't Sarah Palin nor her family. Unlike Mr. Barely, who tried to manly proclaim that you couldn't criticize or go after his wife even though she stumped for him, or anyone else he's dealt with on that matter. Do I even have to enumerate who is Mr. Barely's peanut gallery?

reader_iam said...

I won't provide the details, but there was a statistical chance that my son--yes, that one, the one regular and close readers will recogize--was at risk, and when I say risk, I mean "brain-growing-outside-of-skull" risk and/or the like. (On top of that, I was pushing 40 and had had a miscarriage just months before; certainly all sorts of protocols were recommended.)

We chose to have the amnio.

Methadras said...

AlphaLiberal said...

David Brooks column in today's NY Times is a bit of a surprise. He finds Palin very lacking in qualifications.

Don't forget to call him names.


I find you lacking in credibility and I've already called you names.

Michael_H said...

So much for medical privacy. Andrew Sullivan has a creepy interest in Sarah Palin's reproductive system.

Move on, Andrew. Go back to fantasizing about Molly Yard.

reader_iam said...

What an unthoughtful, bullshit question.

Like, all critical life decisions don't involve balancing risk, and in context of some of the most critical life decisions, balancing risk at the margins.

(Note: In this case, I'm using "life decisions" in a very broad sense. Don't bother trying to box my thoughts in to suit your own preferences as to what you'd like me to be saying.)

Shorter: It's perfectly possible for the risks associated with amnio to be outweighed.

What an obvious point. Why the hell should anyone have to make it?

reader_iam said...

It is, by the way, perfectly possible that I'm taking Sullivan's statement out of context. I assessed the risk, and I chose to rely on Althouse's excerpt as giving me enough clues to respond.

I have yet to visit Sullivan's blog since the day I purged it and said I wouldn't visit it again.

Meade said...

Freud said something like the experience of sexual intercourse for the male is like "returning home."

Okay, hey l take a back seat to no other hetero guy in my enjoyment of returning home, but, you know, it's also good to get away every now and then and not let oneself get completely swallowed up in... home... if you know what I'm saying and I think you do.

Could it be Andrew Sullivan has some latent, powerful, without-boundary heterosexual urges? Yes heterosexual urges.

First he pries into Sarah Palin's (and her daughter's) uterus. Now he's trying to climb all the way into her womb to swim in her amniotic ocean.

Freud might attribute Sullivan's regressive use of denial as a defense mechanism to his castration fears brought on by a life-threatening virus he acquired by way of his cigar. I mean, his penis.

I suspect as angry at Sullivan's behavior might make Todd Palin, Palin would try to have compassion for poor Andrew Sullivan. The Atlantic editors could stand to follow Palin's example and show a little compassion toward their readers before, along with Sullivan himself, they all curl up in the fetal position and try to pretend nothing is wrong.

dr kill said...

Infant development consultant? Isn't that-
'sort of like a parent, but without the responsibility'?

Hahahaha, I'd like one of your business cards. Damn, that's a good one. can you say that with a straight face? Sounds like a degree promoted on the back of a matchbook. Sort of like me, a pet repairman. Hahahaha.

reader_iam said...

Which makes their decision to not seek out medical attention and travel for 10 hours in a pressurized plane once her water broke contradictory to the best interests of the child.


God damn it, you don'tknow that. You don't "know" that conclusion any more than you "know" the details you're assuming in coming to that conclusion. Stop pretending--or fooling yourself--that you do. Anymore than do those who say there was NO risk.

((To put a fine point on it, the fact that you don't, and can't, "know" the assumed details is precisely why you can't "know" that conclusion you're assuming.)

Pogo said...

Brava, reader.

Pogo said...

"I'm an Infant Development consultant for children at risk."

Thas' fookin' hilarious. Good God. And if I found out you actually get paid, well sheee-hit.

Dogwood said...

Late to the conversation but just wanted to note that my wife had the amnio test during both pregnancies even though abortion was not an option for us.

It was simply a routine medical test that would have provided advance warning of specific problems if they were present, which they were not.

Much. Ado. About. Nothing.

Peter V. Bella said...

If Gloria Steinem was a real feminist she would be pissed off.

Derek Kite said...

Maybe if a woman can be Vice President, a homosexual can be expert about childbirth.

Same thing, sorta.

Derek

JAL said...

"I note the additional question: If amniocentesis really means that, why did Palin disclose that she had it? The answer would need to be that she wanted to tell the world that she knew she was about to give birth to a child with Down Syndrome and wanted pro-Life credit for her... I was going to say decision. Which brings us back to Sullivan's question."

I'm not sure whose question this is. I couldn't find it on the Sullivan page.

I think the responses of pro-lifers who had amnio speak for themselves.

But what's with "The answer would need to be ...." ?? Where is there any sense in what we have heard and seen that Palin would do it so she could get "credit?" No offense meant, but that is just weird. And what a misread of pro-lifers in general (your commenters, for instance!)

This is a woman who basically handled most of her pregnancy with just her husband knowing. She certainly wasn't out there broadcasting her pregnancy -- quite the opposite.

As an aside -- I did not have an amnio (baby was born at age 44). We would not have aborted. After the fact I asked the doc why he recommended amnio and the alpha-feta protein (sp?) test. He said he would have wanted to be prepared.

Bumsurf said...

Purged Sullivan's blog a week ago. God! It's great to receive timely confirmation.

Rose said...

I thought we lived in a more enlightened age. This guy, and alot of the other attacks on Palin are making me think the flat-earthers are alive and well, in vast numbers. To be dancing up and down in fury over a routine medical procedure... it's incomprehensible. And it's making me crazy!

Palladian said...

I'm an infantile consultant developing risky children.

Kirk Parker said...

That's not a shark that Sullivan jumped--it's the Loch Ness Monster!

former law student said...

Which makes their decision to not seek out medical attention and travel for 10 hours in a pressurized plane once her water broke contradictory to the best interests of the child.

Horse hockey. Her amniotic fluid was merely leaking -- apparently not enough to frighten the other governors, the cab drivers, or the flight attendants. Having been pregnant four times before, she would have been comfortable with the way her body handled pregnancy, and known how much time she would have had.

And the advantages of delivering in her familiar hospital, with her own ob-gyn, surrounded by family and friends (especially her MOTHER) were more in the best interests of the child, than trying to be admitted via the emergency room, thousands of miles from home, with an unfamiliar doctor who would have had zero familiarity with her case.

Anthony said...

Sullivan has lost it. Way cannot everyone just accept that (I was in denial for a long time). But we should have realized it years ago -- after all, after the anthrax incidents he was basically calling for genocide against Iraq.

As for the amnio, ny wife was told to get one before our first child was born. She was of the age and she had previously had a miscarriage.

We decided against it, despite the pressure from the doctor. While she is "pro-choice" and I am ambivilant about abortion as a political issue, we both decided that we would not abort the child, even if it had Down's Syndrome.

Looking back, however, it might have been a good idea to get the amnio, for no other reason then we could have been better prepared to raise the child IF the child had Down's.

In any event, some doctors are more insistent than others on the amnio. Our first doctor was insistent, made us go to a counseling session, made the appointment for us anyway, and then when we refused, made us sign some papers to the effect we were given teh choice and refused. The doctor for our second child responded "OK" when we said no amnio..

former law student said...

Our first doctor was insistent, made us go to a counseling session, made the appointment for us anyway, and then when we refused, made us sign some papers to the effect we were given teh choice and refused.

He was creating a paper trail, in case you sued him after the baby was born, claiming you would have done things differently had you had amnio.

Your second doctor was not as prudent as the first.

Anthony said...

>He was creating a paper trail, in case you sued him after the baby was born, claiming you would have done things differently had you had amnio.

>Your second doctor was not as prudent as the first.

Exactly. (I am a lawyer after all). The first doctor was in sue happy New York, the second in Illinois. I would not have sued anyway (as I find the concept of "wrongful life" disturbing).

Also, I think the hospital had spent a lot of money on some new ultrasounds and was trying to use up excess caacity.

Audrey said...

First, I need to say that I agree with your basic premise: it's a bit suspect that Gov. Palin chose to do this, knowing that abortion would never be an option for her.

That having been said, some pro-life women do chose to have amniocentesis because they are convinced that the small risk of the procedure would be outweighed by the information that they would gain (i.e., that their pregnancy was high risk) and thus, they could make more appropriate birthing choices for a high risk delivery.

But here's the rub vis a vis Gov. Palin. We are being told that she did do the test and then, what? Well, ... nothing. From all appearances, she IGNORED the results. She continued to plan to give birth with a family practice doctor who practices 800 miles from Palin's (supposed) primary residence. She continued to plan to give birth in a small rural / community hospital with no NICU, even though about 30% of Down's babies have some sort of heart problem and some need surgery right after birth. She got ON an airplane at 35-36 weeks pregnant with a KNOWN HIGH RISK pregnancy to travel thousands of miles to GIVE A SPEECH and then got back on the plane when her membranes began "leaking" and traveled approximately 12 hours back to Alaska. She apparently needed "months" to get used to the fact that she was going to have the responsibility for a special needs child, but didn't bother to prepare her older children at all. And if all of this is not enough, we're to believe that a physician went along with all of this.

The fact is that Gov. Palin's pregnancy and delivery saga is one implausible, improbable, indefensible choice after another. It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to believe that she was ever pregnant at all.