In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Palin is “Hardcore Pro-Life”

We already knew that, but what I find particularly irritating is how anti-choice activists use Palin’s son as “proof” of her beliefs — and how she buys into it.

Many politicians include their children in their campaigns — I don’t think that’s problematic. I don’t think it’s problematic at all for Palin to say that having a special-needs child has informed her view of what children like Trig need. In fact, I hope that’s actually true, and that she’ll work to create policies to meet the needs of other families who don’t have similar resources. I don’t think it’s problematic for her to say that her pro-life views informed her decision to carry her pregnancy to term. But something about the way she talks about it (and the way Focus on the Family’s James Dobson talks about it) rubs me the wrong way. For example:

Dobson: You may not recall it, but in April, before all of this happened, before you were selected by Senator McCain to be his running mate, I wrote to thank you for welcoming little Trig into this world, your little baby with Down Syndrome. And I just wanted to express to you what a powerful testimony that was to the sanctity of human life. And you wrote me a very gracious letter back and there are just so many parents out there who also admire you for your love and care for that precious child.

Palin: Well, I so appreciated your words and yeah, when we found out I was about thirteen weeks along when I found out that Trig would be born with Down Syndrome. To be honest with you, it scared me though and I knew that it would be a challenge and I had to really be on my knees the entire rest of the pregnancy asking that God would prepare my heart. And just the second that he was born it was absolute confirmation that that prayer was answered with all of us just falling so in love with him. And then this whole new world has been opened up to me since then. I’ve always had near and dear to my heart the mission of protecting the sanctity of life and being pro-life, a hardcore pro-lifer, but I think this opportunity for me to really be walking the walk and not just talking the talk. There’s purpose in this also for a greater good to be met. I feel so privileged and blessed to have been, I guess, chosen to have Trig enter our lives because I do want it to help us in our cause here in allowing America to be a more welcoming nation for all of our children.

He wrote to thank her for having a baby? I thought the appropriate card would have been found in the Congratulations section, but that’s just me.

Having a special-needs child is certainly difficult, and raising children generally isn’t an easy task. But no child should be treated like a showpiece on his parent’s pro-life mantle. And Dobson’s condescending way of talking about Trig, and about Palin’s decision to continue the pregnancy, smacks a little too much of treating him like a Very Special Little Handicapped Thing as opposed to a baby.

The fact is that Palin made the same choice — to give birth — several times before Trig. I’m pretty sure that no one sent her a “thank-you” card for her other children. And I’m pretty sure she doesn’t talk about her other kids serving as “opportunities” for her to demonstrate to everyone just how pro-life she is.

I’ll send Palin and Dobson thank-you cards — and call them “pro-life” without sarcasm or scare-quotes — when they actually start walking the talk and provide preventative services for women who don’t want to become pregnant, and offer a variety of options for pregnant women who want to give birth but may not think it’s possible (financial assistance, daycare, health care, etc). I’ll thank them when they promote policies that make the world a more welcoming place for disabled people — and no, forcing women to give birth against their will doesn’t count. Hell, I’ll stop calling Palin and Dobson raging fucking hypocrites when they do anything life-affirming at all, other than talk about how pro-life they are.

But then, of course, they’d be pro-choice.


67 thoughts on Palin is “Hardcore Pro-Life”

  1. Yes ma’am, that they would. And we can’t have that now, can we? They believe in being pro-life, then fine. Heck, I’m pro-life. I want very much to protect the lives of people who are here on this Earth through universal healthcare, welfare, foster care, daycare, family support services, rehab and addiction services, the abolition of the death penalty, a decent minimum wage, gun control and of course, birth control. But in the view of these particular folks, to paraphrase George Orwell, “all people are created equal. But some people (the unborn) are more equal than others.”

  2. And I’m pretty sure she doesn’t talk about her other kids serving as “opportunities” for her to demonstrate to everyone just how pro-life she is.

    In all fairness, she *is* likewise (ab)using Bristol now, even if she doesn’t say it the same way… So it’s not like she’s that inconsistent; she uses all her children for her own profit to some extent.

  3. Personally, I hate their implication that no pro-choice woman has ever choosen to give birth to a child with Down’s Syndrome.

  4. The unspoken implication is that she’s SO pro-life that she would EVEN give birth to this DISABLED baby. It’s positioning the life of a special needs child as less valuable than any other child.

  5. Saw an article on the nightly news last night here in Denver about a local news show’s interview with Palin when she was in town recently. She spoke out AGAINST a special issue on the ballot here this November – funding for special needs children. Apparently in Colorado, there’s up to a 10 year waiting list for special needs kids (Down syndrome, autism, etc) to get into programs here.

    Palin is AGAINST this initiative because it will raise taxes 2 cents for every 10 dollars spent.

  6. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve read in a long time. But then again, pro-lifers are pretty stupid. They think that having a child makes one pro-life. Lots of pro-choicers have children. Cecile Richards has two kids, right? And there are even women who consider themselves to be pro-life who *gasp* have abortions!

    I think it’s pretty sad that Sarah Palin thought she had to get pregnant after age 35, knowing damn well that her child would be at increased risk of having a developmental disability, find out that her child would indeed have Down Syndrome, and then give birth to that child, just to prove to the world that she believes women’s bodies should be government property.

  7. ThickRedGlasses, birth control isn’t perfect, and people aren’t, either. Plenty of us manage to have kids after 34 without necessarily intending to, and some of us are feminists and pro-choice. So let’s avoid the “damned well” bit, okay? Palin’s getting pregnant late in life is not a sign of anything other than she’s human.

    Likewise, in the interest of fairness, I think we have to acknowledge that children with Down Syndrome are much more rare than fetuses with Down Syndrome because abortion is legal.

    And while you can be pro-choice and concerned about abortion being used to select for “perfect” children, the vast majority of people speaking out against that are anti-choice. We in the pro-choice movement generally haven’t wanted to call attention to this because it seems rhetorically dangerous to question any other woman’s reason for an abortion.

    So the fact that Palin’s framing it in this way is, in part, due to our *not* framing the question at all.

  8. I feel sorry for Trig when he grows up. And not just ‘cos his math teachers will make fun of him, either.

    Miriam: Economics are a major factor in why women have abortions, especially if they know the child’s going to be disabled. Children are really expensive to raise to begin with, and a child with a disability is unfortunately more expensive. Whereas Ms. Palin isn’t saying that she had Trig because she wanted a fifth child and she had the resources to raise him even if he had Down’s, she seems to be saying that she got pregnant and didn’t abort because she’s that strongly pro-life. I really do think it’s going to suck for Trig knowing that he exists as a vindication of his mother’s political beliefs.

  9. Miriam, I’m saying that she and her husband planned this pregnancy without caring what could happen to their future child. And since Palin doesn’t believe in birth control, then she couldn’t have become pregnant unintentionally. I’m not going to say that the Palins purposely had a baby with Down Syndrome for political purposes, but I certainly wouldn’t put it past them, especially since Palin and her conservative friends are using the child as a political tool now.

  10. What makes someone a hard core anti-abortionist? Aren’t they the people who bomb abortion clinics and shoot doctors?

  11. ThickRedGlasses, you say that you’re “not going to say” that Palin purposely had a baby with DS, but when you say that you “wouldn’t put it past them,” you imply just that. Are you seriously trying to advance this argument?

    Goodness knows I don’t agree with Palin on anything, but I am troubled by statements that Trig only exists “as vindication for his mother’s beliefs” and the like. I agree that Trig is being used as a political tool, but that doesn’t mean politics are the only reason the Palins decided to give birth to him.

    I really like Jill’s post for pointing out how ableist “hardcore pro-lifers” can be, but I do think this is something the pro-choice movement should address on its own. The right’s “concern” for disabled people is generally fake–as evidenced by their lack of support of policies that would help alive disabled people–but I am sometimes uncomfortable with the way in which the pro-choice addresses the issue, too. Comments which indicate that disabled people are a burden veer towards uncomfortable territory.

  12. Am I the only one to notice that this “pro life” mother admitted to having prenatal testing? These tests carry a miscarriage risk; they also offer no benefit to the fetus (except, of course, giving their parents several months to spend praying). So why would someone who doesn’t want an abortion anyway choose to have one?
    For the record, I am both pro choice and pro freely available prenatal testing; however, I chose not to have one myself because I found the risk of miscarriage too high (and because I could afford a special needs child).

  13. Cara at the Curvature nailed this: Sarah Palin is being given huge kudos for choosing to give birth to a Down syndrome baby, whereas the whole point of being a pro-lifer is that there is not supposed to be a choice.

  14. It’s a really weird set-up pro-life women have going here. It’s similar to what Michelle Duggar experiences — she’s lionized by the right, put on TV, given all sorts of freebies, because she has so many children, but politically, if she and her husband had their way, she wouldn’t be special any more and the freebies would dry up.

    For everything women want, though, there’s a token woman held up as evidence that we don’t really need it. There’s always some abused wife who’s glad she stuck it out for the kids, some mother who gets enormous joy in “giving herself entirely to her husband” without birth control, some young girl who loves being sexually harassed, etc. That’s how it works. Palin is being used as a stick to beat women who, for whatever reason, don’t think we could handle caring for a special needs child.

    And since Palin doesn’t believe in birth control, then she couldn’t have become pregnant unintentionally.

    Palin has been very clear that she does believe in birth control, albeit not the morning-after pill (which would suggest not the IUD or the pill, but there are other methods). It’s possible she got pregnant by accident.

    As for getting pregnant after 40, the risk of having a child with Down’s is about 1 in 60 — high, sure, but not enormous. Lots of women have normal pregnancies at that age.

  15. First off, Sarah Palin has repeatedly said she’s pro-contraception.

    But that being said what disturbed me most was this:

    And then this whole new world has been opened up to me since then

    It sounds to me that she thinks the vice-presidency is her “reward” from her god for having a disabled child.

    That’s sick.

  16. So why would someone who doesn’t want an abortion anyway choose to have one?

    A special needs child has special needs. Often those are a lot better dealt with if you’re prepared ahead of time, medically, in terms of lining up other resources, etc.

    I can well imagine even a staunch anti-abortion person choosing to be aware ahead of time what they were going to be dealing with in a case like this.

  17. The reason you people fear Sarah, yes fear, is because she’s a woman doing what she wants AND NOT a woman trying to be a man like many of you. The only good thing about morons like you backing abortion is that you are less likely to pollute the gene pool with your idiocy.

  18. And while you can be pro-choice and concerned about abortion being used to select for “perfect” children,

    You know what, no, you can’t. There is no “I’m pro-choice, but…” position. All that means is that you like the idea of certain options being available while others are closed off based upon your particular system of values. Thats not being in favor of choice, liberty, or bodily sovereignty, thats trading one system of oppression for another. The bottom line is that what people do with their own bodies and why they do it simply isn’t the business of anyone other than themselves and their consenting partners. Period. Anything else is just hedging your bets and saying that while you’re fine with oppression, we just have to make sure that its the right people wielding the hammer. It doesn’t matter how hard you polish that turd.

  19. William, I’m not sure that’s what the above commenter was saying. I’m pro-choice. But it does concern me that so many women choose to terminate pregnancies when they find out the fetus may be disabled or have Downs syndrome. It does concern me that so many women list economic reasons for why they’re terminating their pregnancies. It does concern me that we have one of the highest abortion rates in the developed world.

    Those things don’t concern me because I think women are irresponsible or making the “wrong” choices. They concern me because they point to a lack of options which make abortion the only feasible choice.

    Would a lot of women still terminiate Downs pregnancies even if the world was more accepting of people with Downs syndrom, and even if there were more resources available? Probably, yeah. But I’d bet that the number would go down. And I’d bet that our abortion rate would decrease significantly if women were given the tools to prevent pregnancy in the first place, and if women across the board were in better economic positions, and if we had a better social welfare system that would provide resources for parents (especially lower-income parents). “Choice” is unfortunately a bit meaningless when the options are highly constricted.

    Of course none of that is to say that abortion shouldn’t be a choice, for all women. Just that as it stands, a lot of women don’t have other feasible options. And a lot of women don’t even have the abortion option.

  20. @Broce:
    I can well imagine even a staunch anti-abortion person choosing to be aware ahead of time what they were going to be dealing with in a case like this.

    The point I was trying to make, and that you didn’t address, is that this knowledge is not gained for free. It carries a substantial miscarriage risk. So in order to make sure you will be able to care better for your child who has a 1 in 60 (say) chance of being sick, you expose him or her to a 1 in 200 risk of death?

    Also, if a fetus has serious problems, they are visible later in the pregnancy via an ultrasound exam. Down syndrome itself is not detectable, but many of its serious complications are.

    I do respect everybody’s choice, but in Palin case I have to doubt either her honesty or her grasp of basic probability theory.

  21. The point I was trying to make, and that you didn’t address, is that this knowledge is not gained for free. It carries a substantial miscarriage risk. So in order to make sure you will be able to care better for your child who has a 1 in 60 (say) chance of being sick, you expose him or her to a 1 in 200 risk of death?

    You’re being a little disingenuous here – there is not a 1 in 60 chance of a child born to a mother of that age having problems. There’s a one in 60 chance of the fetus having Down Syndrome. Considering all the other potential problems, yes, I can see (and in fact know of) an anti abortion pregnant woman making the choice to have prenatal testing (though all prenatal testing does not run a 2% risk of miscarriage).

    Also, if a fetus has serious problems, they are visible later in the pregnancy via an ultrasound exam

    No, not all problems are detectable via ultrasound. Not even all serious problems are detectable that way. Again, prenatal screening is not done only for Down Syndrome and its attendant complications.

    I do respect everybody’s choice, but in Palin case I have to doubt either her honesty or her grasp of basic probability theory.

    I not only doubt her honesty, I’m convinced she lies about many things. This is not, however, one of them. I do not see the inconsistency in her position that you’re claiming. In addition, we don’t know how the prenatal testing was presented by her doctor. I’ve had doctors tell me something had “very minor risk – like lightning striking” when in fact the risk was upwards of 10% on a given procedure or for a given side effect of a medication.

  22. she’s a woman doing what she wants AND NOT a woman trying to be a man like many of you. The only good thing about morons like you backing abortion is that you are less likely to pollute the gene pool with your idiocy

    Sorry, I dont quite know what you mean about Sarah Palin “not trying to be a man.” I am quite happy being a woman. I’m also as staunchly pro-choice as they come, have a career, own my own home and run my own household.

    I’ve also had and raised a child. He’s 21, and is as staunchly pro-choice as I am. He and his long term girlfriend are also happily planning to have children one day, so the gene pool will continue to be “polluted” with people who believe in a woman’s right to choose.

  23. YOu know, I have a special needs child. My son is Dyspraxic with verbal apraxia. What scares me most, and what malkes NO sense whatsoever as a mother of a needy child is the fact that these people can call themselves “pro-life” ….YET they wish to take away the employer provided medical coverage that has helped in testing/diagnosing my son and will help in treating him.

    If we were left to pay our own way AFTER TAX, chances our the 5K “tax break” McSame proposes would only cover partial family coverage – and that is IF (and a big fat IF it is…) we could even GET coverage that didn’t bankrupt us…or drop us for “too much usage”

    So yeah, she’s got a special needs child. Me too. But as a parent of a special needs child, she should know more than anyone who doesn’t McCain’s health plan is ANYTHING but pro-life, or pro-child/pro-family. And that doesn’t even include the traditional republican plan of cutting social services like education – of which Infant/Toddler and Child Find are a part of – to HELP special needs children.

    Palin is using Trig as a prop. Plain and simple. So she ahs a special needs child. Many of us do, but one thing we don’t fuck around with is our health coverage and federally/state funded child special-ed programs. And that is precisely what McCain and her want to do.

    They make me violently ill…

  24. Jill, thank you for elaborating on the ways we can be both pro-choice (in the sense of defending the safe and legal right to abortion) while recognizing that privilege (among other things) constrains the choices we make.

    At present, abortion is legal *and* society is ablest.

    And speaking of turds, William, there’s nothing more shitty than an unwillingness to engage in intersectional analysis.

  25. The reason you people fear Sarah, yes fear, is because she’s a woman doing what she wants AND NOT a woman trying to be a man like many of you. The only good thing about morons like you backing abortion is that you are less likely to pollute the gene pool with your idiocy.

    I’m so sorry, sir, I believe you got lost on the way to Reclusive Leftist.

    I’ve never had an abortion and fully intend to pollute the gene pool with my idiocy in the future. I relish your terror.

  26. “And while you can be pro-choice and concerned about abortion being used to select for “perfect” children,”

    You know what, no, you can’t. There is no “I’m pro-choice, but…” position.

    Not to invoke Godwin’s law, but would the term “anti-eugenics” cover this scenario? ‘Cause I’m staunchly pro-choice but I would consider that kind of selection a valid concern…

  27. I think those of us who belive in reproductive freedom need to take positive steps to stop this kind of rhetoric before it even starts. We can’t control the nonsesne that comes out of the anti-abortion movement but we can see how the “pro-choice” community plays into that nonsense.

    The “pro-choice” people have so often fallen into the “safe legal and rare” trap of defedning The Good Abortion that no reasonable person should oppose.
    The Good Abortion ™ falls into one of two catagories:

    1. the woman became pregnant in such way that we can guarrantee she isn’t a dirty slut (the rape and incest good abortion)
    2. the woman is unfit to be a mother and/or the baby she’d give birth to is unfit to be a baby. (the “teen mom” good abortion, the poor woman good abortion, the fetus with disabilities good abortion)

    The far-right is reaction hypocritically (again, what surprise!) to the pro-choice folks obsession with Good Abortion #2. They are deliberately playing off pro-choice movement’s fucked up attachment to the idea that being a teen mom or knowing that the fetus you are carrying has genetic disabilities is an excuse for an abortion.

    A good abortion is any abortion that a woman wants!
    We don’t need access to abortion to keep “teen moms” from “ruining their lives” or protect women from the “burden” of raising a child with disabilities.
    We need unrestricted access to abortion because women have the ultimate say in whether or not they are willing to create a human being within their own bodies. That’s it.

    Too bad we’ve drifted so far away from “abortion on demand, without apology” and ended up in the realm of “Abortion: because classim, ablism and racism decide who should have children”
    If we had stayed commited to that we could have shut Sarah Palin’s hateful mouth so easily.

  28. Here’s what I want to know:

    Does James Dobson write to congratulate every single woman in the US who has a baby with Downs Syndrome?

    Or just high-profile women?

    Or just high-profile pro-lifers?

    Or what?

  29. “Not to invoke Godwin’s law, but would the term “anti-eugenics” cover this scenario? ‘Cause I’m staunchly pro-choice but I would consider that kind of selection a valid concern…”

    “A good abortion is any abortion that a woman wants!”

    I agree with annalouise.
    There is nothing wrong with the women who abort any “disabled” fetuses. They possibly reacting to a economic or societal pressure, and it is none of your damn business!
    If you think they are aborting fetuses that they don’t “prefer”, then lobby for better treatment/respect for the people who already have the “non-preferred” disability or what have you.

  30. “And then this whole new world has been opened up to me since then” –

    I don’t think she’s talking about her vp candidacy, I think Palin was trying to say what most parents of disabled children say–that the world that is opened up is a world only open to those who are parents of special needs kids-that they become deeper/more loving, etc.

    I think it’s below the belt to infer that Palin is using Trig though, even though she is wrong to be anti choice and in fact is *not* creating a culture of life due to her anti-life (if you’re low income especially) policies. It’s routine though for women over 35 to be pressured to do testing early in pregnancy- even young women are often pressured to do the type testing Palin did. Most people are going to be stupid and say wrong headed things for at least the first few years of having a downs child or knowing one–there’s too much stigma associated with having a downs child, and alot of judgement too, like the commenter who inferred what alot of people think–that women who have babies after 35 are wrong–but yet, women are also damned if they have kids *before* 25! So you havebasically a 10 year time period to have kids and not be judged by the masses as a woman (*maybe*).

    There is too much judgement that goes on with women and childbearing period. I am pro choice and pro contraceptive education beginning at an early age in schools. Pro lifers will keep their mouths shut about women having kids at any age as long as the woman acts superhuman and like she needs no help. The negative with pro choicers is they often are too presumptuous about what women should or shouldn’t be doing in other ways and it is disturbing. Sex and bearing kids are simply facts of life, with often unexpected outcomes, just like the rest of life.

    The solution is to be practical about things and to promote real respect and appreciation for the act of childcare in all forms and as done by all kinds of people, to include yes, rich (aka Bristol Palin) teen moms, teen dads, and 44 year olds who are poor or disabled themselves and had a downs baby.

    Not judge people for being human and having sex, being biologically normal and getting pregnant (on accident or not), being human (once again) and deciding they reallly want the child even if it will be hard in certain ways. Propogation of the species is just a fact of life, I hate seeing women judged for having a kid. Especially a special needs kid just to make the mom feel even more marginalized and alienated and devalued.

    Thanks for pointing out that James Dobson should not be *thanking* Palin for having Trig but *congratulating* her. It’s sort of like when people say “they are so lucky to have you” –re adopted kids and their somehow angelic adopting parents, instead of “oh you’re so lucky/blessed!” like people tend to tell biological parents of newborns. But with adoptive parents the tendency is they will be congratulated on somehow being angels for adopting “poor unfortunates”.

  31. “I don’t think she’s talking about her vp candidacy, I think Palin was trying to say what most parents of disabled children say–that the world that is opened up is a world only open to those who are parents of special needs kids-that they become deeper/more loving, etc. ”

    Jennifer – you do not become more loving as a parent of a special needs child. You love your children regardless. With a special needs child, however, comes fears that do NOT exist with “normal” children. Fears that dwell within every parent in a dark “what if” closet…but for parents of special needs kids, you are thrust out into the open to face those fears head on. Will my child overcome their disability? Will my child ever be able to function on his/her own? Will my child be able to endure ridicule and scorn from others? Will my child be happy? Will my child have a fulfilling life? Will my child be able to learn enough skills to prosper? And so on. And for some, like Palin, there is the very real reality that her child may become independent to the extent a Downs individual can – living “on tehir own” with a vast support network behind them to ensure they DO live on tehir own. With my son we worry if he will ever talk correctly and be coordinated enough to drive a car and live a life whereby his disability does not place him in mortal danger.

    So enough about all that “deeper love” crap. What comes with the child you love is a deeper fear. And you have to ensure you do not let that fear smother you, your spouse, your child and his/her siblings.

    And frankly – I don’t see anything wrong with aborting deformed feti if that is what the woman wants. This world is cruel and difficult enough when you’re “normal” Raising a child with special needs isn’t only financially difficult – it is emotionally hard as well. If you are strong enough to raise a child that si severely deformed (and know about it before it is born), good for you. If you know enough about yourself that you could not – or WOULD NOT WANT to raise a child like that, good for you too.

    There are NO medals for motherhood, no parades in a woman’s honor and no badges of sacrifice for parents of normal and challenged children.

  32. I struggle with the eugenics issue. I’m 24 and have been married a year and a half, and babies are becoming more of a discussion point. But we’re still pretty poor; I work as a journalist at a twice-weekly newspaper, and my husband is a corrections officer. We don’t make much money but are in a home and living comfortably. We both want children and love them, but are simultaneously terrified of the responsibilities involved in raising a child, any child, but particularly one with special needs.

    Simply put, I don’t think we have the resources or support network to raise a child with special needs, given that they require more levels of care than a “normal” child.

    On the other hand, my best friend in the world has cerebal palsy, and her parents were even poorer than mine. I hate to use that type of example, but that’s the best way, at the moment, for me to wrap my brain around the question.

    I don’t judge others’ choices in having an abortion for any reason at all, like Jill. I agree with advocacy for the living first, but struggle with my own decision.

  33. ElleBeMe: Don’t forget the *really* good questions like “After I’m gone, who will provide for my child?” and “Will I be able to retire and still afford to care for my adult disabled child?” In my area, you practically need special dispensation from God to get a disabled person into one of the few group homes, the waiting list is that long.

    I don’t have a child with a disability, but my parents do. My sister has Fragile X Syndrome. You wouldn’t know she was disabled until she started talking to you. As she ages out of the public school system, we have a constant lurking, and quite dreadful fear about her future. If something were to happen to all of us, there is a *very* real possibility that she would end up a bag-lady on the streets. I don’t love my sister any more or less than I love my non-retarded sister or my parents. I just worry about her more.

    Because this issues is so very personal to me, I volunteer and caregive for other people with special needs, usually young adult. I’ve seen the gamut of needs, running from “a few steps above a vegetable” to “you’d never be able to tell unless someone said something about it in passing.” I have experienced firsthand the degree to which people discriminate, both in legal and social forms. I’ve seen the rights of disabled children stripped away in classroooms. I’ve had weather the stares of ignorance, directed at me and the person I was with. I’ve seen the medical bills, and if you live in poverty, there’s no way you’d survive it.

    If a woman told me that she was going to abort her fetus because it had a disability, I would understand completely. If they chose to keep that disabled child, I’d try and help them in any way possible. This life is *hard*, and there’s often absolutely minimal or no support from the community. There’s a reason the divorce rate is so high when the couple has a disabled child.

    Palin makes me absolutely livid because of that. Trig shouldn’t be treated like he’s some rare and amazing treasure simply because he has Downs, he should be treated like the other children are treated. Why is it so difficult to understand that equality, respect, and justifiable special consideration are all we want?

  34. Laih – thank you for expanding upon what I could not.

    And what is even more perverse is the fact that the Palins will likely not have to worry about medical expenses, care and therapy for Trig. Good for them and Trig – but what about everyone else out there – everyone else struggling to keep their insurance and provide for their disabled loved ones? This is why she using Trig as a prop to convince people she “understands” what having a special needs child entails sickens me. She hasn’t even gotten into the thick of it – when complications and negative diagnosis come one after the other and you see your child begin to understand that they are different. She has no clue – and to add insult to injury, she’s advocating a plan whereby those with needy children may not even get to afford medical insurance. She is in my humble opinion a C***. And the fact she sat there and let Dobson praise her for her willingness to respect life confirms it.

  35. ElleBeMe: I wish I could say that she’ll learn about what it’s really like to live with a special needs child, and that over time, she’ll see exactly why we’re so greatly offended by her actions. I really do. But given that she does have the funds and the backing of people like Dobson, I sincerely doubt that’ll happen. And her child, with Down’s, at least has a fairly good chance of being able to hold a job and interact socially. If we’re *lucky* my sister can get a job. Amen about complications, though.

    The only bright side to all of this is that it’s bringing cognitive disabilities back into the spotlight. Hopefully we can change laws to be in favor of those with disabilities. (But if Virginia’s new regs on special ed are anything to go by, things do not bode well.)

  36. The unspoken implication is that she’s SO pro-life that she would EVEN give birth to this DISABLED baby. It’s positioning the life of a special needs child as less valuable than any other child.

    I believe this bears repeating. I says very well what has made me very uneasy about the congratulations slathered all over Palin for choosing to carry this child to term. How wonderful that she would even birth a Down Syndrome child; like he’s a lesser human being. Nice mom to have.

  37. ElliBe I don’t think a person becomes more loving per se for having a special needs child. There’s no way that could ever be proven or measured. (Much like women who say motherhood has caused them to become more loving–I do’t necessarily believe that either.)
    but many parents of special needs kids, if you read interviews or atlk to them it seems like thay almost all say they have become deeper and more loving– they assert this. — and this is what I was saying.

    I will say that your assertion that a parent of a special needs child necessarily becomes “more fearful” (and not more loving) is definitely as debatable and certainly as presumptuous as a parent of a special needs child saying they have become more loving and deep!
    Bottom line is Palin appears to me to clearly have been speaking of the new world opening up in regards to her parenting of a special needs child–which–no matter if you think it’s more loving/deep/fearful/whatever–is at any rate going to be a new world.
    By the way you calling Palin a c*** ona feminist blog is sick.
    Dehumanizing other women is not feminist, it’s misogynist. I don’t like her policies either but I’m not gonna bolster patriarchy by calling her what any run of the mill misogynist would call her in a bad mood. Sheesh.

  38. Poetry:

    The unspoken implication is that she’s SO pro-life that she would EVEN give birth to this DISABLED baby. It’s positioning the life of a special needs child as less valuable than any other child.

    Helen:

    Cara at the Curvature nailed this: Sarah Palin is being given huge kudos for choosing to give birth to a Down syndrome baby, whereas the whole point of being a pro-lifer is that there is not supposed to be a choice.

    These statements need to be repeated, and often. Thank you.

  39. ElliBe- I don’t think it’s wrong to abort a deformed fetus nor a non-deformed fetus. Abortion is a human right. But I don’t think women who choose to have kids they know will be special needs should be sort of disparaged. I’m speaking to the commenter and people who judge women for having kids in their late 30s and 40s, “knowing” their chance to have a special needs baby goes up–and the suggestion is these women are irresponsible for making this choice (either to have sex/get pregnant at all, or, to have the kid if it’s special needs and especially if you already knew).

    I (personally) don’t think a person necessarily becomes more loving or deep per se for having a special needs child. That’s one of those things that’s so dependent on the person, the situation, even the year. Although, intense experiences *do* have a way of deepening a person –however it’s still neither here nor there because it wasn’t my point– If you read again I was saying that in the context of what Palin said, that is what she most likely meant as she was talking about parenting her special needs babe. There’s no way that claims of becoming loving and deeper could ever be proven or measured. (Much like women who say motherhood has caused them to become more loving–I don’t necessarily believe that either.)
    In almost every interview Ive read though , and parents I’ve spoken with too, of special needs kids to include downs, they almost all say they have become deeper and more loving– they assert this– and this is what I was saying Plain was speaking of with her being “opened to a new world” via her son’s birth.
    So I was presuming too much via what Palin meant specifically but it didn’t have to do with “the new world of being vp” as one commenter suggested.

    Bottom line is Palin appears to me to clearly have been speaking of the new world opening up in regards to her parenting of a special needs child–which–no matter if one finds it to be more loving/deep/fearful/scary–is at any rate going to be a new world.

    To speak to the misunderstanding though– since it is relevant — Palin definitely doesn’t seem to have become “deeper” in that her policies aren’t sympathetic toward people who have special needs or parents of people with special needs.

  40. I think Palin’s behavior is a good indicator of the creepy patronizing language and attitudes people often have towards people with disabilities. Just the fact that she over and over again talks about her son having “special needs”, which is such an infantilizing phrase. It’s okay to use in reference to a six month old (y’know, an actual infant) but what about when her son is an adult? Will she still call him her “special needs child”? Why does she talk about her special bond with the parents of “special needs children” and not about how her experience has given her more insigh into the needs of people with disabilities?

  41. ThickRedGlasses, you say that you’re “not going to say” that Palin purposely had a baby with DS, but when you say that you “wouldn’t put it past them,” you imply just that. Are you seriously trying to advance this argument?

    Goodness knows I don’t agree with Palin on anything, but I am troubled by statements that Trig only exists “as vindication for his mother’s beliefs” and the like. I agree that Trig is being used as a political tool, but that doesn’t mean politics are the only reason the Palins decided to give birth to him.

    The fact that politics makes the list is disturbing. If Sarah Palin didn’t believe that her son had political value, then she would ask that her decision to have him and other family matters remain private. She’d say that he has nothing to do with her candidacy as VP. But she doesn’t. She does the exact opposite and uses him as a political tool. Good parents wouldn’t do that.

  42. The same thing has been attributed to her daughter’s pregnancy. Having a child outside of wedlock when she is only a teenager gives both her and her mom additional pro-life street cred. In both the case of Palin having her Down’s syndrome son and her daughter being pregnant both completely ignore how having the freedom to choose guided their choices. Palin talks about how knowing having a Down’s syndrome child would be a challenge and DECIDED to keep her child anyways. She talks about how her daughter is pregnant as a teenager and DECIDED to keep her child and become engaged to the child’s father. Why shouldn’t others have the ability to make the same CHOICES instead of being forced by the law?

    The other thing that bothers me about Palin and McCain is that they have repeatedly stated that because Palin has a child who is special needs, she will be a advocate for parents with autist children. Hello, autism and down’s syndrome are not the same! A parent who understand the challenges of one does not understand the challenges of another.

  43. The pro-choice movement does address the ethics of the ableist decision to terminate pregnancies when tests come back indicating the fetus has Down Syndrome or another nonfatal congenital abnormality. In a session they offer at every Med Students for Choice meeting, we all rated the nuance of our pro choice views.

    For example, I said that I would be opposed to performing sex selection abortions. I would not be opposed to performing an abortion on a person whose fetus has tested positive for abnormalities, because of several reasons. First of all, from what I have heard, 80% of women do terminate when faced with a future baby with Down Syndrome. I think these patients will seek a termination elsewhere anyway. People also give up these children for adoption or institutionalize them. They also abuse them.

    Raising a child with a severe physical or mental condition is incredibly difficult, and it not like “Life Goes On”. It will probably be stressful and expensive and heartbreaking. It can also be incredibly rewarding and wonderful. It is not something that I think someone should be forced to do against their will.

    I do not mean to devalue anyone with any physical or mental or behavior condition. I don’t think any child should be forced on anyone. I think life, you know, the part after birth that everyone knows is what the word “life” really means, is too valuable and sacred for that.

  44. And while you can be pro-choice and concerned about abortion being used to select for “perfect” children,

    You know what, no, you can’t. There is no “I’m pro-choice, but…” position. All that means is that you like the idea of certain options being available while others are closed off based upon your particular system of values.”

    That’s reading an awful lot into that. I mean, I’m pro-choice. I’m also concerned about abortion being used to select for “perfect” children. The idea of using abortion to select against a gender, sexual orientation, minor/manageable disability, etc. does make me very uncomfortable. I’m even more uncomfortable with the idea of abortion being dictated by lack of resources.

    The pro-choice solution is to work against sexism, homophobia, and the prejudice, ignorance, and stigmatization the disabled face. Remove as many economic and social barriers as possible to women birthing and raising children they want. Once it’s truly a choice instead of the lesser of two (or three or four) evils, reiterate that not everybody’s going to use their rights in ways you approve of, that it wouldn’t be a right if they had to, and move on. You don’t have to agree with any given person’s given rationale for an abortion to agree with them having an absolute right to ownership of their own reproductive system or think that that right is the practical bedrock of women’s independence.

  45. I have been wondering what is it about the whole palin is pro-life thing that has been bothering me and this is exactly it- the trotting out of Trig as a vindication of their political beliefs.
    I am engaged in a blog with a friend of mine. We discuss the malaise of sex-selective abortions in South Asia- we have been trying to frame it as a malaise since too often women in South Asia are forced to abort female fetuses because of their families wanting sons. It is not their choice. A few weeks ago someone from Congressman Trent Franks campaign approached my friend to join up for the signing of an anti-choice bill using sex selective abortions as an excuse. Of course she did not go- but they are pretty darn insiduous.
    http://unwantedgirlchild.blogspot.com/
    The reason why I mentioned it here was that anti-sex selective is bieng used by the anti-choice people as part of their narrative, just as disability is being used by them to shame the pro-choice people. We need to work on this.

  46. Interesting discussion – but hasn’t anybody heard of the body of evidence that suggests that Palin never even gave birth to Trig? If interested, there are a few sites out there that have convincing (if not proven) circumstantial evidence relating to that. It is not a wacko theory. If true, it makes all the rhetoric she has been spouting doubly horrifying.

  47. It’s one thing to say “80% choose to terminate” (actually, it’s higher, I think). But most choices are socially influenced. “Free” choice is a bit of a myth. The fact is that we live in an ableist society, and that does affect people’s “choices.” I don’t say this to cast individual blame, but rather to point out that the pro-choice movement does not always do a very good job at addressing these points of intersectionality. I would like to see the pro-choice movement seriously consider disability rights critiques of selective abortions. I don’t expect there will be complete agreement, but hopefully all of us, as anti-oppression progressives, can find some common ground. A choice is not an entirely free choice when a doctor blatantly pushes parents into abortion so-called “defective” fetuses. A choice is not a free choice when there is so little in the way of social services and accommodations.

    But, yes, I do think it can be degrading to PWDs to characterize our parents’ existence as “heartbreaking”–as though parenting a “normal” child can’t be heartbreaking as well. It is degrading to say we are a burden. These conversations do need to happen, and they do need to include PWDs.

  48. Of course none of that is to say that abortion shouldn’t be a choice, for all women. Just that as it stands, a lot of women don’t have other feasible options. And a lot of women don’t even have the abortion option.

    And that lack of a choice is what the problem is. If you wake up in the middle of the night to find out that your house is burning down you don’t stop in the garage on the way out to see if your car has been stolen too. No, a lot of women don’t have feasible options and perhaps that is an important discussion to have, but right now there is a real threat of even having the last line of defense taken away. I know that you’re not talking about taking away rights, Jill, but its become obvious that any ground given is ground taken to the people who do want to take away rights. Every time you express concern about abortions that you might not agree with for whatever reason you give people a way out. You leave a dangling excuse to be used as a justification for something monstrous because when you start expressing concern you’re making a value judgment and once you’ve brought that into play you’ve brought everyone else’s bullshit into the debate. Not everyone is working on the level you and many of the commenters here are working on and, like it or not, that has an effect on the tone of the discourse.

    At present, abortion is legal *and* society is ablest.

    And speaking of turds, William, there’s nothing more shitty than an unwillingness to engage in intersectional analysis.

    I’ve dealt with the realities of being disabled for 27 years. I’ve fought and scraped and struggled through all the bullshit society presents for people who fall outside of the norm. I know that society is ablest from first hand experience, and after fighting my way through high school and raging through my undergrad years I’ve honestly gotten to a place where I don’t see much of a point in analyzing what I already know to be true about how society treats the disabled. The bottom line is that today, regardless of anything anyone is likely to be able to do, a child born with any disability (much less one as serious as Downs) is not going to be accepted. They are going to be told that they are less than until they can’t help but to believe it, they are going to be beaten down both emotionally and physically, they will have to spend enormous amounts of energy just to be able to play by the same rules as everyone else, and if they are shockingly lucky they just might manage to live a life that is merely bittersweet and only occasionally punctuated by the ugliness that is our society. The world is a cruel place and I’ve no illusions about the fact that the disabled will be the very last in line for that tiny iota of human dignity that so many people take for granted. So if a parent decides they don’t want to subject something that isn’t yet sentient to that kind of life, I really have trouble questioning or agonizing over that decision (especially when its not my damned body). Is that a good way for the world to be? No, but I really don’t see much hope for change.

    Not to invoke Godwin’s law, but would the term “anti-eugenics” cover this scenario? ‘Cause I’m staunchly pro-choice but I would consider that kind of selection a valid concern…

    My problem with eugenics is that it has pretty much never been, or could be, a matter of personal choice. Eugenics is virtually always something that the socially powerful enforced on the unempowered in order to maintain social structures. It gets pitched as building a better human, but the reality is that it much always means controlling the reproductive choices of those with limited political power. If science gets to the point where parents can select for certain characteristics in the search for the perfect baby I might be uncomfortable with the idea (hell, find me a working definition of perfect), but I’d have a pretty hard time imagining a means of preventing that kind of behavior that wouldn’t be worse than the problem it seeks to solve. Right now we aren’t even there, we’re talking about people aborting fetuses with certain gross or identifiable traits. Thats sticky enough ethical and moral ground that I’ll quote Obama and consider it “above my pay grade.”

    I still think its important to leave moral judgments out whenever possible. There is no such thing as neutral speech, and I don’t think anyone here is likely to even meet anyone with enough awareness of their own shit that they’re in a position to pass judgment upon others. We all have our biases and prejudices that color how we see the world and what things we find acceptable or unacceptable. Unfortunately, every time we start talking about what others ought to do or what behavior concerns us we participate in the kind of dialog that leads to oppression. We continue to advance the idea that somehow our opinions and personal preferences ought to somehow have some baring on the behaviors of other people we will likely never know. Sometimes it is unavoidable that a society needs to intervene, but we are far to quick to pass judgments on others and impose the will of the mob. Thats the kind of shit thats lead to women being called hysterical for disobeying gender roles, gay and trans people being labeled mentally ill, whole races being tagged as “intellectually inferior.” These are all means of control, based upon the majority finding the choices of the minority so wrong that they justify taking away basic rights.

  49. @Broce: In addition, we don’t know how the prenatal testing was presented by her doctor.

    I agree that a lot depends on the doctor’s presentation. However, I stand by my numbers; at her age, the overall chance of severe disability is about 1 in 60. The worst numbers I saw (I did do some research, six years ago) were 1 in 40. It’s high, but it’s not much larger then the chance of an amniocentesis induced miscarriage (which I put at 1 in 200, not 2 per cent).

    Maybe we can agree that women need not only choice but enough education, both about health matters and about basic numeracy, to be able to take their decisions in the best possible way?

    OT: Me too! I’m raising three kids to believe in a woman’s right to choose! If I weren’t so damned old, I would even try to have a fourth :-).

    @Sarah: A choice is not a free choice when there is so little in the way of social services and accommodations.

    You are so right. In my country there’s no pressure to abort, but parents of special needs children are very often left alone, or helped in a most inadequate way. As a result, people choose to abort who might otherwise have raised and loved a differently able child. In fact, I have known women who chose to abort twins because they couldn’t afford (from a time+money perspective) two children symultaneously. I think all these “choices” are truely heartbreaking.

  50. “ElliBe I don’t think a person becomes more loving per se for having a special needs child. There’s no way that could ever be proven or measured. (Much like women who say motherhood has caused them to become more loving–I do’t necessarily believe that either.)
    but many parents of special needs kids, if you read interviews or atlk to them it seems like thay almost all say they have become deeper and more loving– they assert this. — and this is what I was saying. ”

    I know – and I should have clarified in my posting that my opinion wasn’t attacking you, I was merely attacking your statement.

    “Bottom line is Palin appears to me to clearly have been speaking of the new world opening up in regards to her parenting of a special needs child–which–no matter if you think it’s more loving/deep/fearful/whatever–is at any rate going to be a new world.”

    I don’t think Palin is speaking from that perspective at all. When I see footage of her interacting with the special needs people at her rallies, she couldn’t look more uncomfortable and wanting to get the hell outta dodge ASAP. Furthermore, as a woman in her position, she can hire the best nannies and doctors to help her son succeed and prosper. She may even charge the state of Alaska for it. My point being – she can distance herself from him and his condition because she is in a position to do so. However for the average parent like myself, and millions more, we do NOT have the opportunity to hire a nanny and have someone else manage their care. We’re just trying to hold onto what scraps of benefits we do have in helping our children grow and integrate into the world just like everyone else. Palin/McCain want to TAKE that from us – allthewhile while she uses her infant Trig as a prop to somehow convey she “understands.” She couldn’t be further from understanding…for if she did, she wouldn’t be up there with that decaying man, McCain.

    “By the way you calling Palin a c*** ona feminist blog is sick.
    Dehumanizing other women is not feminist, it’s misogynist. I don’t like her policies either but I’m not gonna bolster patriarchy by calling her what any run of the mill misogynist would call her in a bad mood. Sheesh.”

    Well, you walk in my shoes, try fighting for your child’s needs that they if elected will remove and see how you feel. She has objectified her daughter Bristol, she has objectified her son Trig – all to futher her career and a political agenda hell-bent on removing your rights and mine. Furthermore, she doesn’t think abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists:

    Here’s the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qty8kuS7Vo

    If you can think up a new word to describe her that goes even further than the one I used, go right ahead. I don’t use that word flippantly or in excess. I reserve it for the worst of the worst, the festering, rotting shit on the septic tank of humanity. And in my opinion, she more than fits the bill. YOur opinion may vary.

  51. A pretty interesting talk about recent developments in the presidential campaign. I don’t usually post on most blogs but this just seemed like so much fun! For starters there’s a few things working against both sides of the argument which make any decision a difficult one/impossible.

    First of all, the pro-life stance fails because for people who don’t have any kind of religious tenants as its not a question of morality, it isn’t a question of souls or conception. It isn’t even a question of sanctity. It is a question of ‘When does conception begin’? The answer is it began many billions of years ago when the universe came into existence than life resulted on this very planet. Every cell on your body, every sperm, every egg has the potential of becoming a human being through intercourse or cloning. If you aren’t out their making sure that your fertilizer is filling a woman’s uterus or providing cells to impregnate her than your a hypocrite to your own tenant cause your letting billions upon billions of human beings never be conceived. Good work pro lifers for creating the most asinine argument on the face of the planet. I’m pro choice and I wish that every baby that were conceived could be born. We are a privileged race with other races following us if not in the same evolutionary route. It is also important to our survival that we create more minds to add to our pool of intellect. So I agree that life is miraculous, necessary, and maybe, just maybe, a little bit special.

    That is no reason to act like you can support, force, or encourage every single person to procreate at the same time just to support your world view. Terrible.

    Second, In light of the more recent comments talking about how they’re worried people will choose to give birth only to ‘perfect’ children and whether or not people admit to their true purposes for having abortions in the first place, allow us to examine the aforementioned circumstances.

    So people have abortions to have more perfect children? Ok, and that’s wrong why? Your entire stance is that it should be a choice anyway. You already admit that parents have to plan for these things. I am not saying that one child is better than another, you in fact, already made that implication by surmising that this kind of abuse is already potential and you believe it exists, so you all have already made that mistake of putting children in different positions and made them unequal. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure some of you didn’t intend to do so.

    Here’s the thing, even if a child does, and lets stick to the example, down syndrome, some down children are worse off the others. The severity of the down syndrome is something that in and of itself is either more manageable or less manageable and this is something the parent has absolutely no control over. So if your in the parents shoes you could say to yourself one of two things “Ok, this child is going to have downs syndrome. I want to have the child based on the chance that his life will be mostly normal and be able to have as good a livelihood as we have” or “Ok, this child is going to have downs syndrome and there is a chance that he will be so severely handicapped that he will be unable to function within our society with no benefit to himself in either social standing, relationships, work, or even coherence itself.” Just to clarify, I already looked this up, it is rare, but yes a down syndrome child can be severely handicapped to the point of complete disability and lack of functions for those of you who think downs has gotten better.

    So, why would it be wrong to make the decision not to have the child? Unless you are morally opposed to destroying souls than it shouldn’t be a problem. I already told you why life is important, necessary, and just a bit special but acting like making a choice to have a possibly mostly able downs child, and a mostly not able downs child is a decision to shun is equally as wrong as pro choice. If your going to have a child, you should do your best to make sure it is a child you can care for, but also that it is a child you are sure you want. We as humans are naturally wired to believe certain aspects of ourselves are for better or for worse and we should be allowed to decide, on a personal and private level, how we will contribute to society through ourselves and through our children. Thank you and good speaking with you all.

  52. If you can think up a new word to describe her that goes even further than the one I used, go right ahead. I don’t use that word flippantly or in excess. I reserve it for the worst of the worst, the festering, rotting shit on the septic tank of humanity. And in my opinion, she more than fits the bill. YOur opinion may vary.

    Okay, I’m presuming c*** means the word that is a vulgar expression for a vagina, right?

    I hate that word with a passion for many reasons, but since its fundamental meaning is “vagina”, *why* is it the word you reserve for the wrost of the worst, the festering, rotting shit? I mean, wouldn’t calling her a venereal disease, or for that matter a festering, rotting shit, make your point more directly than calling her a vagina?

    Try it:

    “I think Sarah Palin is a syphilitic sore on a diseased, diarrhea-encrusted anus.”

    There you go! You didn’t have to insult vaginas by comparing them to Sarah Palin — you can describe her in really vile and insulting terms without resorting to sexist language that demonizes the body parts of women specifically.

    See, now, I hate the word “cunt” because it *sounds* nasty and sharp and harsh, WHICH ARE NOT QUALITIES OF HEALTHY VAGINAS. Therefore the word is not a good candidate for reclamation. But regardless of how much I hate the word, I will never consider it an acceptable thing to call a human being as an insult, because it boils down to “You are a vagina!” This makes even less sense as an insult than “You are a female companion animal known for loyalty and playfulness!” Vaginas are soft, warm, generally moist, a source of pleasure for their owners and those their owners let play with them alike, and the entrance point to life on Earth for the vast majority of all humans ever, the high rate of c-sections nowadays to the contrary. Vaginas are *good* things. So why is Sarah Palin a vagina? She *has* a vagina, but she doesn’t act like one, and she isn’t generally good for other people who have them, either.

    If feminists can’t be trusted not to use “vagina” or words that mean “vagina” like they’re synonymous with “disgusting rotting source of infection”, who can we trust to remember how nice vaginas really are? Come on.

  53. The actual figure is 95 percent of pregnancies where Down syndrome is detected are terminated. The problem isn’t the decision to terminate, but the misinformation about Down syndrome that leads to that decision. ANY misinformation that leads people to make decisions they wouldn’t otherwise because it suits the physician and plays into stereotypes is just tragic. Also, the odds of giving live birth to a baby with Downs is 1/100 at age 40, and 1/3 at age 50. I think Palin was 44.

    At her age, knowing about any problems that might come up would fall into the responsible category. Amnios aren’t just for making decisions to terminate. Down syndrome has a VERY high risk of potentially fatal heart and intestinal defects, and having the baby at a regional hospital that has a NICU and cardiology department is far safer. Don’t get me wrong, I despise Sarah Palin and she certainly doesn’t speak for me as a mom, but this wasn’t a wrong or suspicious test for her to have.

    I had worked at a sheltered workshop in the 1980s and felt Downs wasn’t a horrible thing and that I could bring up a child with Downs. I saw no reason to consider aborting a much-wanted baby for that reason, and made the choice not to have an amnio at age 38. (If I had it to do again, I would get the amnio for the reasons above — my son was born with Downs and a very severe heart defect and had to be airlifted to a NICU 100 miles away.) But I made a choice — I am very pro-choice, and would never consider forcing a disabled child on someone who didn’t feel up to the challenge. I would want that person to have access to full information, pro and con, on the subject, to make an informed choice, but that’s it.

  54. Well, I’ll call men dicks too when appropriate… In fact I think John McCain is a fine example of one….a purple, flacid, wart-encrusted dick. And I happen to like penises.

    “Vaginas are soft, warm, generally moist, a source of pleasure for their owners and those their owners let play with them alike, and the entrance point to life on Earth for the vast majority of all humans ever, the high rate of c-sections nowadays to the contrary. Vaginas are *good* things. So why is Sarah Palin a vagina?”

    You’re right. I should have elaborated on my use of C. Take my adjectives for septic tank and use them to describe the bad word I used in reference to her.

    “I mean, wouldn’t calling her a venereal disease, or for that matter a festering, rotting shit, make your point more directly than calling her a vagina?”

    Perhaps, but people don’t have the same ick factor if you call them rotting, festering pieces of shit. My aim was for impact and severity, and I seem to have gotten it. Regardless of the sexist implications the word has, the word also has a shock/awe factor that very few other words do. So yeah I feel THAT STRONGLY about her and for what she stands to call her that. Is the word PC? Nope. Is it nasty? Yep. And like I said – I don’t lightly employ it (not because I have an aversion to vaginas, or wish to slam them).

    Your opinion may vary.

  55. Downs mum: And given that, isn’t it curious that after her water broke, she bypassed several large hospitals with state-of-the-art NICU units to deliver at the rinky little local hospital?

  56. Rebecca — no, I didn’t know that. Trig didn’t make her my hero, and that certainly lowered my already rock-bottom opinion of her (yes, we’re drilling into bedrock now). Frankly, I’ve read very little about her pregnancy, can’t stomach the BS. I came around to my kid with DS because I went into my pregnancy knowledgeable about Down syndrome. She came from…well…stupidity and ignorance. Risking her baby’s life in the name of being “pro-life”? WTF?

  57. And given that, isn’t it curious that after her water broke, she bypassed several large hospitals with state-of-the-art NICU units to deliver at the rinky little local hospital?

    Hey, to be fair, the “rinky little local hospital” Palin waited to get to had been taken over by her church in order to stop abortions from being performed there. I mean, the place was watched over by God, it was a haven for innocent human life. Or some shit like that. At any rate I’m sure she wasn’t being irresponsible or maybe hoping that she could have her cake and eat it too…

  58. “At any rate I’m sure she wasn’t being irresponsible or maybe hoping that she could have her cake and eat it too…”

    Maybe Ms. Stanek could spend some time in that section of Alaska to see if they need a Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

  59. Maybe Ms. Stanek could spend some time in that section of Alaska to see if they need a Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

    God, I hope not. If Ms. Stanek showed up and passed an act like that I’d be out of business. My dynamo needs a steady supply of babies in it’s blast furnace or it won’t be able to power my new invention: a ray that turns good upstanding Christians into homosexual marxists.

  60. “My dynamo needs a steady supply of babies in it’s blast furnace or it won’t be able to power my new invention: a ray that turns good upstanding Christians into homosexual marxists.”

    What a terrible thing to do. Don’t you know there are children going to bed hungry every night who’d give anything for a baby burger?

  61. According to this source, the current risk of miscarriage after amniocentesis is probably more like 1 in 1,600. The 1-in-200 figure dates back a few decades, before the current techniques were in use.

    I read two blogs by people who have a child with Down syndrome. Guess what? They’re both pro-choice. I believe they both wish doctors provided more accurate information about DS to pregnant couples who find out their fetus has DS—apparently some OB-GYNs slant the information toward the worst-case scenario, which may lead more women to choose abortion. If they received more balanced information, perhaps more of them would choose to continue their pregnancies.

  62. What a terrible thing to do. Don’t you know there are children going to bed hungry every night who’d give anything for a baby burger?

    If you’d bothered to read the Constitutionalist Party platform you’d know that our official position is that if those hungry children want a baby burger so badly they should get a goddamn job.

  63. This discussion is getting increasingly bizarre. I am amazed to report that I found Palin’s comments regarding this baby really affecting – I mean, for anyone who has observed how people really can fall in love with a baby they are dreading – it really rings true. What is really fucked up is that she’s in politics at all, given that home and hearth seems to be her preferred territory. How can you be a mother of five and run a campaign like this? What kind of choice is that? As a woman who has consciously, intentionally chosen not to have children from a clear-sighted perspective of the energy and effort involved I have too much regard for motherhood as a legitimate vocation to see how its been devalued when a self-proclaimed family-values woman is appropriated as a political token. It’s disgusting to see women used like this – and even more so to observe their willing participation because it so obviously appeals to their vanity and a really base lust for power. What I’m saying is that the role Palin has assumed politically is completely self-contradicotry to her so-called ethic – and that is what I take issue with and what I have no respect for and cannot take seriously. The woman is a hypocrite and the whole republican machine that’s using her is just disgusting.

Comments are currently closed.