Sarah Palin & Amniocentesis
This link offers some interesting comments about Sarah Palin and her views on choice:
http://michaeldorf.org/2008/09/sarah-palin-and-abortion.html
Some quotes from the article:
if Sarah Palin knew at four months that her baby would have Down Syndrome, then she must have had an amniocentesis, a procedure by which a doctor withdraws fluid from the mother’s amniotic sac and then tests the chromosomes in that fluid for the presence of anomalies. The amniocentesis procedure provides what can be devastating information to expectant parents, and there is nothing one can do to "fix" a chromosomal anomaly.
After the test, a parent can decide either to terminate the pregnancy or take it to term. At Palin’s age (44), the odds of her giving birth to a baby with Down Syndrome were relatively high (1/35, I believe), and this is undoubtedly why her doctor offered her the test.
The question, however, is why she agreed to take it. Perhaps she wanted to know. If her test came back negative, she could have experienced relief. And with a positive test, she could prepare herself emotionally for what would be a challenging and painful but also potentially rewarding experience.
This all makes sense, except for the fact that an amniocentesis is hardly a risk-free procedure. In some number of cases (1/200, according to some, a smaller fraction, according to others), an amniocentesis induces a miscarriage (also known as a spontaneous abortion).
Stated differently, one acquires the information available through an amniocentesis only at the small but real risk of terminating the pregnancy. This is why younger women are generally not offered an amniocentesis at all — the risk of miscarriage is too great to justify the procedure.
For a person in a higher-risk category (an older woman, for example) who either will or might terminate a pregnancy on the basis of a positive result, this risk might be worth taking. But for a person who will not abort no matter what the result is, it would not appear to be. This makes me think that, at least for the moment that she decided to have an amniocentesis, Sarah Palin considered having an abortion.
I do not say this to be unkind. I think that Sarah Palin and her husband made a noble choice by taking the pregnancy to term. In addition to the love they showed to their new baby by deciding to keep him, they also demonstrated forcefully to their other four children that their love for them is unconditional. I also do not fault her for having the amniocentesis.
When a woman is pregnant, she is so intimately connected with her baby and yet so ignorant about the baby’s progress without a doctor or midwife to give her information. An amniocentesis provides information in an otherwise frustratingly opaque setting.
I do, however, fault Sarah Palin for wanting to deprive American women of a choice that she herself had and that she apparently thought about making. Though McCain supporters present her choice to take her pregnancy to term as a principled pro-life choice, it behooves everyone to remember that it was in fact a choice and that in the ideal world envisioned by Sarah Palin and John McCain, no other woman could ever choose again, except by visiting the back alley.
I’m the first to admit that you shouldn’t bring people’s kids into politics, but when their decisions affect the fortunes and livelihood of so many millions of people that can’t afford to have 5 kids, then we at least need to ask ‘what was she thinking’?
If the McCain/Palin ticket brings us into another 4 years of Republicanism, and McCain passes away, it’ll be “President Sarah Palin”. I want everyone to understand that this is a very real possibility and because of that we need to examine every single word and deed that is Sarah Palin.
We need to know why she chose to have amniocentesis and yet proclaims that she would never have an abortion. We need to know why she hid her pregnancy from the public well beyond the first trimester and hid the Down’s diagnosis from her own children until after the birth. If she was a politician who had never made any statements on the abortion issue, we would not need to delve so deeply into this part of her personal life. As it stands though, this woman needs to account for how she handled this personal situation, because all I’m seeing here is the ability to hide vital information from her flesh and blood, as well as the public that elected her.
As a potential leader of the free world, I don’t want my life in the hands of a woman who claims anti-abortion under ANY circumstances, including rape, and who can keep a life-changing piece of information from her own children for 6 months. What might she hide from you and me?
I also don’t my life (even as a Canadian) in the hands of a megalomaniac who believes that God is telling them to invade countries. Oh yeah … we’ve already been there with Bush. Is it me, or is this getting REALLY frustrating?