snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 31 August 2008, 01:49 AM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovalescent View Post
I'd say it's unlikely due to the baby having Down's Syndrome. What would be the likelihood of a 17 year old having a Downs baby?
About 1 in 1250, apparently.
Quote:
Whatever the statistics, I know the odds of it are far greater for a 44 year old.
That is certainly true.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 31 August 2008, 01:55 AM
Catalyst
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovalescent View Post
I'd say it's unlikely to be her daughter's child due to the baby having Down's Syndrome. What would be the likelihood of a 17 year old having a Downs baby? Whatever the statistics, I know the odds of it are far greater for a 44 year old.
Still a 50-50 shot in this case. Just because the incidence is (much) higher in older mothers does not eliminate the possibility of a younger mother. Around 3/4 of DS babies are born to younger mothers, simply because they have more babies than older mothers.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 31 August 2008, 02:28 AM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
 
Join Date: 14 July 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 12,275
Default

When I was 14 weeks pregnant, at age 39, I had an ultra-sound, and some blood tests to gauge the liklihood of having a DS baby (which I didn't have, if anyone is interested). The technician reminded me that far more DS babies are born to young women than those approaching middle age. This is true, of course, because young women have most of the babies born in any year.

And the odds of a woman having a DS baby at age 40 are about 1 in 100. Still, the majority of the babies are born to younger women. However, because insurance companies consider screening tests routine for women over 35, but not for those under, a woman over 35 is more likely to know ahead of the birth that the child has DS.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 31 August 2008, 02:37 AM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
 
Join Date: 14 July 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 12,275
Default

Oh, in regard to whether the rumor is true. It's certainly possible, though I doubt it. However, if it is true, I don't really think it speaks highly of Palin. She could raise her daughter's child without pretense, keeping her daughter's "life on track," while being honest at the same time. I don't want a VP who feels engaging in subterfuge is a good solution to any problem. (No snarks about the plagiarism thing.)

Again, I doubt it's true. Since Palin is so rabidly pro-life, making an example of her daughter as not having an abortion when unintentionally pregnant would serve her agenda, especially since "illegitimacy" is not highly stigmatized anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 31 August 2008, 03:08 AM
KKHB
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catalyst View Post
If I really get going, there's the whole claiming it was the easiest birth of all of them. Apparently she was induced. Every woman I have ever talked to who had pitocin (the standard for induction) has described it at best as pure unadulterated evil in an IV. Usually there was a fair amount of profanity involved, even when they had adequate pain management.

And if she had pain management of that level, she must process drugs out of her system rather quickly to be back at work three days later.
Pregnancy and labor is so individual that I don't think any statements or assumptions at all can be accurately made by anyone not witnessing or experiencing it. I had pitocin (and agree with the evil in an IV assessment) but once the pain was managed (by epidural) labor was a piece of cake. I was in labor for 36 hours, and miserable before the epidural- so don't get me wrong, it is called "labor" for a reason! But with adequate pain management during the birth only (nothing afterward) I was back to my usual activities (less than) three days later. In my case it was college classes full time and shopping/housework/taking care of the family.

And of course "easiest birth of all of them" doesn't mean it was all that easy. Maybe her other births were excessively difficult in her opinion, or because she knew what to expect it made this one seem easier by comparison.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 31 August 2008, 03:28 AM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I am surprised that the airline let her fly whilst in labour, in fact most airlines don't let you fly after 6 or 7 months
Airlines rarely, if ever, have a state governor asking to fly while in labor.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 31 August 2008, 03:29 AM
Catalyst
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KKHB View Post
Pregnancy and labor is so individual that I don't think any statements or assumptions at all can be accurately made by anyone not witnessing or experiencing it. I had pitocin (and agree with the evil in an IV assessment) but once the pain was managed (by epidural) labor was a piece of cake. I was in labor for 36 hours, and miserable before the epidural- so don't get me wrong, it is called "labor" for a reason! But with adequate pain management during the birth only (nothing afterward) I was back to my usual activities (less than) three days later. In my case it was college classes full time and shopping/housework/taking care of the family.
Oh I know -- been there, but all-natural (no induction, no drugs) and it takes up every processor cycle you have and then some. In my case it never really hurt, though, and I turned out to be one of those new mothers who's cooking dinner an hour after giving birth, my newborn in a sling I wore. (Took three days for the hormonal high to wear off, at which point I crashed hard for twelve hours or so.) But the drugs can take a while to get out of the system is what I mean, even if you're blessed with a constitution like ours. (I understand there are women who -have- to take a few weeks to recover even from normal births. Youch!) Of course, if there's minimal to no tissue damage *ahem* it'll go even faster.

Quote:
And of course "easiest birth of all of them" doesn't mean it was all that easy. Maybe her other births were excessively difficult in her opinion, or because she knew what to expect it made this one seem easier by comparison.
She attributed it to the size, actually. That's what made me look at her picture kinda funny.

Cute kid, though. And what is it with the pregnant women I know escaping facial bloating lately? I can't even pick on that, since a friend of mine just had hers a few days ago and looks amazing.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 31 August 2008, 03:31 AM
Catalyst
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I am surprised that the airline let her fly whilst in labour, in fact most airlines don't let you fly after 6 or 7 months

(not that I believe the OP)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lord_feldon View Post
Airlines rarely, if ever, have a state governor asking to fly while in labor.
She never felt the need to notify them of her pregnancy, much less the labor.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 31 August 2008, 03:33 AM
sneeze042's Avatar
sneeze042 sneeze042 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 December 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,055
Default

It seems to me that's it would be rather unlikely for her to have a baby right when she's been chosen as the vice presidential nominee for the Republican party. I don't know how much notice they have before the nomination, but how can she have given birth and be on the campaign circuit, especially if she's mothering an infant, especially one with Down's Syndrome? Wouldn't she be breastfeeding and whatnot? I think there would be many signs that it was her baby.
On the flip side, if the baby was her daughter's, wouldn't there be someone somewhere who would come out and say, "oh it's really the daughter's baby, I have proof" or something of that sort?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 31 August 2008, 03:38 AM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sneeze042 View Post
It seems to me that's it would be rather unlikely for her to have a baby right when she's been chosen as the vice presidential nominee for the Republican party.
The child was born in April.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 31 August 2008, 03:38 AM
Roadie's Avatar
Roadie Roadie is offline
 
Join Date: 19 July 2005
Location: California
Posts: 8,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KKHB View Post
Pregnancy and labor is so individual that I don't think any statements or assumptions at all can be accurately made by anyone not witnessing or experiencing it. I had pitocin (and agree with the evil in an IV assessment) but once the pain was managed (by epidural) labor was a piece of cake. I was in labor for 36 hours, and miserable before the epidural- so don't get me wrong, it is called "labor" for a reason! But with adequate pain management during the birth only (nothing afterward) I was back to my usual activities (less than) three days later. In my case it was college classes full time and shopping/housework/taking care of the family.

And of course "easiest birth of all of them" doesn't mean it was all that easy. Maybe her other births were excessively difficult in her opinion, or because she knew what to expect it made this one seem easier by comparison.
Yep. My pitocin-induced, no pain-killer birth was 54 minutes of no problem, let's go to the movies afterward easiness. My non-induced, no pain-killer birth was 12 1/2 hours of owie owie owie I'm never doing this again badness. Of course, the first was the non-induced, so it couldn't have been that bad, right?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 31 August 2008, 03:45 AM
Catalyst
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadie View Post
Yep. My pitocin-induced, no pain-killer birth was 54 minutes of no problem, let's go to the movies afterward easiness. My non-induced, no pain-killer birth was 12 1/2 hours of owie owie owie I'm never doing this again badness. Of course, the first was the non-induced, so it couldn't have been that bad, right?
Huh. *chalks up a data point for pit with no meds being easy* Cool, always like to see those. Breaks up the horror stories. And who knows, SP might be one of those. I'm still much more concerned about her lack of judgment in having a preterm infant known to potentially have problems in a hospital with no NICU, and metaphorically leaking amniotic fluid all over the country. (I'd say literally, but I doubt her posterior was hanging out a window.)

(My meds are kicking in, I'll come back to this thread in the morning!)
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 31 August 2008, 03:52 AM
sneeze042's Avatar
sneeze042 sneeze042 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 December 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,055
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lord_feldon View Post
The child was born in April.
Wow I'm a moron . I didn't read the articles closely. Please disregard my comments!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 31 August 2008, 06:21 AM
Adelaide's Avatar
Adelaide Adelaide is offline
 
Join Date: 19 April 2004
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 1,165
Default

Mat-Su Regional does not have a NICU, but Providence Alaska Medical Center does, and it's a pretty quick trip, especially by helicopter. Here's a story with a little more info: http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html (requires registration)

I wouldn't have made the same choices she made (I don't think I would any way), but I'm not so quick to condemn them either. She was sure she wasn't in full blown labor, her doctor was okay with her flying, she stopped in Seattle to get seen by more doctors, etc.

Now I have to go shower because I just defended a Republican Vice Presidential candidate.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 31 August 2008, 02:00 PM
Four Kitties's Avatar
Four Kitties Four Kitties is offline
snopes minion
 
Join Date: 29 July 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 23,828
Hello Kitty

Daily Kos has photos of her at her purported seven-month mark. She doesn't show at all.

They also have photos of the daughter at her mother's purported five-month mark.

Four Kitties
__________________
“The path to true enlightenment is the ability to formulate and express one's own thoughts, and not somebody else's.” -- Auntie Witch
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 31 August 2008, 04:57 PM
covel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pregnant Palin
Another Pregnant Palin
"Eyewitness account"

The baby was pre-term. Sarah Palin is a fit woman. These things can add up to smaller baby-bumps. Look at Nicole Kidman who didn't really show until just before the birth. Every womans body is different and clothes can disguise a lot. My younger sister has always been thin- she has three children and hardly showed for any of them. (Myself, on the other hand, looked like a beached whale at 5 months.)

Here's a belly gallery that just goes to show how different people are:
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 31 August 2008, 05:37 PM
Four Kitties's Avatar
Four Kitties Four Kitties is offline
snopes minion
 
Join Date: 29 July 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 23,828
Hello Kitty

Quote:
Originally Posted by covel View Post
[The baby was pre-term.
True -- he was 36 weeks. I myself only went 37. But I certainly showing at 36 weeks!

Quote:
Sarah Palin is a fit woman. These things can add up to smaller baby-bumps. Look at Nicole Kidman who didn't really show until just before the birth.
Nicole Kidman, who is also a very fit woman (and much taller than Governor Palin), was quite obviously showing by six months, let alone eight.

Quote:
Every womans body is different and clothes can disguise a lot.
Clothes can disguise a lot, but not everything. If you can create an outfit that makes a seven-months-along pregnancy completely invisible, the world will beat a path to your door.

Four Kitties
__________________
“The path to true enlightenment is the ability to formulate and express one's own thoughts, and not somebody else's.” -- Auntie Witch
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 31 August 2008, 05:53 PM
rhiandmoi's Avatar
rhiandmoi rhiandmoi is offline
 
Join Date: 27 July 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 12,754
Default

If the plan was to pretend that the daughter's baby was really her's, and they were clever enough to get medical staff and others to agree to it, I think at the very least they would have stuffed some pillows under her shirt.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 31 August 2008, 06:12 PM
covel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

So,
Are we going to request birth records? DNA tests? Pictures of her pregnant belly? Sworn statements from the doctors involved? What would it take to quiet the suggestion? Short of any of these things, there really is NOTHING to prove the child is hers and not her daughters.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 31 August 2008, 06:21 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
United States

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flagg View Post
I am also fairly certain there are some serious background checks done on potential running mates by presidential candidates. I would think they would have found this out early on in those checks.
The background checks can't be all that thorough, since the Gore campaign didn't discover that Lieberman wasn't even a Democrat.

- snopes
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.