There are only two reasons for having an amniocentesis during pregnancy:

1. To determine if a fetus is abnormal (e.g. Down's Syndrome) for the purposes of terminating the pregnancy.
2. To determine paternity of the fetus.

Sarah Palin had an amniocentesis during pregnancy - a somewhat risky procedure. The baby had Down's Syndrome. She did not terminate the pregnancy.

Therefore, it must have been done to establish the paternity of the fetus.

This would be ridiculous, except that she apparently had an affair recently.

Would she have aborted the fetus if it wasn't her husband's child? inquiring minds might ask.

Remember, we're not dealing with the people from the nice part of the trailer park.

Perfect logic.

Also, I'm glad you gave cred to those who are from the nice part of the trailer park.

Thankew. And folks like this insult honest people, just by their existence. I don't put this past them.

I'm not following your logic.

If I were a 44-year-old woman who discovered I were pregnant, I think I would have an amnio.

I would want to know, simply so we can acclimate our minds, our hearts, and our family to it. I do not support abortion, so that would not have been an option to me. (Please don't confuse my personal choice to choose not to abort in my own case with someone who does not believe I have that right to that choice, or that I have the right to deny you your choice. I don't support abortion. But I will defend to the death your right to make that decision for your own circumstances.)

So, by your logic, I must have been looking for paternity??

You're going to have to go for what your aiming at from a different direction.

QUOTE

Miscarriage is the primary risk related to amniocentesis. The risk of miscarriage ranges from 1 in 400 to 1 in 200. In facilities where amniocentesis is performed regularly, the rates are closer to 1 in 400. Miscarriages can occur because of infection in the uterus, the water breaks or labor is induced prematurely. Although extremely rare, it is possible for the needle to come in contact with the baby. Great precautions are taken by using a sonogram to guide the needle away from the baby.

LINK

Your curiosity carries with it a 0.5% chance of fetal demise. If one is considering terminating a pregnancy that is abnormal, it may be considered worth the risk of death or puncture to a normal fetus.

However, if you consider the fetus fully equal to a baby, you just punctured your child - and the technical term for it is "traumatic abortion."

Rather horrific, that, to carry an infected dying fetus for a couple weeks and then suffer a life-endangering septic abortion (since you don't believe in having a D&C of a dying fetus), just for curiosities' sake.

Amnio is always on the table when there is an abnormal AFP (AphaFetoProtein). I had an abnormal with my last pregnancy, I was 37. they wanted to do amnio and I said no...it's the earliest test to know for sure if the baby has Downs or not...yep, risky...I saw 2 women lose a baby afterwards...
but they always push it. I worked in OB/GYN for years....

That may be, but I'm just telling you that it's very common, especially for women in that age bracket, and they consider the risk and feel that their "knowledge," which is quite different from "curiosity," outweighs the potential risks. Like abortion, that's a personal choice.

I doubt that I, personally, would do it, but many many many women do. It's just a fact.

I'm just saying that this (having the amnio) really doesn't appear to me to be any "smoking gun."

To me, I think the intentional "hiding" of the pregnancy has a great deal more "things-that-make-you-go-hmmm...." factor.

I'm not at all convinced that Trig is an "early" baby. I think he was born right on time.

I think she tried to create a John Edwards Timeline by hiding it for a few months to prevent the 'overlap' timing issues from the time of the affair ending till the preggers event horizon.

If there was an affair, and people knew about it (how could they not in such a cozy setting), then they are probably already gossiping about Trig's baby daddy anyway.

Does this really include women who would not consider terminating the pregnancy with an abnormal fetus?

Let's say a woman decides that no matter what, she would never undergo cancer treatment of any sort if she had cancer....

That may be - but an amniocentesis that goes wrong can lead either to death of the mother, or a life-saving abortion.

For "pro-life" women, that's death of the mother.

It's an unreasonable risk - the AFP (as discussed above) can tell an interested person what the likelihood of Down's Syndrome is, without amniocentesis. For a 44 year old pregnant woman, the odds can be as high as, say 90% certainty if the AFP is markedly abnormal - which it WOULD have been, which it WAS for Palin's pregnancy.

Do most normal anti-abortion women choose to be 99% certain instead of 90% certain that they have a Down's - and risk the life of the fetus and perhaps the mother, to get that extra 9%?

Sounds unlikely to me. Some other reason to do an amnio, rather than a simple AFP. They were looking for something - and that's likely - who's your daddy?

PS: If it's so routine, even for no-abortion women - and it does absolutely nothing but increase the risk - wouldn't you think that the "Pro-Life" types would be advocating strongly against amnio for "pro-life" women? Save lives? Or is that too community-organizy for them?

No, I disagree.

We'll just have to stand by our competing statements.

I do think that you underestimate how many women get this done and how many (even many well-educated) don't really comprehend or think about it in the terms you lay out. . . .

At that age, they are usually a little skittish, very worried about the baby to begin with, regardless of the pro- or anti-choice stance.

Remember, many women are anti-choice, until it's their choice. . . .

Women trust their doctors and they trust the technology.

That's just the way it is.

We are in absolute agreement! YAY!



And that's why they do the amnio's. When it's 100% certain that you're carrying a fetus with Down's syndrome or Tay-Sachs or spina bifida, when it's YOU staring down that barrel, then the choice wells up out of YOU, maybe even to your own surprise.

Women who are 100% pro-life and active in their religious world and 100% certain that they would NEVER have an abortion - sometimes do. And it's not my business to judge (the Little Rabbi mentioned this a long time ago.) It is a private, solemn, and serious thing, and the doctor is only there as handmaiden to the pregnant patient. Nobody else belongs in that private realm of conscience.

But I say - a woman who, as Palin claims to be - is Completely Certain that the life within is a gift from the Holy Spirit, and God wants the baby to exist, just as it is - why should she run the risk of harming the baby to just check it out? Doesn't that sound like the "Sin of Eve" to the fundamentalist?

I think SP is FOS on this matter.

Sorry, it IS rather routine for most mothers over the age of 40 to have one and it doesn't usually involve paternity testing.

A rather weak but colorful conspiracy theory, theres better red meat out there than this one.

I agree. I live in an area where there are LOTS of pregnant women and only a handful of OBs. They REGULARLY tell the women, "get this test or I can't be your OB". I have a friend in a "high risk pregnancy" and she's having to pay out of pocket and has been through 3 OB clinics already and is down to her last choice and is being forced to pay for things that she deems unnecessary (and really are) or be kicked out and have NO prenatal checkups.

Then there are the HIGHLY educated women who become stupid the moment they walk into the OB. I was one of those with my first and wasn't forceful enough telling the Dr. that I was sick and she kept blowing me off with two SEPARATE complications (one prepartum, one postpartum). So I just followed her orders and did ALL the tests she suggested (because after all she's the Dr. and wouldn't do anything dangerous without telling me) without question.

Not to mention most women would believe that .5% is EXTREMELY low and it would "never happen to me". After all, they are willing to take the chance that the moment they step into a hospital the birth has a 30+% of ending in major surgery and some think they need to fret over a .5% chance of something going wrong. There is a lot of preparation that people can do if they know what disability their child is coming with rather than learn on the fly and rely on others while they learn how to parent this child at the same time.

What's the best "red meat" scandal out there at the present time?

I do think it's the possibility of a Palin affair. Troopergate is good, but slow moving. Library-gate is another good one, but may not be that powerful, for many people.

How to keep a constant stream of these in the media spotlight?

...uh....amniocentesis is done in all pregancies now....to make sure that the child is healthy....
I believe that Sarah did not have this baby, that it's her daughter's, but having an amnio is not proof for me.

Tackle her where it hurts, her claims to be a reformer are easy to dispute with solid facts and for bonus time, its all policy and no sleeze.

Cite her earmarks, show the handwritten happy notes she wrote about how much pork she got that year, talk about her support for the bridge to nowhere and how congress cancelled it, not her. Talk about how they still gave her all that money as a blank check and how she is still spending it to this day.

Talk about her raising taxes on her city as mayor, talk about the deficit she left it in when she became mayor.

Talk about how her city declined into being a huge den of meth labs during her watch.

Facts are sticky things, don't take your eye off the ball and chase the golden goose. Dan Rather fell for that trick and look where it got him. Theres enough meat on the bone as it is.

I know that my wife's OB-GYN has a policy of amnio in every case when the mother is over the age of... I THINK it's 36? Maybe 37? She was about that age when my youngest was born, and three of the doctors we interviewed all had the same policy - no two ways about it, or find another doctor. We stuck with the guy who handled our first, and he, too, wanted an amnio. (We did it, and all came out fine.)

On the other hand, you may be on to something. I admit, I offhandedly dismiss the paternity question. Not that I think it's impossible - it's just too trashy for me to contend with.

BUT remember that Palin's opposition to abortion INCLUDES in the case of rape and incest. I don't know whether it includes in the case of the mother's life being endangered by a pregnancy. that she underwent amnio may very well indicate a big "but" in her policy - when it might put her own ass at risk.

Is there a link associated with this thread?

How do we know that Palin had an amnio test?

Is there any evidence of an affair and if so, do we know when it allegedly happened?

I don't personally know enough to make a guess about all this.

What does seem relevant to me is how strangely Sarah behaved regarding her last alleged pregnancy. Announcing her pregnancy at 7 months, traveling to Texas so late in the pregnancy, her deciding to give a speech and then fly back to Alaska after her water broke, then upon arriving back in Anchorage, passing two hospitals to travel to a remote location to give birth, and her daughter having missed five months of school during her Sarah's pregnancy-------all this raises numerous questions in my mind.

Amnios are very common, especially for women over 35+. I'm 38 and currently pregnant. I'm scheduled for the Quad screening test next week which gives a likelihood of Down's and other problems. The results of the test do come back positive or negative; they're expressed in a 1-in-wxyz chance. If someone's results come back in the high risk category, they're most commonly sent to a genetic counselor for further evaluation. Amnio is often encouraged for those patients and, to my knowledge, it's totally voluntary. No one can make you do it (though it looks like some offices have different policies). My doctors have advised that the 1 in 400 chance of miscarriage stats are outdated. The chances are now something like 1 in 1,500 (or less).

My husband and I are staunchly pro-choice and have discussed "what-if" scenarios should our results come back as high risk. Both of us firmly would not abort in the case of Down's or other non-life threatening problems to the fetus. That said, if we do come back as high risk, I will likely have the amnio. The Quad screenings are notorious for false results whereas the amnio is more definitive. If we do have a Down's (or other) child, we do want to be prepared in case that's what's ahead of us. I suspect that's why most other couples who elect to do an amnio chose to do so. This isn't a test and decision most people take lightly.



Agreed. I think it's a stretch to link paternity issues to a common test (especially when the result was, indeed, a child who has the disorder that the test screens for).

Yes, because Downs babies are more likely to have other anomolies that may be life threatening so having a heads up early lets the doctors know. This is the ONLY time I will defend that bitch...this is her one.

What part?Do I have a copy of her medical records? No.
See other threads on this.

It helps pregnant women decide whether to terminate the pregnancy. There are no other conventional uses for a second-trimester amniocentesis. Karyotyping for chromosomal abnormalities - OR - for obtaining fetal DNA for paternity testing.

Anyone who thinks that Todd Palin has been the only man to enjoy Sarah's "company" since they were married all those years ago is living in a fool's paradise.

JMHO.

I also would like to know how we know she had an amnio test.


I'd like some kind of link, too.

Or did I just miss it?

But what would the point of "making sure" that the child was healthy, unless one was going to terminate the pregnancy?

If that were so, wouldn't the Obstetrician call a Pediatrician after the amniocentesis, "just to let them know" that there would be a newborn Down's Syndrome patient coming in twenty weeks or so?

I seriously doubt that that's a common practice after each abnormal amniocentesis.

And what would the point be anyway of informing the pediatrician? The pediatrician who can't tell a Down's Syndrome infant without a pre-existing amniocentesis is - kinda lame.

PS: I don't know what the rate of amniocentesis is for US pregnancies. If it were 100%, it would lead to about 200 maternal deaths per year in the US, based upon current statistics. Is that an acceptable risk? Just for knowing/

shouldn’t the debate be about the privacy and confidentiality of the Citizens and the indignity of the womb Masters in to ones personal choices of none but the ones Business

Yes. Or at least MIGHT consider it.

The "to know what they would be dealing" with argument doesn't really cut it...with me anyway.

And she had her own doctors. If she didn't want an amnio test...thinking it unnecessary since she would complete the pregnancy no matter what, according to her "beliefs"...she certainly was in a position to get one to go along with her if any one wouldn't.

It is...interesting, isn't it?



Not surprising no one in MSM seems to be following up on this, at least to our knowledge so far.

That would be fine if said person wasn't trying to legislate the personal of personals onto others.

Some of you guys are really going off the deep end. Completely routine at her age. BTW, even if you have NO intention of terminating the pregnancy you might want to know what, if anything, is wrong with the baby.

I completely understand toptier's feeling about this.
Sometimes people just want to know, to prepare themselves for the huge impact that the diagnosis may have on their families.
Why do people want to know the sex of the baby before the birth? So they can prepare themselves. (Yes, finding out the sex by ultrasound poses essentially zero risk to the baby, so it's not exactly the same thing, but the desire to know is similar.)

I Know Thats The indignity Part

Finally, somewhat said it other then me.

That is what I thought immediately when I heard about the Enquirer story. That "Trig" was the result of an affair and the Republicans themselves outed Bristol's pregnancy AND put out the rumor that "Trig" might be Bristol's baby to throw the MSM off the trail. Trig's father could very well be "the lover".

But, this is speculation. Gossip until there are facts or persons come forward. Though someone could, given they are paid enough money, from the Enquirer. (And gossip hounds like perezhilton.com and others are digging at this story like a scab...)

Palin certainly has burned enough bridges-to-no-where, so someone could come forward with some damning evidence.

But it doesn't really matter. If the Democrats stay on the attack with the messages that Palin/McCain are four more years of the failed policies of George W. Bush, then we will win in November.

I agree, she's a flash in the pan.

We DO know what is wrong with the baby. The baby has Downs' Syndrome, Trisomy-23

Palin's spinmeisters made a big deal out of "She knew the baby had down's syndrome, but CHOSE LIFE."

That confuses me - how did she find out - AFP or amnio? I'm still not buying the "gotta know" answer. You know 20 weeks later when the baby comes out. How do you get ready for a Down's Syndrome Baby, anyhow? There's no way to "get ready." You have one - or you don't.

That's one of the reasons I'm bringing it up! It's messing around with PRIVATE STUFF, and it belongs IN PRIVATE.

Exactly. Thank you for stating that.

As much as I can't stand Palin, I think the amnio=paternity issue is really grasping at straws.

It's like being told you have a terminal cancer for which no effective treatment is available.
Most people (by no means all) would want to know, in order to "set their affairs in order."

But if someone is truly Christian, and believes that EVERY baby is a gift from God, no matter what - and if one has a handicapped baby, there is a reason that God wants you to have this child....what's the point of peeking ahead?

And also - what constitutes an acceptable risk to the mother, to find out this answer? It is an answer, but it doesn't change a thing - other than family attitudes. Is that worth risking the life of a woman and her wanted pregnancy?

you have kids? trust me, you'd want to know. you don't just say hey, no big deal, I'll know soon enough...

Actually, keep pushing crap like this, the backlash will be great. I told a Democrat friend of mine today, within a month the crazies on the left will have Hillary coming out to defend her.

You mean you told a DemocratIC friend of yours?

I would. But I don't hold the beliefs that Palin CLAIMS she does.



Now THAT'S funny.

"Acceptable risk" is so highly subjective.
What's an acceptable risk for an elective circumcision? What's an acceptable risk for a facelift or boobs augmentation?

Care to make a side bet on this one? I really think it will happen.

lol

I think all three of those procedures are ridiculous, so I really can't weigh in here.

You topped yourself!

What are you drinking this fine Friday evening?

Johnnie Walker Swing

Circumcision: NO acceptable risk. It's unnecessary, risky, mutilation, and takes away the rights of someone who cannot make a decision.
Facelift or boobs: risk has to be assessed by the doctor and honestly told to the patient...then the patient makes the decision freely based on what she thinks is acceptable.

You have one or don't BUT saying that you can't prepare yourself for it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

From a personal standpoint - as someone who'd not abort even though a positive DS result came through - I'd be looking/researching all of the medical issues I'd be having to deal with and how to best advocate for my child. I'd be looking for local support groups. I'd be looking around for the best medical professionals to help. I'd be learning about the disorder and learning how to emotionally/physically/financially cope with all the problems that come with it. I think educating myself during those waiting months would be the most responsible thing to do for me and the baby.

That's your opinion. You're clearly in the minority on that one, in the US anyway.



Same with amniocentesis or any other invasive prenatal diagnostic procedure.

I hardly see how one can compare an invasive operation that puts childbirth at risk to cosmetic, elective surgery.