The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Antiabortion Groups Applaud Palin Revelation

By Garance Franke-Ruta
Antiabortion groups reacted warmly to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's surprising admission last night that she had considered having an abortion after learning that her son Trig would have Down syndrome.

Speaking before the Vanderburgh County Right to Life banquet in Evansville, Ind., Palin delved deep into personal matters she has shied away from. She avoided using the word "abortion" in her speech, preferring to use the phrase "change the circumstances."

When she learned of Trig's diagnosis while on an out-of-state trip, Palin said she thought, "Wow, it is easy. It could be easy to think maybe of trying to change the circumstances. And no one would know. No one would ever know."

Ultimately, Palin said she decided she was going to have to "walk the walk" and remain faithful to her long-standing opposition to abortion. But she said that the experience had helped give her an "understanding for ... why someone might believe it would be possible to change those circumstances. Just make it all go away."

"I had just enough faith to know that trying to change the circumstances wasn't any answer," she said.

Palin used her own "moment of doubt" to illustrate her support for carrying pregnancies to term, regardless of the circumstances. She prayed during her pregnancy for the strength and compassion to love a baby with an extra chromosome, she said.

"The moment he was born, I knew that moment my prayers had been answered," Palin said.

"Trig is a miracle, and he has brought amazing and surprising happiness and great great perspective," she said. "He is the best thing that has ever happened to me."

Palin's frank remarks were greeted warmly by attendees of the dinner and could bind her even more tightly to those who oppose abortion, the executive director of the National Right to Life Committee said today.

"I think everyone of us, every human being, has had it go through their mind, the possibility of an act they know is wrong -- and then rejected," said David O'Steen, adding, "I'm not surprised that a woman unexpectedly pregnant with a child that would have disabilities -- and of course the pressure in our society today is to kill that child.... so that had to have gone through her mind."

Her remarks underscore, he said, "that she is very forthright, very honest. It also shows she's a person who, when tried and tempted, will make the right decisions."

Steven Ertelt, editor of a news service for opponents of abortion and president of Right to Life of Wyoming, said in an e-mail, "Sarah Palin excites the pro-life community because she understands, unlike President Obama, that human life should be protected and that a pregnancy is not a 'mistake.'"

Kim Lehman of Iowa Right to Life, an influential player in the conservative activist circles so important to Republicans looking to win the state's first-in-the-nation caucuses, said that she was impressed by Palin's remarks.

"She was tested, tried and chose life. It goes to show her character," said Lehman, who had tried to book Palin for her organization's banquet. "I'm encouraged by Governor Palin's response."

Palin's dinner appearance before an audience of between 2,000 and 3,000 was her first major public appearance this year. She was accompanied to the banquet by her husband, Todd Palin.

The Alaska governor's office referred calls to SarahPAC, her political action committee, which did not immediately return calls.

Posted at 6:12 PM ET on Apr 17, 2009
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Senior GOP Consultant Backs Gay Marriage | Next: Obama Appoints Virginian to CTO Post


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



like i said, i will like to emphasize again.it all depends on the kind of society we want to build for ourselves. it seems everyone has the right to choose whatever they want but with that type of society where everyone chooses whatever they want, how would you like to live in it. People complain about serial killers,pedophiles,rapists,murderers, robbers,Nazi experiments with prisoners etc. people that rob you of your right to life and forget that freedom goes with responsibility and consequences. if we want a society that respects our life from beginning to the end, then we should recognize that not every choice thought about and made by people is human.the only difference between a human embryo and any of us is time and food. we were all embryos once. this is biology 101.otherwise dont complain about those so called murderers and 'evil' people stated above, they were just acting 'freely'. think about these things and go beyond superficial arguments. in addition, lets also legalize polygamy apart from only gay marriage, marriage to my loving dog (he is very faithful, intelligent and stronger than any man and will protect my kids), marriage to my loving daughter, marriage to my son and daughter (we love each other so much and want to spend our lives together), marriage to my nice TV, flower, etc. i have a right to my choices and the state should respect that. in essence, not every thinkable choice is truely human. think about what kind of society you want for yourselves and others.

Posted by: chuksemenalo | April 22, 2009 12:23 PM

Sarah Palin brooded, delved deep into her heart, before making the decision to carry her pregnancy to term. She didn't consult her minister, her husband or the Supreme Court about what course of action to take. In the end, she decided for herself what was best for her. Every woman has and should have the same opportunity to decide for herself what is best.

Posted by: cynicalismo | April 20, 2009 3:48 PM

That not one of this large group of RTL women did not scream their objection to her elocution of guilt for her admitted evil thoughts and words that she considered, is exactly the difference between the politics of RTL and the sound theology of Sanctity of Life... which position teaches against much more than murdering unborn children.....

Posted by: badpenny | April 20, 2009 2:44 PM

I think you should read the comments. They indicate to me that there are a lot of mean spirited people out there looking at the Post. Many seem to say that hedonism is the light and respect for human life is a religious nut's ideal. The fifty's are looking better and better even with all their problems.

Posted by: vitaglubet | April 20, 2009 2:25 PM

I have trouble understanding why someone who is so adamantly "pro-life" and would who deny choice to others under any and all circumstances, would contemplate the termination of her pregnancy, for even a second. Why would there be any temptation to terminate the pregnancy? Why is she being so highly praised for making a decision that, in her opinion, should be a non-decision?

Certainly, raising a child with Down's Syndrome can be challenging, but not anymore difficult, or as much so, as raising a child with many other disorders. Children with Down's Syndrome can also bring great love and joy into a home. I'm disgusted by the way Palin is willing to use her little boy as a political tool and by those who continue to praise her for doing so. Why else would she be talking about this other than to call attention to how "moral" and "brave" she is and to score points politically? Why is it such a big deal that she had this baby? She believes that all abortions should be illegal, so she got pregnant and had a baby...so what? But even Governor Palin acknowledged that she had a decision to make...a choice that she would so readily deny others. Many pro-choice women would make the same decision as Palin.

Such a heart-rendering decision is not always only about the parents and how it affects them. There are situations under which a child would live with constant pain and a very poor quality of life. What a horrendous decision for a parent to face and then to be judged by others.

Posted by: luvdc8 | April 20, 2009 11:27 AM

TO: President Obama, VP Biden, Obama Cabinet Secretaries

"When you see the abuse of power, you've got to speak."

-- VP Joe Biden


Extra-legal programs and policies of the Bush-Cheney era continue on...

...endangering our democracy and subverting your presidency.


EXTRAJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT NETWORK.

Google it.

Any American -- YOU, or someone close to you -- could be its next victim.

Unless Team Obama -- especially AG Holder, SecDef Gates, SecDHS Napolitano, SecTreas Geithner -- take down the draconian Bush-Cheney extra-legal "torture matrix..."

...an array of secret, extrajudicial "programs of personal financial destruction" and government-funded vigilante, terroristic "community stalking"...

...coupled with the proliferation of mind- and body-degrading "directed energy" microwave radiation weapons -- the Zyklon B of a grassroots, government-enabled American Gestapo that continues to "target" untold thousands, if not millions, of U.S. citizens...

...citizens who have not been charged with any crime, but who have been condemned by a covert American Gestapo to a life of "community gang-stalking" and physical degradation...

...tracked with covert GPS devices over a network known to EVERY police force in the nation -- and to federal security, military and intelligence operatives.

Attorney General Holder, you must act NOW to restore human and civil rights in America.

Before the naivete of liberals empowers the saboteurs and Dr. Strangeloves who say "No!" to change.


http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if links are corrupted/ disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | April 19, 2009 10:11 PM

Sarah Palin is a better person for having "walked the walk". Would she be a better person if she wasn't allowed the choice?

Posted by: watcher5 | April 19, 2009 8:26 PM

Sarah Palin is a classic case of a feral child being raised by Republicans. ............


http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/04/19/feral-children-raised-by-republicans/

Posted by: glclark4750 | April 19, 2009 1:58 PM

chuksemenado: My wife and I had no abortions and raised two daughters after losing our two sons.

She made the choice that was right for her.

She did however, have a choice.

I would not deny that choice to any woman - not my wife nor my daughters. If asked I would offer the best counsel I could.

Why are you so afraid that if a woman has a choice she will choose the "wrong" one?

If you or someone close to you faces the issue you will appreciate the choice - no matter which one you make for yourself.

We must all make our own chouces and answer to our own conscience.

P. S. My wife of 40 years is gone 5 years today. She would be very proud of our daughters.

Posted by: toritto | April 19, 2009 12:33 PM

toritto, and meissacginle
for meissacginle.thanks for your comments.not bad. i recognise the fact that you are happily married. but your definition of marriage is yours and i have my own definition. remember we are now in the world of opinions. but dont also get me wrong. i was not comparing your marriage to that of a dog or inanimate thing. i was only saying that if the society wants to legalize gay marriage, based on the fact that people have a right to marriage, then we should go all the way to legalize any other kind of relationship.who says that my dog and i cannot have a loving relationship, it depends on if you consider my dog important in my life and you can prove that she doesnt want to spend her life with me. in essence, the argument of two people that want to spend their life together can be extended to three people, four, my daughter and I, my son and I, my mother and I as long as we want to spend our lives together. This doesnt mean i support these things. it all depends on the type of society we want. also remember that you were once an embryo and think whether you would have liked it if you were terminated then by your mothers choice because she is thinking in the best thing for you. is it only about pain. why should pain by the only reason to prevent killing, therefore you can kill someone as long as it is painless. dont forget there are many ways to achieve that now.my main point is that not all thinkable things are human actions and some so called human actions are not proper of humans but of animals, judge for yourself. i fully endorse marriage between a man and a woman because i think that is the only one that is natural and needed by the human race.
for toritto, wonderful story.i really respect you. however encourage people to make choices like yours that are human and good for the human race. that is what prolife is about. i dont think it is fair to say kill someone just because you cant bear the person. then encourage the state to support keeping every human alive as much as we can. people dont have the right to kill others but they have the right to defend themselves from one that tries to kill them as i think we all have the right to life or dont we. the problem is what justification do you have for going to war. i think war should be avoided but being prolife doesnt contradict defending your society from agressors even if you need to use force. later and keep fighting for the progress of humanity.

Posted by: chuksemenalo | April 19, 2009 10:57 AM

toritto, and meissacginle-

Both of you are obviously mature, thoughtful, and take your resposibilities seriously. We need more people like you working for the betterment of all.

Posted by: rooster54 | April 18, 2009 4:11 PM

My wife and I had a profoundly retarded son - he never spoke a word or walked - he never sat up - he never looked at me - for all I knew he was deaf and blind as well. I could only wish he had Downs!
Every meal he ever ate we fed him. Every diaper he ever wore we changed him. Every foot he ever moved from where he was lying we carried him. Every time he went to bed we carried him upstairs. Every morning we carried him downstairs.
We became a test marketing project for Depends adult diapers - we got 'em free and had to let the manufacturer know what we thought of them.
He lived to be ten years old. We did nothing but worry about what was going to happen to him. Then one day he simply woke up and died.
My wife gave ten years of her life caring for Michael. We got no help from any government agency except our local school for handicapped kids. No medicare ; no medicaid; no state assistance. You see I "made too much money" - what a joke that was.
Michael is gone now. So is my wife. She never went to church. She was not a believer. If there is a God in his heaven then she is sitting under a massive oak watching her perfect 10 year old son play with his 12 year old brother (yes - we lost two boys to birth defects) in the green grass under a sunny sky with a cool breeze moving through his hair mop - "Mommy look at me!! Look at my kite!!" and she will wave and smile.
There was no Catholic priest at her funeral - a local female Methodist minister who knew my wife, a woman who never went to church, as woman who lived Christian values in her daily life , spoke at her funeral. I will not forget her kindness. She spoke without being asked of how this woman made a lunch hour appointment for an abortion and changed her own mind at the last minute and went on to have two fine daughters. My wife was glad she had a choice.
Talk is cheap. It’s a lot easier talk about having a kid like Mike than to be the parents. Too many of you fine religious folk feel so good about yourselves for being “pro-life”, then you smile and go on to your next “Fellowship” meeting or casserole supper.
My wife and I didn’t know Michael was going to have such severe disabilities and that he would be total care for his entire live. Technology is much improved today. If you knew a Michael was coming YOUR way, would you at least want a choice?
No one should have to bear a Michael at age 30 if they don’t want to.......that’s choice.

Those who advocate the opposite should be prepared to urge society to provide care for that child for its entire life, even if you have to raise taxes. It’s the cost of being pro-life. Think of that the next time you see two old people pushing an adult retarded child in a wheel chair in the mall.

Posted by: toritto | April 18, 2009 1:17 PM

It is a simple minded comparison to say that mother, that is making what she believes is the best choice for her baby, her family, and herself, to a murderer. An unborn child is a part of it's mother, who is responsible for acting in the best interest of their unborn child. Provided that the mother is not doing anything that we know is harmful to human development (drugs, starving themselves, sniffing glue....) she is of sound mind enough to make the best decision for that child. A fetus is not capable of feeling pain until at least the 28th week. According to medical science the wiring is not there yet http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain As I said before, the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a painfully disappointing one. To suggest it's a decision made on a whimsy because a pregnancy would be inconvenient is an ignorant view. If a mother does not believe that she is bearing a child that will live the life with all capabilities, health, and opportunities... that would create a life worth living it can only be a mother's choice. Not the choice of someone that is not responsible for that unborn child, someone with an opinion that life begins as soon as an egg is fertilized. An opinion is not a medical fact. If Sarah Palin valued human life, she would make an active effort to not support killing actual human beings that we are aware can feel pain and have an established life. Oh, I forgot, children that live in other countries whose homes are being bombed by us, they don't matter... silly me.

And comparing marriage to someone of the same sex to that of a dog is just bizarre. Or I suppose you don't have a high opinion of marriage yourself, if you can compare a loving union to animals and inanimate objects such as flowers. Bizarre, but who knows, maybe that's the kind of marriage you have. I am happily married and respect and love my husband as my best friend and we make an effort everyday to maintain that. Aside from all the legal rights not afforded to gay unions, marriage isn't even about that in the first place; legal rights are just something that goes along with marriage. Marriage is a union between 2 people that love and trust each other and decide that they want that person to be a part of them, part of their family. I love sharing my husbands last name and the fact that we are now our own family, it is a beautiful thing. But if you're someone who compares marriage to unions with dogs, flowers, whatever... then you probably don't hold the same value and respect for what marriage is, than my husband and I do, and you'll never get it anyway.

Posted by: melissacingle | April 18, 2009 9:08 AM

it all depends on the kind of society we want to build for ourselves. People complain about serial killers,pedophiles,rapists,murderers, robbers,Nazi experiments with prisoners etc. people that rob you of your right to life and forget that freedom goes with responsibility and consequences. if we want a society that respects our life from beginning to the end, then we should recognize that not every choice made by people is human.the only difference between a human embryo and any of us is time and food. we were all embryos once. this is biology 101.otherwise dont complain about those so called murderers and 'evil' people stated above, they were just acting 'freely'. think about these things and go beyond superficial arguments. in addition, lets also legalize polygamy apart from only gay marriage, marriage to my loving dog (he is very faithful, intelligent and stronger than any man and will protect my kids), marriage to my loving daughter, marriage to my son and daughter (we love each other so much and want to spend our lives together), marriage to my nice TV, flower, etc. i have a right to my choices and the state should respect that. in essence, not every thinkable choice is truely human. think about what kind of society you want for yourselves and others.

Posted by: chuksemenalo | April 18, 2009 5:27 AM

BUSH TORTURE MEMOS OK'ED RADIATION WEAPON USE - ON AMERICANS, TOO

http://nowpublic.com/world/bush-torture-memos-oked-radiation-weapon-use-americans-too

Posted by: scrivener50 | April 18, 2009 4:31 AM

Haaaaaaaa, the GOP has turned into the complete loony tunes party. I went independent after Bush was first elected. The universe is self cleaning, bye bye nut jobs of the GOP.

Posted by: GOPNAZI | April 17, 2009 11:12 PM

Bubbette1, you are an idiot. Were you even aware that you were posting something in response to an article about Sarah Palin? You posted something about "homo sex" and, I suppose I could be wrong, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Sarah. Or who knows, maybe you have access to a different news source than I. Whatev...

And Sarah Palin.... Blahblahblah she "walks the walk" because she was brave enough to bear a child with Downs and is now waving that child around as conservative political propaganda. Downs syndrome is one of the sunnier outcomes that can occur when a child has a chromosomal abnormality. To use a milder form of a chromosomal birth defect as an example as why a mother's right to choose is not necessary, it's just ridiculous, and inconsiderate towards other families that have had to deal with actual difficult decisions based on a more severe diagnosis. There are many other birth defects, chromosomal abnormalities, Patau syndrome, Edwards syndrome, complications that are 100 times more dismal than Downs. A women's right to choose is in an painfully disappointing decision that only needs to be discussed with a mother and her doctor, not biased mis-informed politicians with an agenda. Shame on you Ms. Palin for using a private women's medical issue (as well as your helpless little boy) for political gain. But then again, I guess you are a true "politician" and that's what you people do.

Posted by: melissacingle | April 17, 2009 10:42 PM

Let's discuss why Michelle Obama's law license has been under court ordered suspension since 1993: http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-is-michelle-obama-on-court-ordered.html

Here is another item overlooked by the liberal press:

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/12/09/michelle-obama-is-the-specifically-named-individual-on-page-64-of-the-affidavit-submitted-by-fbi/

Or how about this one, "'I took drugs, had homo sex with Obama" http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626

Then there is the every popular missing birth certificate for Obama and the sealing of all of his records.

Posted by: Bubbette1 | April 17, 2009 9:30 PM

I would like to address your attention to an organization that is working to reduce abortions without trying to deny women the choice of whether or not they want to become mothers. It is the president's Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. This is from their mission statement:

The Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will focus on four key priorities, to be carried out by working closely with the President’s Cabinet Secretaries and each of the eleven agency offices for faith-based and neighborhood partnerships:
....
(2) It will be one voice among several in the administration that will look at how we support women and children, address teenage pregnancy, and reduce the need for abortion.

Learn more about this organization! We can do more to help a woman who would like to 'change her circumstances' than simply say, "You need to do what the rich and powerful Sarah Palin was able to do."

We can also help the Bristol Palins of the world have a chance to get a foothold in life before they start on the road of parenthood. That would be good news for children as well as young women!

Paul Bradford, Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Posted by: PaulBradford | April 17, 2009 9:29 PM

So, Palin considered getting an abortion. She exercised her right to CHOOSE whether to get one or not. Ultimately, she chose not to, but I find it sickening that she would deny others that right.

Posted by: fletc3her | April 17, 2009 9:27 PM

If only Palin's mother had used a condom...

Posted by: svreader | April 17, 2009 9:17 PM

When will this horrid woman stop using that poor challenged child as tool for her political ambitions. She has no shame whatsover.

Posted by: greener_pastures | April 17, 2009 9:11 PM

She epitomizes hypocrisy. She says she listens to God yet when considering an abortion she was worried about what others might think, not what the omniscient Lord might think.

Posted by: clazman | April 17, 2009 9:04 PM

I respect Palin's decision to have her child, and am glad that she feels she chose wisely. I also respect the decisions of women who choose differently. And I certainly don't believe that women who choose differently should be thrown in jail.

Posted by: davestickler | April 17, 2009 9:04 PM

whatever...
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by: itsagreatday1 | April 17, 2009 8:57 PM

All that's needed to unhorse any ideologue is a simple question: "Do you think people tend to be too selfish, or too generous"?

Every ideologue thinks that *some* people are too selfish and other people are too generous.

I'll grant you that the selfishness of the rich and powerful can do more harm to more people than the selfishness of the poor and powerless - though when I attended the funeral of a high school buddy from a middle class suburb who was shot to death during a robbery of a cigar store near the post office where he worked in a "bad" part of town, it gave me pause.

So we have democratic ideologues shouting "abortion is a right". Guess whose selfishness is being served?

And we have republican ideologues shouting "no new taxes, and abortion is wrong". Guess whose selfishness is being served?

The sure loser in all these battles is children, who don't vote, and therefor don't appeal to politicians except as rhetorical flourishes.

Which is why we insure the medical expenses of every citizen over the age of 65, while leaving millions of infants - whose remaining life span is of much more interest to us than the remaining life span of a 65 year old - to the kindness of greedy doctors and for-profit hospitals.

Oh, "Doctors aren't greedy", you say.

How long did you spend in his waiting room, and how much time did he spend with you?

Posted by: Miss_Hogynist | April 17, 2009 8:53 PM

palins mother should have had an abortion.

Posted by: donaldtucker | April 17, 2009 8:50 PM

I agree with what many people are saying about her being a hypocrite. Personally, the first thing that came to mind while reading this story was that she did it for purely political reasons. Most people running for president have their medical records released for public viewing. It would be seen that she had an abortion when she's so anti-abortion. And who doesn't love a politician that has a child with a handicap?

Posted by: ryw234 | April 17, 2009 8:41 PM

Palin is a rabid republican.One can only wonder if she is recieving any government handouts for Trig .And also,is her daughter Bristol getting any government freebies such as WIC for her child? If so it seems hypocritical to say the least.Taxpayers and voters in Alaska have the right to know.

Posted by: jellyhouse56 | April 17, 2009 8:38 PM

Just in case you do not understand - an embryo IS NOT A HUMAN BEING !

So what is it, a dog?

Posted by: isaiah1 | April 17, 2009 8:34 PM

jojojojo1 wrote, "She has probably thought of killing Bristol a few times too."

She's saving that to use as a humorous throw-away line in the 2012 nomination acceptance speech which she's been writing since losing the 2008 election.

Posted by: Miss_Hogynist | April 17, 2009 8:32 PM

Sarah Palin is so last year. She's desperate to keep her name in the lights and to keep the base of extreme right wingers pushing for her.

I absolutely want the Republicans to make her their candidate in 2012. President Obama could then stay home, do a few interviews, some appropriate speeches and win in a cake walk. And we all will gain the fun of Tina Fey doing more satire on the hapless Palin.

If they don't run her in 2012, they should just tag and release her in the wilds of Alaska.

RCharles

Posted by: RCharles1 | April 17, 2009 8:27 PM

Why is she talking about this? This is a personal issue. What a bizarre family.

Posted by: Bitter_Bill | April 17, 2009 8:22 PM

John1263 calls the legal right to abortion "the most fundamental of liberty".

Somehow the USA survived without it before Roe v Wade. I'm curious how you position liberties on your scale of more and less fundamental.

I would rank freedom of political speech #1, or, if you prefer, "most fundamental". I would rank an unqualified right to abortion right up there with an unqualified right to shoot someone who cuts me off in traffic - somewhat lower on the list of "fundamental liberties".

Posted by: Miss_Hogynist | April 17, 2009 8:17 PM

Sarah misses the headlines and the Media attention. Now as for admitting she thought of having an Abortion, there is a little more to come out. The baby isn't Sarah's it's her daughters child. Before the pictures were removed Sarah was shown with a flat stomach running down the steps of the airplane as she said he was going to deliver her child. One might ask why was Brisol at the hospital before her Mother. For those who can count Brisol's second child was born over the 9 months needed for a normal delivery. As Levi said he and Bristol were allowed to sleep together in her Mother's home. Look for Sarah to confuss to more false/misspoken statements. Next to see a Govenor who wears Christianity on her sleeve for all to follow.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | April 17, 2009 8:15 PM

She has probably thought of killing Bristol a few times too.

Posted by: jojojojo1 | April 17, 2009 8:05 PM

Of course she wants to make sure, as do these nit wits who think the political question is between loving or hating abortion, that no other women have the opportunity to make those decision for themselves. She and they would use our government to take away the most fundamental of liberty - and of course they are the same dopes who were dressed up like it was haloween and tea bagging each other yelping that having their taxes lowered and their lives made better as the consequence of a free and fair election is
somehow losing their liberty. No end to the stupidity of the right.

Posted by: John1263 | April 17, 2009 8:04 PM

I bet this was easy for her to admit compared to the real truth.

I think that Palin was trying to murder the fetus after her water broke and she waited for 30 hours to get to a hospital and a doctor.

Every medical book says to get to a hospital immediately because the baby could drop in the womb and be strangled by the umbilical cord.

But we are not looking at either an intelligent or an honest woman here, are we?

Posted by: Anadromous2 | April 17, 2009 8:04 PM

bsallamack hit a bullseye: "Is Governmor Palin really so shallow and uncaring that she wants this type of attention drawn to a poor unfortunate child?"

Posted by: Miss_Hogynist | April 17, 2009 8:03 PM

I bet this was easy for her to admit compared to the real truth.

I think that Palin was trying to murder the fetus after her water broke and she waited for 30 hours to get to a hospital and a doctor.

Every medical book says to get to a hospital immediately because the baby could drop in the womb and be strangled by the umbilical cord.

But we are not looking at either an intelligent or an honest woman here, are we?


Posted by: Anadromous2 | April 17, 2009 8:00 PM

One grows tired of the revelations of Governor Palin.

Governor Palin did not have to let anyone know her child had Down syndrome. Instead it was announced shortly after the child was born. When a child is born with a defect it really is not necessary to announce it immediately to the press.

Now she feels she must announce to the public that she considered an abortion but decided to "walk the walk".

Is Governmor Palin really so shallow and uncaring that she wants this type of attention drawn to a poor unfortunate child?

Posted by: bsallamack | April 17, 2009 7:59 PM

I bet this was easy for her to admit compared to the real truth.

I think that Palin was trying to murder the fetus after her water broke and she waited for 30 hours to get to a hospital and a doctor.

Every medical book says to get to a hospital immediately because the baby could drop in the womb and be strangled by the umbilical cord.

But we are not looking at either an intelligent or an honest woman here, are we?


Posted by: Anadromous2 | April 17, 2009 7:57 PM

ATTENTION TEAM OBAMA AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS:

It's time to take down the torturers -- ALL OF THEM.

Here's why:

http://nowpublic.com/world/its-time-obama-take-down-torturers-all-them

OR (if link is corrupted):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | April 17, 2009 7:56 PM

Why does the right not want government intervention unless they want it to intervene on abortion, religion, etc.....

If Palin was a single mom with 3 kids would she have made the same decision? Or is it easier when you have unlimited financial resources to hire nanny's, tutors, the best doctors etc.......

I am sick of her pseudo great mom routine. Tell her to quit her job and stay home with her children. Maybe her daughter getting pregnant could have been prevented. Oh yeah she got pregnant before marriage too.

She is moderating on climate change too. What happened to drill baby drill?

Posted by: Juked | April 17, 2009 7:56 PM

'And you think needless death is OK? I feel sorry for you, Mr. Daumer.'

isaiah1, just who is Mr. Daumer? Are you trying to stoop to name-calling, but want to cover it somehow? For shame! How dishonest of you!

Further, when did I advocate any needless death? I merely pointed out that, yes, people do choose needless death. Just an observation, not a value judgement, on my part. You will hopefully one day develop an understanding of such things.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | April 17, 2009 7:55 PM

"So she considered a choice that she doesn't want other women to even be allowed to consider. Talk about hypocrisy. And the idiots laud her for it."

-mbmclaughlin

exactly again

Posted by: Kuihao | April 17, 2009 7:51 PM

isaiah1 wrote, "What about the baby's choice? What about the baby's rights?"

They're ruled out.

First of all, because the highest public value in the USA is "self-determination". A baby's not capable of it, and is likely to interfere with a woman's exercise of it.

Second of all, because the second highest public value in the USA is "self-esteem", and babies don't have any. Women do.

And let me not leave out men, who are a major factor in pushing women to choose abortion when the decision is to be made solely on the basis of convenience.

I know of no life form more disgusting than a human male who thinks he's doing selfless work by advocating for abortion on demand through the third trimester - and there are plenty of them, and they are very convinced that they are politically virtuous liberators of women.

Posted by: Miss_Hogynist | April 17, 2009 7:50 PM

The point is SHE HAD A CHOICE. If up to her she would take that choice away from others. I do not agree with abortion but I will not force my relationship with God on others for it is for them to decide because they will have to live with the decision either way.

Posted by: gjacobs1 | April 17, 2009 7:49 PM

Just in case you do not understand - an embryo IS NOT A HUMAN BEING ! !

.

Posted by: swanieaz | April 17, 2009 7:49 PM

What a cynical person ! !

She'll do anything for the opportunity to lose in 2012, including something like this.

.

Posted by: swanieaz | April 17, 2009 7:48 PM

What's important, to me at least, is that Governor Palin reached her decision... Stop right there. She had the ability, legally and morally, to reach a decision. Others should have the same ability to reach their legal and moral decision just as the Governor had. Should there be soul-searching? Of course. Should the decision be made in haste? Of course not. But no woman or family should be denied the same right Governor Palin had; the right to reach their own decision.

dungarees@gmail.com

exactly

Posted by: Kuihao | April 17, 2009 7:47 PM

I respect all women for their freedom of choice, including Sarah Palin's choice. The beauty of this is it was Sarah's choice not someone else making the choice for her. Choice is a beautiful thing.

Posted by: ski2day9 | April 17, 2009 7:46 PM

What about the baby's choice? What about the baby's rights?

Posted by: isaiah1 | April 17, 2009 7:44 PM

bandmom22 wrote, "Get over it and yourselves. Go volunteer somewhere, use your time to make the world a better place instead of showing everyone how moronic and hateful you are."

You will be consistent and make the same statement to people who post comments hateful toward Obama, won't you?

Posted by: Miss_Hogynist | April 17, 2009 7:43 PM

I wish she would stop exploiting her family for applause. Whatever her choice was, it's none of my business, just as my choice would be none of her business.

Posted by: mvm_ffx | April 17, 2009 7:43 PM

Antiabortion groups reacted warmly to Alaska Gov. Palin's surprising admission that she had considered but did not, as Governor Palin called it, "change the circumstances."

What Governor Palin had was the right to make a decision, and she made the decision to be remain faithful to her long-standing opposition to abortion. She had the right to make her own decision... She had the right.

As she said, she gained an "understanding for ... why someone might believe it would be possible to change those circumstances. Just make it all go away", saying "I had just enough faith to know that trying to change the circumstances wasn't any answer." It might not have been for her, but others may, after confronting their faith, reach a different decision.

What's important, to me at least, is that Governor Palin reached her decision... Stop right there. She had the ability, legally and morally, to reach a decision. Others should have the same ability to reach their legal and moral decision just as the Governor had. Should there be soul-searching? Of course. Should the decision be made in haste? Of course not. But no woman or family should be denied the same right Governor Palin had; the right to reach their own decision.

dungarees@gmail.com

Posted by: Dungarees | April 17, 2009 7:41 PM

"So she considered a choice that she doesn't want other women to even be allowed to consider. Talk about hypocrisy. And the idiots laud her for it."

As a result of my Friday brain, I currently don't have the same eloquence. These are my thoughts too.

Posted by: MzFitz | April 17, 2009 7:37 PM

Boy, you'd think that Sarah Palin is the anti-Christ, Hitler, Stalin and the personification of evil all rolled up into one by the tenor and tone of some of the comments. And I'm sure every one of the venom spewers considers themselves to be compassionate enlightened progressive people.

Balderdash. The anonymity of the posting venue allows your hatred to come out and that is what defines you. Did your mother never tell you that if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything. Sarah Palin did nothing to you. She was simply relating a story to a group. The Post covered it. You can't stand what she said.

Get over it and yourselves. Go volunteer somewhere, use your time to make the world a better place instead of showing everyone how moronic and hateful you are.

Posted by: bandmom22 | April 17, 2009 7:37 PM

Palin was faced with an issue and she made a choice. It was actually the second choice ... the first was to not avoid the pregnancy in the first place.

I take no issue with either of these. I take issue with 2 other items however:

1. She wants to prevent others from having the same choices;
2. It is should not be my concern what choices she had to make. These are personal issues that some insist on making public affairs.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | April 17, 2009 7:36 PM

'So killing another human being is a "choice"?' Yes. For instance, Iraq. We caused the needless death of hundreds of thousands.

And you think needless death is OK? I feel sorry for you, Mr. Daumer.

Posted by: isaiah1 | April 17, 2009 7:32 PM

'So killing another human being is a "choice"?' Yes. For instance Iraq: Some self-labelled 'Christians' chose to go to war for no reason whatsoever. They chose the death of hundreds of thousands of people who had done nothing to hurt us.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | April 17, 2009 7:26 PM

Please, everyone, be considerate and don't let such a complex issue be turned into black/white or good/evil. Life is complex and especially are moral decisions. There are situations were abortions are clearly wrong - but there are other cases when it's probably the correct thing to do even though unpleasant. Who should make that decision should be the mother unless she's mentally unfit. I don't think I should try to impose my morality upon another and likewise, I don't want someone else to impose their abstract ideas of upon me or my body.

Posted by: UNLISTED | April 17, 2009 7:25 PM

The right-to-choose needs to be clearly defined and understood. It does not mean that a woman should be able to abort a life that was willingly conceived simply because she doesn't want the baby anymore or because she finds out that it isn't exactly what she expected, i.e. has a disability. But I do believe that a woman should have the right to choose if the pregnancy is unwanted or poses a serious risk to her life. And since I already hear the critics, by unwanted I do not mean lack of caution or birth control, but rape or another by the woman uncontrollable act.

Posted by: Ahll | April 17, 2009 7:24 PM

'So killing another human being is a "choice"?' Yes. For instance, Iraq. We caused the needless death of hundreds of thousands.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | April 17, 2009 7:20 PM

No matter which party you support, abortions are horribly tragic. I hope she inspires people to make the right decision in favor of life.

Posted by: eclaire171 | April 17, 2009 7:19 PM

I'm pro-life, and pro-Obama. I suspect I'm not alone.

I don't take it as a virtue for a person to parade this sort of personal detail in the public forum in order to win votes. I see it as shameless self-promotion.

That's not as bad as taking the life of another human being because that life would be inconvenient in your life - but it's up there.

Posted by: Miss_Hogynist | April 17, 2009 7:13 PM

And you tell us this story because.??...??

Posted by: BFranco | April 17, 2009 7:10 PM

So killing another human being is a "choice"?

Posted by: isaiah1 | April 17, 2009 7:08 PM

Eye-raq.. enough said.

Posted by: lmnaji135 | April 17, 2009 7:00 PM

No one should be allowed to choose death over life. I know abortion crossed my mother's mind, but instead she chose to give me up for adoption. Yes, it was a choice... I'm glad she chose life, I have a wonderful family now of my own. Don't you guys think my mother shouldn't even have had the option to choose death? Look to your conscience, doesn't it feel wrong to kill? Embryo, fetus, tadpole... call it what you want... it's still LIFE.

Posted by: bvos202 | April 17, 2009 6:59 PM

$ 1.50 can solve this whole issue, if you can not afford that, how do you expect to afford another life. Palin is of the exception because of her family, not everyone has that.

Free choice, we fight so hard everyday for our freedom, is this not what the constitution is all about.
Unfortunately,"There is a price for being free"
Bob Weir
Grateful Dead

Posted by: zuck20 | April 17, 2009 6:57 PM

I am a single, full-time working Mom of a 17-year-old son with Down syndrome. I, too, went through this when I found out I was pregnant at 17 weeks along. After hearing the news, I cried and screamed, hitting my car's steering wheel all the way home from the doctor's office that day. I also cried myself to sleep every night of that pregnancy. However, now 17 years later, I can honestly say that he is the light of my life. What I realize now is that it was just the fear of the unknown. I, too, considered 'changing the circumstances'.....for probably all of a millisecond. And while I did NOT vote for McCain/Palin and never would, just as she noted in her speech, having a 'differently abled' child makes you realize that life is NOT black and white....it is all shades of gray. Life is not simple, it's messy. And what I learned through my experience is NOT to judge others for their decision, no matter what it is, because you don't walk in their shoes. I just know I made the best decision for me, and I WILL NEVER REGRET IT -- EVER.

Posted by: BJD4 | April 17, 2009 6:56 PM

An unplanned pregnancy in a world where safe contraception exists is one thing. An unwanted pregnancy in a world where safe abortions exists is a terrible and difficult "circumstance". To suggest that it's easy or done without thought or done because of an 'anything goes' lifestyle is the height of sanctimonious hypocrisy.

Palin made a choice that, for her, was right. It was her choice to make. And yet she, and her "right to life", anti-choice supporters, want to take it away from all women. If they want to stop unplanned, or unwanted pregnancies, teach birth control and sex education.

Posted by: thebobbob | April 17, 2009 6:53 PM

Yes, amie_goes: You are spot on with your comment. It's sad that so many don't understand what you are saying. Thanks.

Posted by: portico6 | April 17, 2009 6:51 PM

And we should care about Moose Lady's messy personal life why?

Posted by: MorganaLeFay | April 17, 2009 6:47 PM

So she considered a choice that she doesn't want other women to even be allowed to consider. Talk about hypocrisy. And the idiots laud her for it.

Posted by: mbmclaughlin | April 17, 2009 6:46 PM

"the pressure in our society today is to kill that child"

Where oh where do these people come up with this garbage?

Palin had a choice. She thought about it, and opted to carry to term. Others opt differently. And others opt the same. It's all about personal choice. And people *do* change their circumstances, and it's the answer for them. It wasn't the answer for Palin, fine. What if Palin had no choice in the matter, and was forced to abort? It would go against her free decision, and she'd resent that, doncha think? FREE CHOICE - to choose to deliver and raise, or deliver and put up for adoption, or to abort.

Posted by: hitpoints | April 17, 2009 6:43 PM

Not only is it a sad misconception, but it's highly offensive to suggest that getting and even considering an abortion is "easy"

Posted by: amie_goes | April 17, 2009 6:38 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company