In some corners of the Internets, people are talking about Sarah Palin's decisions during her pregnancy: to have an amniocentesis, to keep a baby with Down Syndrome, to travel late in her pregnancy and even after her water broke. As a pro-choice mother, I am all over the map on this one in my reactions.
First of all, in contrast to a lot of people, I don't have trouble believing that a woman who is against abortion would still want to have an amnio. In my own pregnancy, I opted out of the less-risky first-trimester screening and chose to have an amnio myself. My reason for doing so: I knew that the earlier screening had a high rate of false positives (something like 5%-6%, or more than 1 out of 20 pregnancies) and I didn't want to spend two months freaking out that there was something wrong with my baby. Also, looking at the rate of post-amnio miscarriages at the hospital in my area, and given my age at the time (37) I believed that the risk was lower than the benefit. (The risk is apparently very, very low according to a recent study)
At the same time, we also did a genetic screening on ourselves — admittedly something we should have done before I got pregnant.
In any case, I am pro-choice, and had I found out that something was seriously wrong, I very likely would have chosen to have an abortion. But that's me. I have nothing in common with pro-life women, right?
Why would somebody have an amnio if they don't believe in abortions? Well, I suspect women like that share one thing in common with me: they want to know as much as possible, even when the news is bad. Because knowledge can feel like a way of regaining control when you feel powerless. You can prepare yourself for the worst... or start lining up the resources you need.
As a mother of several children already, I imagine Sarah Palin has known for years what I learned a couple years ago from experience: that the first few weeks post-birth hit you like a ton of bricks; that simple tasks can be daunting; that breastfeeding can be really challenging even with a "normal" infant. She also knows that no two babies are alike, and prior experience with one doesn't prepare you to deal with a completely different kid. She also doesn't strike me as a woman who particularly likes surprises. So if you're expecting a special-needs baby, best to know ahead of time so you can martial the resources you need to help him thrive.
So questioning the amnio? I don't.
Questioning many of her other decisions? Oh, you betcha.
First of all, she didn't tell her other kids that their little brother was going to have Down's Syndrome. I think that's really unfair to them, since It's their business too. (Who is going to be taking care of Trig 40 years from now? A lot of the responsibility could very well fall on his siblings.) Also, it's not very honest.
Flying so late in her pregnancy - and even after her water broke? Seems risky and not terribly "pro-life" to me. Had she been honest with the airline, she wouldn't have been allowed to fly. Again, not honest.
Most of all: she CHOOSE to keep Trig, and I admire her for that, if for nothing else (and there's not much to admire about her IMHO). But she doesn't believe other women should be allowed to make their own choices. And it makes her daughter Bristol's choice to keep her own child suspect — after all, how do we know it's really what she wanted, if not all options are on the table?
Anyway, I guess all this makes me yet another second-guesser, questioning another woman's choices. The difference is, I can tsk-tsk all I want, but I can't force her to do anything differently. If Sarah Palin gets her way, though, I'd better pray I don't get pregnant again, because if something goes wrong, I will literally have no choices in the matter.
(P.S., if you want to be really annoyed, check out this article and thread. If pro-lifers really believe pro-choice women "will say anything in order to make sure the annual count of infanticide and child deaths increases every year" they are smoking some really heavy sh*t.)
