Ms. Bazelon and Ms. Lithwick:

Sarah Palin is indeed a feminist. She is a working mother who has pursued her own career to great success while raising a large family. She made an honorable choice to bring a Down's Syndrome baby into the world and into her already rather hectic life. She is standing by her 17-year-old daughter who, presumably, has made her own choice to carry her unplanned pregnancy to term. I congratulate her.

She is now, or will soon be, the Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States. She was introduced to us just days ago as a working mother, a woman who has lived her convictions as a staunch pro-lifer by choosing life for her Down's Syndrome child, and potentially the shatterer of the glass-ceiling that Hillary only put 18 million cracks in before her. More recently, to put an end to rumors that Bristol and not Sarah was the true mother of her son Trig, she announced to the national political arena that her 17-year-old daughter is 5-months pregnant. Given that this is how Ms. Paliln chooses to portray herself to those whose votes she hopes to win, how are we to not judge her on these accomplishments?

Are we to ignore Ms. Palin's position that all abortions should be unlawful, under every circumstance, just because she chose to give birth to a Down's Syndrom child and because her 17-year-old daughter has, presumably, chosen to carry her pregnancy to term and marry the young father? I have no issue with Ms. Palin's right to choose for herself. I applaud her choice. But she got to make her own choice. I want that same right.

Likewise, I have no issue with her pursuing a career while raising a family that includes an infant with Down's Syndrome. I have no doubt that Ms. Palin has the resources to do so. But should I not question, now that she has made the announcement part of her campaign, whether the choice her daughter has made is truly her own choice and whether this choice will somehow ultimately limit the other choices and opportunities this young woman might have in her life to follow in her mother's footsteps and pursue her own career? Should I not compare the Palins' ability to provide for their daughter and grandchild the opportunities for a decent life that might not be available to every young woman who finds herself in a similar situation but who, if Sarah Palin has her way, will find herself without any options? Are these discussions off limits? Why?

Should I not consider whether the choices made by Sarah Palin in her family life reflect positions with which I agree on political issues that could be vitally important during the next 4 years before I choose how to cast my vote? If that discussion is off limits, why are these choices on display in her campaign?

For me, it isn't about whether she can be VP and raise a Down's Syndrome child, and it isn't about whether her daughter's pregnancy makes her a really bad mother. It's about the issue of a woman's right to choose and all of the consequences that follow. She puts her Down's Syndrome baby on display to show how committed she is to the pro-lifers. And now she is doing the same thing with her daughter's pregnancy. Therefore, tasteless as it may be, if talking about Bristol Palin's pregnancy gets us talking about Sarah Palin's extreme pro-life stance, let's talk about it. She chose to put it out there for us.

That was a very well thought out and exceedingly well-written commentary. Although my analysis leads me to different conclusions on some of your points, I can respect your opinions and the thought process that leads you to them. BRAVO!

Just one question for you, and I mean this seriously even though it may come out as flippant: You refer to Palin as having an "extreme pro-life stance", (and there's no doubt that she is pro-life), does this mean that Barack Obama has an "extreme pro-abortion" stance by virtue of his vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois (my home state)? He purported that it was different from the Federal bill in that it imposed some restrictions on the Roe decision, but his campaign later acknowledged that the bills were identical. Would you characterize this vote as "extreme" as I view it to be?

Personally, I am offended that you think anyone would have a "pro-abortion" stance. I do not advocate for abortion. I am pro-choice or, to be clear, I am "pro-choices" - I want the issue of unplanned pregnancies to be addressed by providing more choices for women who find themselves in this situation. No one believes abortion is an ideal solution. But I will not support any legislation that could affect a woman's right to make that choice and obtain a safe and legal abortion.

I believe Obama voted against the Illinois legislation because the legislation was worded differently from the Federal BAIPA and that there was concern that the wording in said Illinois legislation could ultimately affect Roe v. Wade; further, there were companion bills that created potential liabilities for doctors. Here's an interesting link that sheds some additional light on the history of the Illinois legislation and shows that the wording was, indeed, different from BAIPA:

<link>

I don't believe Obama is any more "pro-abortion" than I am.

brownapril:

Personally, I am offended that you think anyone would have a "pro-abortion" stance. I do not advocate for abortion. I am pro-choice or, to be clear, I am "pro-choices" I don't believe Obama is any more "pro-abortion" than I am.

Fair enough, though from reading the posts on here it seems that many of the users have a "pro-abortion" stance. My apologies for attributing this to you if it does not apply.

One more question for you: should a doctor with moral conflicts against abortion be forced to perform one just because a woman wants it? I'm not talking about a mother's health issue here, just speaking on voluntary abortion. This is another question in Illinois right now, and I'd be interested to hear your opinion. If the answer is yes, then how is that pro-choice? Does a woman's right to choose trump a doctor's moral beliefs?

brownapril:

I believe Obama voted against the Illinois legislation because the legislation was worded differently from the Federal BAIPA and that there was concern that the wording in said Illinois legislation could ultimately affect Roe v. Wade.

You are incorrect.

From the New York Sun, dated August 18:

Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported "was not the bill that was presented at the state level."

His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law....

In answer to your question, no, a doctor should not be forced to perform a abortion if he/she is morally opposed to it.

They're always welcome to become a dermatologist, podiatrist or some other speciality that does not impact women's health. When they choose to become a gynocologist, their patients should not be limited to their moral choices.

So in other words, as I understand you, it follows that if assisted suicide becomes the law of the land, then doctors who want to be general practitioners have a moral aversion to that particular function, they will be relegated to become podiatrists.

Actually, doctors take an oath to "do no harm". Not only is it out of the question that that oath is violated for the child (excuse me, "viable tissue mass", unless it happens to actually be born as a result of a botched abortion procedure, in which case, I guess it must be something like a "viable living external tissue mass"), it is also dubious at best to say that the abortive mother is not harmed. One thing that is never discussed in any of these circles is the risk of long-term implications of an abortion (fertility issues, cervical cancer, et al), and the long term psychological ramifications of such a choice.

All that said, I have a question for you: Since you revealed your belief that Bristol Palin is being forced (explicitly or implicitly) to take the baby to term, does that mean that you support children under 18 to be allowed to make this decision without any consent of their parents to do so?

PCTon80:

I'm not sure from your reply whether you bothered to follow the link I provided and read the article. At any rate, as tonight and tomorrow night are the only evenings I will have this week with my husband at home, I am going to have to table further discussions so he doesn't feel like I am less than happy to have him here. I'll get back to this, though.

As for your other question, since my basic feeling is that the moral question of abortion should be between the mother and her God, I suppose that would have to apply to doctors as well.

I promised to get back to you. Here is a link to information from the Obama campaign, posted on his official website, which confirms the link I previously provided to you:

<link>

So just to be clear, if you read this, Obama did oppose several versions of the Illinois law as long as those versions could be construed to impact state abortion law. Additionally, it appears that there was already state law in effect that provided the same care for infants who survived an abortion as the proposed legislation, but that did not have an adverse affect on abortion law. This does not make Obama some sort of monster who supports infanticide. It does make him a pretty smart man who is able to see past the immediate gratification of passing such a law to the potential legal battles that may follow it and work to protect women's rights. Thank you.

I think that the "age of consent" for non-forced consensual relations should be the age of consent...for the decisions that may come after the sex. IOW...

If you can legally decide to have sex, then you should have the legal right to determine it's consequences...

Sarah Palin passed her baby around as if he was a rag doll. First her pregnat teenage daughter held him, passed him to Cristy McCain who sort of snuggled him.Next the boyfriend held and then to Mister Palin and then back again. All this in a raucus stadium at night with glaring spotlights shining in this poor baby's face. A " family value mother" would expose a sick child to this.? Is this the new matra " I would rather exloit my family then lose an election".

Sarah Palin passed her baby around as if he was a rag doll. First her pregnant teenage daughter held him, passed him to Cristy McCain who sort of snuggled him.Next the boyfriend held the boy and then passed him to Mister Palin and then back again ad nauaseum All this in a raucus stadium at night with glaring spotlights shining in this poor baby's face. A " family value mother" would expose a sick child to this.? Is this the new matra " I would rather exloit my family then lose an election".