Bob - I'm a fan, so I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I can't let this one stand. It's insensitive, and offensive. Here's what I wrote to Andrew Sullivan on this subject (minus me asking if he was crazy, or had kids, because like - I know you have kids)

**************
I have a differently-abled child – lucky for me, he is only slightly differently-abled, and on the other end. He is exceptionally bright (but not profoundly bright which brings a whole other set of challenges). My son is two years ahead of himself academically, and still taking honors classes. That’s the full extent of his differentness – and it still requires patience, attention, and information. I have to know how he’s going to adjust emotionally and physically in an environment where he is two years younger than everyone. I have to cheerlead for him as he worries about being smaller than the other kids. I have to be hypervigilant about bullies. When the teachers offered to skip him absent other choices for him - they did so on the condition that I as a parent was prepared to deal with the emotional consequences to HIM of this decision.

Now think about children born with disabilities – including downs syndrome. Think about the average parent of a newborn – sleep deprived, stressed and of course happy to see their newborn, and hopeful for this new baby’s future. Think about a mother having a profound letdown of hormones – that sometimes triggers postpartum depression, balanced perhaps against the bonding hormones of holding and especially nursing a new baby. And think about the advantage of knowing in advance, having counseling in advance, having a support system in advance, for a newborn born with disabilities as profound as downs syndrome.

Why have amniocentesis? Because if it is increasingly likely that you will have a disabled baby, knowing about that in the first place gives the parents and the baby a better chance at adjusting well, than finding out at the birth of the baby. I could go on and on, but I think if you think in those terms you could probably add to the list of advantages of doing the test and risks of not doing the test all by yourself.

Sorry to be confrontational about this, but the question is so insensitive – it has the air of sneering “gotcha-ism.” I’m not as anti-abortion as Sarah Palin is (though I am mostly anti-abortion), and I am an Obama supporter from the very start. But I don’t like this path that we’re on here, and I hope this note helps sensitize you and others to the issues at hand.

I hope I didn't offend you, Queen. I apologize. In the case of Palin, however, this plays back to the issue of hypocrisy -- an issue you clearly do not have. Palin is telling my daughter -- everyone's daughter -- that even if they're raped, they can't have an abortion. I think that's wrong. Yet there are numerous examples of Palin herself exercising "choice" in this matter.

You didn't offend me - I just find the question offensive. A woman who is absolutely against abortion is one who absolutely should be supporting MORE of these kinds of services for women, not less. The argument made by "pro-choice" advocates is sometimes framed as pro-lifers only caring about the unborn, and not so much the born, but in this case - this would be an example of the opposite. If you remove the option of "choice" as it is called - then how DO you support women pregnant under difficult circumstances? One way is to arm her with real information and support systems about the baby she's about to have.

Honestly - there are some arguments that serve no purpose but to rally "the base" as it were, and piss off the other side. That's pretty much the opposite of what's needed for Obama though, wouldn't you say? He's already got a fairly solid base - and needs to reach out for independents like me, and the few republicans he may be able to pick off. Arguing that there's something hypocritical about arming a woman who is against abortion with the critical information that she needs for a baby she's going to have (in this case, by her "choice," but if the laws were different - because she had to) is, to me, hypocritical.

QT

Bob wrote: "As I wrote in the comments myself, this plays to a larger question of hypocrisy, privacy and secrecy. What is Palin's view on abortion? Well, we can't ask her about her contradictions, so all we're left with are assumptions. Some of them fair, some of them off the wall. We just don't know. But if she's a heartbeat away from the presidency with the potential authority to appoint Supreme Court justices who would permit laws that invade my daughter's body, we deserve some answers."

OK - I'm still not feeling the hypocrisy part. All the rest - I agree.

QT