A reader writes:

Thank you for your posts today about Sarah Palin's perplexing selection of an amniocentisis considering her pro-life stance.  I am a woman who is opposed to abortion and refused to have one in any of my three (advanced maternal age) pregnancies because of the heightened risk of miscarriage. Both my husband and I agreed that no matter what the genetic difficulties our child might have, this child would be our gift from God and we would do everything to protect him/her.

Unfortunately, we learned via level-three ultrasound at 19 weeks that our first child had a heart defect.  When the maternal-fetal specialists at our top-tier hospital told me I would need special monitoring on a weekly basis I did not hesitate to make every appointment or test.  Tragically, our daughter was stillborn and our hearts were broken, but I was grateful for having been entrusted with carrying her for the 34 weeks she lived on this planet.  Even with this loss, I refused to have an amnio in my subsequent pregnancies because I was unwilling to risk the next babies' lives, especially considering that tools such as ultrasound could go a long way at revealing and thereby preparing the doctors to handle any problems the babies might have.

When I read that Mrs. Palin elected to have an amnio, I seriously doubted her pro-life stance. 

When I read that she got an airplane after her water had broken, I began to believe that she  would rather risk her special needs child's life than have her baby at one of the many top hospitals in Dallas.  Any person mildly familiar with Down Syndrome knows that these babies typically have heart defects and feeding problems that can be critical and should be addressed immediately.  Presumably, Ms. Palin did a little research and knew this and yet got on that airplane.

Pro-life Catholic but voting for Obama.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.