A reader adds:

I think your answer lies in the reader who stated that Palin was also at risk for a neural tube defect.  While a baby at risk for DS may not force a woman to have an amnio, a neural tube defect certainly will.  That kind of defect is often something a baby cannot survive and is a major reason someone would have a abortion in the last trimester.  The baby with that kind of defect could have no chance of survival outside of the womb. 

Palin could’ve been looking at a situation where she was carrying to term a fetus that had essentially died.  I don’t know what her pro-life conscience would’ve told her to do in that situation, but it could’ve been a reality that she had to face.

Thanks. I can certainly understand the difficulties. Nonetheless, an opponent of abortion in all circumstances would not, surely, have an abortion in the third trimester anyway, unless the mother's life was at risk. If a pro-life woman has a miscarriage that is as much a tragedy as it is for every pregnant mother. But, again, a real pro-lifer would not do anything to increase the chances of such a miscarriage - unless, in Palin's own words, is could affect not the health but the actual life of the mother.

One option: as a public figure, and perhaps a president of the US next January, she could always, you know, explain. The baby was a major prop at the convention and is constantly used to appeal to pro-life voters. The pregnancy has been in the New York Times, People, and the Anchorage Daily News. It's not like this is a secret, or that the pro-life debate isn't one Palin is eager to have. So why won't she tell us more? If she intends to be a representative of parents with children with special needs, and wants to persuade other women not to abort children with DS, telling us more about her pregnancy, the choices she faced, and the decisions she made would be very helpful.

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