A reader points out what is left implicit in the Palins' statement:

I'm not sure how to say this politely, but if Bristol Palin is more than three and a half months' pregnant, it is physically impossible for her to have given birth on the 18th of April to Trig.
 
I know with "about five months" it's difficult to be certain what they mean, which is why most doctors talk in weeks. But basically a pregnancy is calculated as 40 weeks, and is dated from the previous period so for the first two weeks of the 'pregnancy' one is not actually pregnant.
Women tend to take at least six weeks to start ovulating again, and often several months. Say Bristol is very young and made a medically exceptional recovery - the very very earliest she could have become pregnant 'again' would be from mid May, which would put her at three and a half months pregnant.
 
Also, and for me this is the clincher:
it's pretty horrible down there for quite a while after giving birth, most doctors will order no sex for at least six weeks, and well let's be honest, most men wouldn't want to go there for at least six weeks. And most women certainly won't be in the mood for just as long. Which means that again she is unlikely to be more than three months pregnant if she gave birth in April.
 

This seems persuasive to me. But it's based entirely on a vague verbal statement. Why not kill this rumor with Palin's medical records? A 43 year old woman's pregnancy with a Downs Syndrome child would have been intensely monitored, and the records must be a mile long. Just release them, ok? If necessary in a closed room for reporters, just as with McCain. And we can all breathe a sigh of relief and move on.

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