Two quick Palin notes

All I’m going to say about the Trig rumors is that I’m awfully disappointed in Andrew for not dropping this even after it’s pretty obvious that this smear is nothing more than a lie. I respect Andrew a great deal, as a commentator and a writer, but his reaction to the latest revelation–that Sarah Palin’s daughter is currently pregnant and it is therefore impossible for her to be the mother of Trig–is absurd:

Now they’ve cleared the air on this – and good for them – what harm would it do to release the medical records showing that Sarah Palin delivered Trig on April 18 in Wasilla?

If I said “Barack Obama is a Muslim, and it’s all well and good that he claims not to be, but I won’t believe it until I see the records from his early schooling in Indonesia–what harm would it do to prove that he wasn’t brought up in a Jihadist madrassa?” I would be condemned (rightly) as a smear artist. It’s an ugly, baseless thing to say. But not as ugly or as baseless as Andrew’s posts this weekend. I think (well, I hope) that after the election comes to an end and we get on with our lives that he’ll come to regret the dozens of posts and thousands of words he spent on this topic.

(If you want to keep up with the running tally of Sullivan’s posts on this matter, make sure to check out John Schwenkler, who has been doing an excellent job of keeping up with Andrew’s obsessions this cycle.)

My second note has to do with this post from Matthew Yglesias. He writes:

John McCain’s presidential campaign wants to assure us that Bristol Palin isn’t being coerced into keeping her baby:

Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said.

And good for her, but as Ann Friedman says:

John McCain and Sarah Palin don’t believe women have a right to choose. It’s absolutely absurd for the campaign to emphasize the fact that Bristol “made this decision,” and then push for policies that take away that choice.

Why shouldn’t ever woman continue to enjoy the choices that Bristol Palin has? And more to the point, if women shouldn’t be allowed to choose then why does McCain’s campaign think it’s important to emphasize her agency in this process?

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the opposition to Roe v. Wade, I think. To wit: I support overturning Roe v. Wade even though I’m pro-choice. I support overturning it because Roe v. Wade is one of the most ridiculous decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. There’s clearly nothing in the Constitution that protects a right to have an abortion. But since I don’t have a problem with abortion (especially those that take place in the first trimester) in general, I’m all in favor of keeping it legal.

Now, I know I’m in the minority here; the only other conservative I know who holds this position is Charles Krauthammer. (I’m sure there are more, I just don’t know who they are.) But my point is this: Repealing Roe v. Wade isn’t about a woman’s choice; it’s about upholding the rule of law in a sensible manner and not treating the Constitution as a laboratory in which all sorts of “rights” are created.

I’m getting off topic here, but my main point is this: I don’t think McCain has ever come out and said that abortion should be illegal. Instead he has stated his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade. Those two ideas are not the same thing.