Over the past several days, many posters have made a credible case that Sarah Palin's four-month old baby may not hers, and may even be her daughter's child (the latter just baseless speculation).
Even if this were true, this shows nothing but good things about her. So I don't think it will have the effect you think. The following, should it be true, would be the implications:
- She wants her daughter and her family to avoid public shame.
- She is consistently pro-life - not arranging for a secret abortion for her daughter.
- She is willing to assume responsibility for her daughter's mistake. She didn't choose to have her daughter secretly drop it off for adoption.
- She is willing to take the burden of raising a developmentally disabled child off of her daughter and bear the load herself. This is no small thing, as despite the fact down's children die early, you're effectively consigning yourself to a lifetime of care.
The only thing I can think of in counterbalance is that it probably counts as health insurance fraud to pass off a child which isn't yours as your own. But that's a legal question - not a moral one.
Honestly, if this was, somehow, outed as being true, it would do nothing but improve the standing of her in public perception. If there was any failure here, it wouldn't have been her own after all, it would have been her daughter's.
It's not the way my family would have solved an issue like this, but it's a noble one in its own way. It also was historically apparently common, at least in my fiance's extended family, as she has several "aunts" who grew up not knowing their sisters were in fact aunts of them.
So. Stop. It.