« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Kagan made up “scientific facts” regarding partial birth abortion

Promoted from the diaries

In 2000 the Supreme Court struck down Nebraska’s PBA ban, citing a statement from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that PBA might be the best choice for a woman under certain circumstances. That statement was also used later to fight against a federal PBA ban signed by Bush. We now find out that the ACOG didn’t come up with that language – just the opposite initially in fact – Elena Kagan just made it up and it got inserted into the final report.

Shannen Coffin was a Deputy AG under Bush who was involved in defending the federal PBA ban. Yesterday he wrote this piece for NRO, which today Powerline is calling a possible smoking gun.

The initial ACOG report said there was no situation under which PBA would be the only option. Kagan knew ACOG’s position that PBA was almost never necessary would be a disaster to the abortion on demand crowd, so she came up with language that made it sound like a perfectly reasonable choice. That language was inserted into the final report and then used as a club in future court cases.

As Mr Coffin sums it up…

Miss Kagan’s decision to override a scientific finding with her own calculated distortion in order to protect access to the most despicable of abortion procedures seriously twisted the judicial process. One must question whether her nomination to the Court would have the same effect.

And John Hinderacker sums up the situation as…

Unless there is some other interpretation of these documents that does not occur to me, it appears that Elena Kagan participated in a gigantic scientific deception. On behalf of the Clinton White House, she deliberately subverted what was supposed to be an objective scientific process. The ACOG report was certainly seen in that light by the federal courts. Federal Judge Richard Kopf was deeply impressed by the scientific integrity of the report; he wrote:

“Before and during the task force meeting,” he concluded, “neither ACOG nor the task force members conversed with other individuals or organizations, including congressmen and doctors who provided congressional testimony, concerning the topics addressed” in the ACOG statement.

This statement was obviously false. The federal courts were victimized by a gross deception and a perversion of both the scientific process and the judicial process, carried out, the evidence appears to show, by Elena Kagan.

If this is how Kagan is willing to manipulate facts, one can only shudder to imagine what sort of activism she would bring to the Supreme Court.

COMMENTS

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    Because there just hasn’t been enough scientific fraud in that area of debate.

    • bk

      AGW – fraudulent
      PBA – fraudulent
      voter registration (and voting) – fraudulent
      census data – fraudulent
      (I’m sure I’m forgetting some) – fraudulent

      But then the same people who perpetrated (and still do) all the above are outraged to learn that Kos’s pollster was scamming them with fraudulent polls.

  • clacourr

    Senators should confront her on this.

    • edintexas

      Surely you jest. The crusading Senators with an “R” behind their name threw in the towel before the bout even began. As usual.

  • mdd1956

    for a Justice of the Supreme Court ??

    • mbecker908
      • earlgrey

        conventional wisdom (I hate this term) that she will be easily confirmed. She had really have to say something ridiculous, and even then I am not sure our guys have the stones. I thought Brown was OK with her.

        • danielbdp

          In response to the PBA fraud charge (if any Senator has the cojones to bring it up). Also I heard on Rush today, that she could not say whether she agrees with the words of the Declaration (paraphrasing), that all Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, including Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and that Governments derive their just powers from the Consent of the Governed.

          She would not answer direct questions from Senator Coburn today, as to whether she believed in those words or not. Seems her interpretation of the Constitution would leave outThe Declaration and the Federalist Papers, as “inconvenient truths” I guess…read the transcript here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37830

          Please sign the Stop the Kagan Nomination petition below to bring added pressure on Republicans to filibuster this latest attrocity by King O!

          http://www.patriotupdate.com/stories/read/3626/Sign-Petition-to-Stop-Elena-Kagans-Nomination-Protect-Free-Speech

      • bk

        Can you imagine Collins or Snowe voting to filibuster ANY female SC nominee? Not to mention that there are several GOP Senators who tend to vote for any qualified nominee, where “qualified” means — well, let me put it this way, they haven’t ever seen one who’s not.

        • acat

          Keep in mind, all Collins or Snowe would have to do would be to “express concerns” about the “qualifications” of this nominee.

          They damn well ought to have concerns over a nominee who says she’ll legislate from the bench – legislating is the job of the Congress – the same branch of government the Maine Twits are a part of.

          If they don’t see the threat to the constitution, perhaps they (and maybe one or two Dems) could be persuaded to see the threat to their own power.

          Mew

        • p3orion

          To some of these clowns, qualified now means anyone who hasn’t personally been caught viewing child pornography. During the hearing.

    • Achance
  • Kyle-MI

    This shows that she is deceptive, manipulative, and supportive of infanticide. Three kinds of ugly in one action.

    • conritwng

      what congress is. Get rid of the entire House and 1/3 of the Senate

  • rdelbov

    to fillibuster Ms Kagan—don’t just vote no—vote no to having a vote

  • ciscoguy

    Would anyone here be surprised if she wrote a memo advocating the legality of EPA regulated birth limits, subject to state-mandated abortions? Filibuster notwithstanding, I bet these leftists would still waive her on through. Fudging a few words with respect to PBA?s seems like small potatoes, by comparison.

  • johnt

    ought to get together to compare notes on how to mangle science.
    Not that they are alone on the Reality driven left, least of all with The O around. Maybe they have read and admire Lysenko, at least his style, Soviet you know.
    Other then that, just another fat, ugly, liberal woman. There just has to be a connection between their being malformed & their grotesque politics.

  • reggie1

    Marshall: “Do what you feel and let the law catch up to you.”

    Kagan: “Do what you feel and hope the facts don’t catch up to you.”

  • snowshooze

    Seems to me nobody in their right mind would seriously consider her…maybe I am wrong.
    So after she gets blown out of the water…they will present one that is only 3/4s as bad…and get confirmed.
    We’ll all be going ” Whew! That was a close one, but we got away from Kagan…and this one isn’t near as bad.”
    And they will be laughing at us.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    should be hounded out of office…

    Then the vote should be filibustered by both sides of the isle.

    Rinse and repeat with next radical nominee…

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    n/t

  • minncon

    Did anyone else out there find Kagan’s performance to be that of an intellectual lightweight? She couldn’t answer any question put to her with a simple “yes” or “no” answer… she was obsequious to the point of making this viewer ill. A weasely politician – not a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Arggghhhhh!

  • johna650

    Anyone with exposure to the federal appeals courts and the cases that come before it is aware of the penchant of the federal government to deliberately misquote and misrepresent the law as a matter of course. The practice is endemic to the process and, I’m afraid, acceptable to those judges reviewing cases.

  • bigmaude

    We’ve got it down to an abbreviation now? PBA? and we wonder why it continues. SOMEONE, please go dig up Henry Hyde so he can show the weak men and women in leadership how to open the casket on PARTIAL, meaning not all of the baby pulled out of the birth canal, yes, I didn’t say mother, BIRTH, meaning some of the baby comes into the world, firstly the head, ABORTION, the ending of a pregnancy, leaving one dead, another wounded for life. God help us all.

    • bk

      It’s terms like “a certain late-term medical procedure” that try to hide what it is.

      Plus I was trying to keep my comments relatively brief. :-)

    • p3orion

      It always seemed to me that the procedure (delivering all but the head of the infant, which is then crushed before completing the delivery) seemed to reek more a way of getting around the letter of the law than a medical necessity.

      It’s like a stripper wearing pasties: “the law only says I can’t be NAKED.”

      “This isn’t infanticide; the law doesn’t consider it an infant until it’s completely born, so with part still inside it’s “just” a fetus.”
      Disgusting and barbaric.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack
  • chuckl

    Abortion – Termination of human life before birth for the convenience of another.

    Murder – Termination of human life during normally productive lifetime, for the convenience of another.

    Euthanasia – Termination of human life when elderly or sick, for the convenience of another.

    Can you find both common threads?

  • danielbdp

    If they don’t muster to fillibuster…

    Just read this (warning: get ready to throw up) http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37830

    What else do they need? They got We The People on their back – what are they afraid of????

    For God’s sake – this is a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, and they were talking about movies and songs yesterday!!! I see more pinkslips come November if they roll over on this nomination…

    Please sign the petition at

    http://www.patriotupdate.com/stories/read/3626/Sign-Petition-to-Stop-Elena-Kagans-Nomination-Protect-Free-Speech

  • danielbdp

    Elena Kagan should be rejected for the Supreme Court:

    * Donated to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
    * Minimal judicial experience – she has never decided a single case and, since serving as SG, has only argued six cases before the Supreme Court.
    * Excluded military recruiters from Harvard Law School – and they continue to be banned to this day.
    * Joined a brief submitted to the Supreme Court that attempted to obtain a constitutional right for schools to exclude military recruiters.
    * Openly supports the use of foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution.
    * Donated to radical pro-abortion feminist groups with ties to pro-choice PAC Emily’s List.
    * Has strong ties to abortion-advocacy organizations and has expressed admiration for activist judges who have worked to advance social policy rather than to impartially interpret the law. President Obama said, just weeks before appointing Kagan, that he was looking for someone who would be a “strong advocate for women’s rights”, which in his lips of course is code for “abortion rights.” Elena Kagan fits like a glove.
    * Condemned the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy as “a profound wrong, a moral injustice of the first order.”
    * Failed to seek a Supreme Court review of a rogue Ninth Circuit ruling that threatened “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and that subjected the military to burdensome litigation.

    It has also been erroneously construed that Elena Kagan opposes same-sex marriage. Under her charge, the U.S. DOJ filed a brief that gratuitously abandoned strong grounds for defending the Defense of Marriage Act. Prominent supporter of same-sex marriage, Law Professor Dale Carpenter, celebrated the brief as “a gift to the gay-marriage movement” that “will no doubt make its way into judicial opinions.” During Kagan’s confirmation process when she was nominated for Solicitor General last year, she strongly signaled that if given the chance, she would invent a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

    Please contact your Senators at 202-224-3121 and sign the below petition:

    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/rejectelenakagan/