FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR
Elena Kagan – Scientific Supra-Genius
I remain totally and utterly convinced that Elena Kagan is the most dishonorable and deceitful nominee ever put forward for a seat on the SCOTUS. I would genuinely prefer that Barack Obama use his shaman-like magic powers and resurrect Democratic VP Aaron Burr for the job. If what Shannen W. Coffin wrote yesterday is true (and she has documentation to back her assertions), than Elena Kagan stands far more qualified to burn in Hell rather than sit on America’s High Court.
Unfortunately, due to the elections of 2006 and 2008, the odds of stopping Elena Kagan are only bounded at 0.00. However, as I lay out below, anyone who believes that human life is endowed with sanctity MUST, not maybe, not perhaps, not should but absolutely MUST, make a heartfelt and exhaustive attempt to bar her from ever attaining a seat on the Supreme Court.
Though Elena Kagan never studied medical science on the Ph D. level, on December 13, 1996, she apparently spent the night at a Holiday Inn Express. As a political staffer working for President Clinton she was tasked with reviewing a scientific study that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) had performed concerning the medical necessity of partial birth abortions. The ACOG, for reasons that are best left between themselves and their consciences, had sent a draft over to President Bill’s political shop to get chopped off on.
She and her ally Todd Allen had concerns with respect to language in the paper. On a memo composed December 14, 1996, Elena Kagan wrote the following paragraph.
“[A] select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which [the partial-birth] procedure … would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” This, of course, would be disaster — not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation. It is unclear whether ACOG will issue the statement; even if it does not, there is obviously a chance that the draft will become public.(Elena Kagan’s Memorandum to Quinn and Wallman (14 Dec 1996)).
The memorandum continues to explain why this would offer a politically unpalatable setback to the POTUS. It seems Then-Senator Daschle was attempting an almost, but not quite, ban on partial-birth abortions to provide Bill Clinton with political cover and a litigious loophole, to keep the procedure “safe, legal and rare.”
Sen. Daschle’s staff is working on a legislative proposal that would prohibit all postviability abortions, with a tight exception for life and health. Note that this proposal applies to post-viability abortions, not just to partial-birth abortions. Note also, however, that it applies to no pre-viability abortions, even if they are partial-birth. Daschle’s staff may use our language to define the health exception (“serious adverse health consequences”);.(Elena Kagan’s Memorandum to Quinn and Wallman (14 Dec 1996)).
Part of the debate over banning partial birth abortions centered on a lack of fundamental clarity regarding what exact medical procedures were involved in executing such an assassination. The ACOG, as a ghoulishly impartial referee, offered up a handy-dandy set of instructions. Skip the quoted source below if it would possibly abort an otherwise viable breakfast, lunch or dinner. The ACOG definition of a partial birth abortion follows below.
1. deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days; 2. instrumental conversion of the fetus to a footling breech; 3. breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and 4. partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of a living fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus.
In less clinical terms, Elena Kagan was charged with defending the legality of a procedure that 1) induced the delivery of a child; 2) turned the child around backwards in the delivery path; 3) pulling the baby out until only the head remained inside Mommy; and 4) sucking out a bunch of its brains like a horror-show zombie drinking a cool cranial smoothie. Elena Kagan presumably took a nuanced academic approach to offending such medically-sanctioned barbarism.
Given that she had zero difficulty defending such a grotesque and obvious act of murder, that she would blatantly encourage a lie to succeed in her defense should come as no surprise. The ACOG paper read that no viable pretense existed to keep “brain-suck abortions” legal as a necessary component to preserving female health and welfare. This would have undermined the moral and legislative gravamen for Senator Daschle’s not-so-banning ban on the procedure.
At this point, Elena Kagan showed a flair for The Big Lie that would have done old Goebbels and Lysenko proud. She saw that the science of the day and the politics of the day had gotten cross-wise in a manner that would not permit comity and co-existence. She suggested an edit to the scientific paper that brought the “science” in line with the political necessity.
The Scientists wrote “[A] select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which [the partial-birth] procedure … would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” The Political Scientist wrote “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman,…” To their eternal detriment as a voice of professional competence, the ACOG accepted a political edit from the POTUS policy shop as if it were a legitimate, scientific peer review comment.
The paper was changed and pro-abortionists specifically cited it in their arguments contra a Nebraska partial Birth Abortion Ban in a court of law. At no time during these procedures was it ever acknowledged that this language was written into the paper at the behest of a non-scientist. It was used as if the entire paper were composed of the professional judgment of licensed medical scientists.
Senators traditionally defer to the POTUS on his selection of SCOTUS justices. This precedent is considered a centerpiece of the professional comity between the Executive and Legislative Branches of our government. However, at no point in time, did the US Senate completely give up the power of Advise and Consent.
When a nominee for SCOTUS deliberately suborns scientific dishonesty to manufacture expert testimony on behalf of their legal position, they have endeavored to defraud the courts. Elena Kagan, in the instance where she told the ACOG what edits they should put in a scientific paper, suborned fraud to defend legalized murder. No Senator of either party can confirm this appointment and call themself a decent human being. That is all.
Cross-Posted At: THE MINORITY REPORT