Elena Kagan: "I'm sorry-the memo which is?"

Thursday, July 1, AD 2010

8 Responses to Elena Kagan: "I'm sorry-the memo which is?"

  • “Confutatis maledictis, voca me cum benedictis” Dies Irae

  • “The document is certainly in my handwriting.”

    This is worthy of Kagan’s old boss, Bill Clinton.

  • “That depends how you define ‘wrote’.”

  • But did the Partial Birth Abortion Ban really save any lives? (sarc.)

  • Kagan ordered the code red alright, for half born babies to be mutilated. Just another Obama thug.

  • It makes no difference what skeletons are brought out of her closet. We are talking an Obama and MSM offering of the most extreme progressive liberal female they could find to carry their agenda to our highest court to see that what a liberal congress can’t openly achieve through legislation a stacked court will be able to accomplish.
    The sad part is that constitutional conservatives don’t have the guts to do the right thing for fear of being labeled “obstructionist”, bigots, or both by the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Biden, and of course the entire lame stream media. When the Democrats are put in this position they have no qualms and raise holy hell from the roof tops and considered “heroes” of democracy.
    Denying the presence and power of the many Evil forces working 24/7 to divert our thoughts and attention from the tender love and gentle guidance of our Creator is the single most devastating threat to our individual happiness and freedom and society in general.

  • Kagan seems to have dodged this controversy, but both she and ACOG need to say more. It’s hard for her to deny she was plenty involved.

    In a short handwritten note in 1997, Kagan told her superior Bruce Reed that the ACOG memo turned out “a ton better than expected.” She added “I’ll let you know in person what happened.”

    Bruce Reed is now CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council and he co-authored a book with Rahm Emanuel. While he’d be the right man to ask about this issue, there’s little reason to think he’d clear things up if anything had been improper.

    Reed has a whole box catalogued at the Bill Clinton Library on abortion issues. If I had the money, I’d hire a researcher to comb through it to see if there is anything more to the story.

    (Click my name for the full info and a copy of the image.)

  • How morally bankrupt do you have to be to support partial birth abortion? And how morally bankrupt do you have to be to lie about scientific facts in order to justify others to support partial birth abortion?

    And yet such a person is about to sit on the Supreme Court? What has this country become when the unthinkable becomes acceptable to a justice on the Supreme Court? The title justice is a misnomer when it comes to Ms. Kagan.

Kagan Engaged in Falsification of Evidence to Defeat Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Wednesday, June 30, AD 2010

The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat Senator from New York, was a pro-abort, but he voted to ban partial birth abortion, which he correctly described as “barely disguised infanticide”.  Many pro-aborts draw the line at this gruesome killing of an infant.  Not so Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan apparently.  Shannen W. Coffin has written a fascinating article at National Review Online.  Coffin was the deputy attorney general in the Bush administration who defended the partial birth abortion ban law.  In this article he details how Kagan falsified evidence in an attempt to defeat a partial birth abortion ban in Congress during the Clinton administration:

When President Obama promised in his inaugural address to “restore science to its rightful place,” he never explained what that rightful place would be. Documents recently released in connection with the Supreme Court nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan suggest an answer: wherever it can best be used to skew political debate and judicial outcomes.

The documents involved date from the Clinton White House. They show Miss Kagan’s willingness to manipulate medical science to fit the Democratic party’s political agenda on the hot-button issue of abortion. As such, they reflect poorly on both the author and the president who nominated her to the Supreme Court.

There is no better example of this distortion of science than the language the United States Supreme Court cited in striking down Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000. This language purported to come from a “select panel” of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a supposedly nonpartisan physicians’ group. ACOG declared that the partial-birth-abortion procedure “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” The Court relied on the ACOG statement as a key example of medical opinion supporting the abortion method.

Years later, when President Bush signed a federal partial-birth-abortion ban (something President Clinton had vetoed), the ACOG official policy statement was front and center in the attack on the legislation. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kopf, one of the three federal judges that issued orders enjoining the federal ban (later overturned by the Supreme Court), devoted more than 15 pages of his lengthy opinion to ACOG’s policy statement and the integrity of the process that led to it.

Like the Supreme Court majority in the prior dispute over the Nebraska ban, Judge Kopf asserted that the ACOG policy statement was entitled to judicial deference because it was the result of an inscrutable collaborative process among expert medical professionals. “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.

In other words, what medical science has pronounced, let no court dare question. The problem is that the critical language of the ACOG statement was not drafted by scientists and doctors. Rather, it was inserted into ACOG’s policy statement at the suggestion of then–Clinton White House policy adviser Elena Kagan.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Kagan Engaged in Falsification of Evidence to Defeat Partial Birth Abortion Ban

  • So the most pro-abortion President has appointed the most pro-abortion Supreme Court nominee. How will Esau Catholics defend this?

  • I’m shocked! Shocked!!!

    Ms. Kagan lied in a legalistical, federal (paid for by we the people) document dishonestly written to keep infanticide licit.

    No! Wait. It wasn’t a lie. She was protecting a woman’s right to choose!

    Ms. Sotomayor also lied when she gave sworn testimony in her confirmation hearings on her support for the Second Amendment and first chance voted the opposite.

    You will not get into Heaven if you vote democrat.

  • The Democrats believed the mild-mannered, highly qualified, and well-respected Samuel Alito to be so “extreme” that his nomination to the Supreme Court merited a filibuster.

    I believe the filibuster to be borderline unconstitutional when exercised in the case of judicial appointments, and believe it should have been “nuked” when the Republicans had a chance. But thanks to the Senator who just received a rare GOP primary endorsement from National Review, however, the filibuster is still available to defeat nominations to the judiciary.

    Working within the system we have, therefore, I now support a filibuster of Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Her views on abortion are the very definition of extreme, but that’s hardly surprising coming from a Democrat-appointed nominee. But her falsifying a scientific report that was used as evidence in court to defeat legislative bans on one of the more brutal abortion procedures ever dreamed up shows her to be not only extreme, but unethical and untrustworthy and makes unfit to be an officer of the court, much less a life-tenured member of the highest Court in the land deciding the very issues on which she has manipulated evidence to affect the outcome.

  • To me this seems to speak more to the duplicity of ACOG than Kagan. ACOG wanted to oppose the ban on partial-birth abortion; they consulted attorneys in the White House to assist them, and Kagan was working there at the time.

    Also, it seems to me that these statements are not in conflict:

    “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”

    “in the vast majority of cases, selection of the partial birth procedure is not necessary to avert serious adverse consequences to a woman’s health.”

    “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.”

    Something can be the “best or most appropriate option” (awful terms, those) even if it wasn’t the only option; and something can be best in a ‘particular circumstance’ that isn’t necessary in the vast majority of circumstances. In other words, this isn’t, technically, a lie. There is clear and scandalous dishonesty by ACOG insofar as they presented their findings as the product of a ‘scientific’ panel rather than lawyerly advocacy, but I am not sure how much Kagan is to blame for ACOG’s deceit. Now, partial-birth abortion is an awful thing – and it reflects poorly on Kagan and Clinton that they supported it – but if her actions described above were on another issue, for instance, one I agreed with, then I don’t think I’d be that troubled by them. That said, ACOG’s conduct here is a disgrace.

  • Perhaps to the extent that she authored the lie that ACOG used. So the fact that ACOG is more duplicitous that Kagan doesn’t mean she isn’t. Perhaps we can call them co-conspirators in the continued effort to expand the ability to murder innocents.

  • And you wouldn’t be troubled by a lawyer blatantly lying about medical facts to influence court cases?

  • Phillip,

    The point is that the statements aren’t inconsistent. Kagan’s formulation: ‘may be most appropriate…in a particular circumstance’ is extremely broad wording; something that isn’t necessary in the “vast majority of circumstances” or that isn’t the “only option” still “may be most appropriate…in a particular circumstance.” The lie comes in on the packaging – this was being presented as a medical conclusion by a ‘non-partisan’ group of doctors, when it was really straight political advocacy (from the White House, no less), complete with wiggle room and squishy language that suggests more than it means. In other words, it’s the type of language lawyers use when they are arguing a case. I guess I agree that Kagan acted unethically insofar as she knew that this study would be presented as the work of ‘non-partisan’ scientists rather than Clinton-administration lawyers. ACOG’s actions here were shockingly fraudulent.

  • I guess by that logic each are equally at fault. Both were seeking to provide the best justification possible through legal wording for a procedure that is the brutal murder of a child during birth.

  • jh:

    “Wiggle room” I got a visual of a baby’s legs flailing while a ‘doc’ plunged the blade through his/her skull.

    Do you have a conscience?

    Does all that sophistry ease your conscience for voting for mass murder?

  • T. Shaw,


    Not sure I understand the question. If you mean voting for Bush meant that I was responsible for the Iraq War, I disagree. I never thought the war was justified. If you mean that not voting for Obama means that I signed off on his judicial nominations, I don’t know what to tell you. Even if I had voted for Obama, that vote wouldn’t necessarily connote support for Kagan, much less for her actions as an employee of the Clinton Administration.

  • But at some point one had to know that this would be Obama’s type of appointment to the Court. At some point Catholics who voted for Obama would have to know that voting for him would (even if not directly supported) result in the most pro-abortion Supreme Court picks.

  • Phillip makes my point.

    It seems I ate a ton of lead paint chips when I was a kid.