Scores of people have been searching through the Kagan papertrail she left at the White House during the Clinton years and a few pieces of paper should shock you. Elena Kagan, Obama’s nominee for the highest court in the land, purposely manipulated a supposed “nonpartisan” group of Physicians to get a certain political outcome. In so doing she was the key player in a major scientific deception:
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.The task force’s initial draft statement did not include the statement that the controversial abortion procedure “might be” the best method “in a particular circumstance.” Instead, it said that the select ACOG panel “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”
The smoking gun? It’s the internal memo she wrote saying that this would be a “disaster.”
Her notes, produced by the White House to the Senate Judiciary Committee, show that she herself drafted the critical language hedging ACOG’s position. On a document [PDF] captioned “Suggested Options” — which she apparently faxed to the legislative director at ACOG — Kagan proposed that ACOG include the following language: “An intact D&X [the medical term for the procedure], however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.”
Kagan’s language was copied verbatim by the ACOG executive board into its final statement, where it then became one of the greatest evidentiary hurdles faced by Justice Department lawyers (of whom I was one) in defending the federal ban. (Kagan’s role was never disclosed to the courts.)
She has a lot of explaining to do and the Republicans better be ready to do battle here. This is not about pro-life, pro-abortion…but the deliberate sabotage of a scientific process to get her political way.
More here.
See author page
Since it was used in subsequent legal arguments, and opinions, as an officer of the court is this even legal?
Like with Salazar lying to the Judge about experts, these people should be held into account.
This is outright fraud. It is contemptible. She is not qualified for SCOTUS.
And why hasn’t Salazar been fired?
She makes me sick. But I’m not surprised he picked someone so radical. I sure hope he doesn’t have a deal with Ginsberg to retire before November so he could put another left wing traitor on the court. The Republicans are letting us down by not stopping this fraud.
And, yes, elections have consequences. I doubt McCain/Palin would have saddled us with anything close to this disaster.
Kagan lied. Children died. Her hands are covered in the blood of the innocent. She shouldn’t be sitting on a court. She should be sitting in jail.
It looks like an outright lie, not a distortion.
One has to ask the question: If this was found out in the interview process for a candidate to join a company, of whatever size you can imagine, would that candidate still be talking with said company, or would he/she be shown the doors with a “thanks, but no thanks” attitude?
Clarification: by ‘this’, I mean a lie, not necessarily the particulars of the lie.
Fillibuster the confirmation of Kagan… hope for a great November election and impeach Obama before he can corrupt the court further.
@Donald Bly: I agree. This has to be stopped. All of the racist acts have to be stopped. The communist, anit-American agenda has to be stopped. Time to filibuster, protest, sue, and vote the bastards out of office. A segment of our society has proven they are not intelligent, fair or evolved enough to be in power.
So basically, Kagan put game changing words in the mouth of the ACOG that they not only did not say, but are antithetical to what they did say. She simultaneously disdained the professional authority of the ACOG and hijacked it for her own purposes, making it appear that they supported her view, when in actuality they opposed it.
The woman is evil.
@Jan
The woman is a product of liberal/socialist education, as is the president and his advisors. It is of no surprise, whatsoever, that Obama has chosen this particular person to replace Stevens.
On another note about Kagan, I would not find it too far-fetched for it to be revealed that she did this based on a misguided assumption that all lawyers, even ones representing conservative based cases, lie or misstate experts’ opinions on legal matters in order to win cases. That in itself would show a severe lack of judgment on her part(no pun intended). To say she has inexperience in legal proceedings, and ethical matters regarding them, is not really that hard.
Now you know where Obama learned to doctor expert witness testimony and conclusions after the fact to advance his agenda. His mentor is KAGAN 🙄
I agree this should disqualify her. We can’t find a decent honest lawyer or judge across the entire United States? Here’s an idea, how about someone not from Harvard.
Helping your client my manipulating the facts is what is taught in today’s law colleges, especially Harvard. Take the time to google their curriculum. Ethics isn’t a big part.