The War on Science [Kagan v Science]

If you haven’t read Shannen Coffin’s piece on Elena Kagan and the partial-birth-abortion debate today, you really should. What he describes, based on newly released Clinton White House memos, is absolutely astonishing.

It seems that the most important statement in the famous position paper of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists—a 1996 document that was central to the case of partial-birth-abortion defenders for the subsequent decade and played a major role in a number of court cases and political battles—was drafted not by an impartial committee of physicians, as both ACOG and the pro-abortion lobby claimed for years, but by Elena Kagan, who was then the deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy.

Kagan saw ACOG’s original paper, which did not include the claim that partial-birth abortion “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman,” but, on the contrary, said that ACOG “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” She wrote a memo to two White House colleagues noting that this language would be “a disaster” for the cause of partial-birth abortion, and she then set out to do something about it. In notes released by the White House it now looks as though Kagan herself—a senior Clinton White House staffer with no medical background—proposed the “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman” language, and sent it to ACOG, which then included that language in its final statement.

What’s described in these memos is easily the most serious and flagrant violation of the boundary between scientific expertise and politics I have ever encountered. A White House official formulating a substantive policy position for a supposedly impartial physicians’ group, and a position at odds with what that group’s own policy committee had actually concluded? You have to wonder where all the defenders of science—those intrepid guardians of the freedom of inquiry who throughout the Bush years wailed about the supposed politicization of scientific research and expertise—are now. If the Bush White House (in which I served as a domestic policy staffer) had ever done anything even close to this it would have been declared a monumental scandal, and rightly so.

corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmY0ODUxMjcwYWY3OWU3MGRmM2QwYjkwMjNiMjlkNmU=

I wish there was a way to rename this thread. I just read this article and I think it proves without a doubt that Kagan is a complete ideologue. Just like Gore did with global warming, she changed the facts, quite literally, to say what she wanted to say. Just like the Obama administration did with the experts' report on the oil spill, purposely inserting the "finding" that a 6-month moratorium is in order.

"Upon receiving the task force’s draft statement, Kagan noted in another internal memorandum [PDF] that the draft ACOG formulation “would be a disaster — not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation.” Any expression of doubt by a leading medical body about the efficacy of the procedure would severely undermine the case against the ban.

So Kagan set about solving the problem. 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.) The judicial battles that followed led to two Supreme Court opinions, several trials, and countless felled trees. Now we learn that language purporting to be the judgment of an independent body of medical experts devoted to the care and treatment of pregnant women and their children was, in the end, nothing more than the political scrawling of a White House appointee. "

This is totally and completely evil, no other word will suit it. Kagan purposely doctored this document to say what she wanted so that babies could be killed, and in the most gruesome of ways.

This is what liberals do. They feel that the ends always justify the means, no matter what the "means" are. They have no scruples, it seems they have no conscience. How can any one with any sense of morality support this woman?

I truly hope and pray that the Republicans will stand up to her and expose her for exactly what she is - a far left liberal who seeks to impose her beliefs on everyone else. She is imminently unqualified to be a justice at any level, and most particularly at the Supreme Court level.

Imagine if Alito or Roberts wrote about upholding late term or partial birth abortion laws? :eek:

Ouch.

I've been trying to hope for the best, but this don't look good. But then it is exactly what I expected from Obama.

[quote="josephdavid, post:3, topic:203696"]
Imagine if Alito or Roberts wrote about upholding late term or partial birth abortion laws? :eek:

[/quote]

Imagine if you managed to come up with a reply that was actually relevant? :eek:

How is that not relevant. The question is what if Alito or Roberts upheld late term/partial birth abortion laws?

Oops, I missed the part where the OP started praising Alito and Roberts. My bad. :rolleyes:

[quote="josephdavid, post:6, topic:203696"]
How is that not relevant. The question is what if Alito or Roberts upheld late term/partial birth abortion laws?

[/quote]

What does this have to do with Kagan doctoring documents to push partial birth abortion?

[quote="Brooklyn, post:8, topic:203696"]
What does this have to do with Kagan doctoring documents to push partial birth abortion?

[/quote]

Alito has upheld partial birth abortion laws which allow partial birth abortions in NJ.

[quote="josephdavid, post:9, topic:203696"]
Alito has upheld partial birth abortion laws which allow partial birth abortions in NJ.

[/quote]

It doesn't make me happy and I'm very disappointed in Alito. HOWEVER, that does not change what Kagan did - purposely inserting a phrase into an official "scientific" document that has no basis in science. Neither Alito nor Roberts can be accused of something so willfully dishonest. Of course, we do know that our president has done such things, so I guess that's why it doesn't bother him in the least.

If nothing else, this should immediately disqualify her for the Supreme Court position.

theamericanview.com/dictator/images/472/judge_alito_says_this_cannot_be_banned_b.jpg

But.. but.. but... somebody else did it TOOOO!! :crying::rolleyes:

[quote="exoflare, post:11, topic:203696"]
But.. but.. but... somebody else did it TOOOO!! :crying::rolleyes:

[/quote]

And that is ok for you? Is it ok for you to call out one person because she was nominated by a Democrat, but not hold accountable another Judge because.....?

What was it, 54% of Catholics voted for Kagan in the last election?

A little late to whine now.

[quote="josephdavid, post:12, topic:203696"]
And that is ok for you? Is it ok for you to call out one person because she was nominated by a Democrat, but not hold accountable another Judge because.....?

[/quote]

It is clear that you oppose Alito, but are you approving what Kagan did? Why change the topic of the thread?

I'm not familiar with any ruling that Alito has made as a Supreme Court Justice that upheld any right to a partial birth abortion. Can you give me a link to that so that I can read his reasoning? I know that he did make at least one ruling as an appellate judge, but in that case, he was doing exactly what an appellate judge is supposed to do - use Supreme Court rulings as guidance. I look forward to the link you will provide.

Peace

Tim

[quote="Orogeny, post:14, topic:203696"]
It is clear that you oppose Alito, but are you approving what Kagan did? Why change the topic of the thread?

[/quote]

Yes because I knew about his judgement to uphold partial birth/late term abortions in NJ. And now becoming an activist judge and determining that corporations are people too and are allowed to donate unlimited amounts of money to campaigns.

I'm not familiar with any ruling that Alito has made as a Supreme Court Justice that upheld any right to a partial birth abortion. Can you give me a link to that so that I can read his reasoning? I know that he did make at least one ruling as an appellate judge, but in that case, he was doing exactly what an appellate judge is supposed to do - use Supreme Court rulings as guidance. I look forward to the link you will provide.

It was when he was an appellate judge for the 3rd court (theamericanview.com/index.php?id=472). If he is so pro-life he would of either rulled against it or recused himself.

[quote="josephdavid, post:12, topic:203696"]
And that is ok for you? Is it ok for you to call out one person because she was nominated by a Democrat, but not hold accountable another Judge because.....?

[/quote]

How did they vote on Gonzales v. Carhart.

You seem to forget that.

Now, let's move on the the article....

Here is Coffin's article,

Kagan’s Abortion Distortion

article.nationalreview.com/437296/kagans-abortion-distortion/shannen-w-coffin?page=1

[quote="josephdavid, post:15, topic:203696"]
Yes because I knew about his judgement to uphold partial birth/late term abortions in NJ. And now becoming an activist judge and determining that corporations are people too and are allowed to donate unlimited amounts of money to campaigns.

[/quote]

So you do approve of Kagan changing the report. At least we are clear that you suppport dishonesty to advance your cause.

As far as Alito goes, do you understand what he did and why he did it?

It was when he was an appellate judge for the 3rd court (theamericanview.com/index.php?id=472). If he is so pro-life he would of either rulled against it or recused himself.

You can ignore my last question. It is clear that you don't understand or, at the very least choose to not understand what he did and why he did it.

At least you should be happy that your person will be confirmed to the Supreme Court. That way she doesn't have to falsify a document to push her agenda. It is a lifetime appointment so now she can just be honest.

Peace

Tim

[quote="Orogeny, post:17, topic:203696"]
So you do approve of Kagan changing the report. At least we are clear that you suppport dishonesty to advance your cause.

How do I support dishonesty.

At least you should be happy that your person will be confirmed to the Supreme Court. That way she doesn't have to falsify a document to push her agenda. It is a lifetime appointment so now she can just be honest.

Who said she is my choice? Just getting tired of seeing hyprocrisy run rampet of holding someone's name to the fire but not holding others to same regard when they are just as guilty. I prefer to hold all necessary peoples accountable regardless of any political affiliation.

[/quote]

[quote="josephdavid, post:18, topic:203696"]
.... Just getting tired of seeing hyprocrisy run rampet of holding someone's name to the fire but not holding others to same regard when they are just as guilty. I prefer to hold all necessary peoples accountable regardless of any political affiliation.

[/quote]

JD, read the article Orogeny linked. Alito's decision on Planned Parenthood Of Central New Jersey v. John Farmer, Jr was based on the SCOTUS precedent in Stenberg v. Carhart. Interestingly enough, that decision was affected by the "coached" ACOG, as proven in the previous articles

Our responsibility as a lower court is to follow and apply controlling Supreme Court precedent.....

You also fail to note how Alito voted on the subsequent Gonzales v. Carhart, when he wasn't bound in a lower court to the SCOTUS decion.

The Coffin article is VERY daming for Kagan. I'm not sure if it will have any affect on her nomination.

It should.

[quote="Orogeny, post:14, topic:203696"]
It is clear that you oppose Alito, but are you approving what Kagan did? Why change the topic of the thread?

I'm not familiar with any ruling that Alito has made as a Supreme Court Justice that upheld any right to a partial birth abortion. Can you give me a link to that so that I can read his reasoning? I know that he did make at least one ruling as an appellate judge, but in that case, he was doing exactly what an appellate judge is supposed to do - use Supreme Court rulings as guidance. I look forward to the link you will provide.

Peace

Tim

[/quote]

Alito seems to be the kind of judge who take seriously his commission to rule on the laws as they exist rather than on how he may personally like them to be. In general terms, that is how I have heard his judicial philosophy described.

That being the case, his own personal views would matter very little. The law is the law and he swore himself to upholding the law and the constitution. An activist judge might consider molding the law to fit an ideological agenda, but that just doesn't seem to be what an Alito would be all about.

It would seem to me though that it would be a little disengenous at the very least to present Alito as someone who the pro-abortionists in this country would in any way support. We can all imagine Kagan being a welcome speaker at the NARAL convention for example. That kind of scenario would surprise no one. On the other hand, to propose that Alito might be a welcomed guess speaker at one of their events would strike most of us as rather incongruous at the very least

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.