She shouldn’t be allowed to sweep the floors of traffic court, and yet President Obama thinks she is fit to preside over the highest in the land.
As Elena Kagan attempts to sail through a confirmation process to take her first job as a judge on the nation’s highest court, National Review’s Shannen Coffin discovers one of the reasons why the Clinton Library seemed determined to keep records of her previous work quiet. The issue of partial-birth abortion had raged during the Clinton years, with the President ultimately vetoing a measure by Congress to ban the procedure, but Nebraska banned it on their own. In order to defeat that law, Kagan manipulated a report by a panel from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to fool the Supreme Court into thinking that doctors had supported the idea that it was a medically necessary procedure, when in fact ACOG couldn’t specify a single set of circumstances where it would save the life of the mother.
A while back my son posted some group on Facebook that opposed Kagan’s nomination, and I commented, “What’s the use?” I grieved for the Supreme Court along with about a hundred other things on November 4, 2008. My thinking was, if Republicans manage to block Kagan, there are plenty of other god-awful replacements waiting in the wings.
I don’t feel that way anymore. I don’t want this woman on the court. She is vintage Clintonian, with no respect for the truth or for rule of law. Like Clinton, she wanted the partial birth abortion kept legal, and what she wanted, she got. Even if it meant lying to a judge and manipulating expert testimony.
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.
And doesn’t this speak volumes about the phony demagoguery of the pro-abortion crowd? Kagan doesn’t give a crap about the health of the mother. When the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) declared that banning partial birth abortion wouldn’t affect women’s health, Kagan didn’t say, “Thank goodness! Now we can dispense with this horrific practice. What a burden has been lifted!”
No. She said it was a “disaster,” which reveals her true level of concern for women’s health. Healthy women do nothing to advance the cause of baby butchery. Healthy women are a “disaster” because healthy women can’t be used as a tool by the pro-abortion crowd to continue killing the innocent.
Upon receiving the task force’s draft statement, Kagan noted in another internal memorandum 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 she revised ACOG’s memo, sent it back, and they meekly and inexplicably agreed to reverse the opinion of their own expert physicians by pasting in the politically-expedient talking points of a White House aide.
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.)
This in itself is mind-boggling. Why would anybody at ACOG do anything but laugh at these ridiculous “revisions” let alone comply with every detail? But then, consider the source. ACOG is an organization supposedly dedicated to women and babies that supports legalized skull-crushing and brain-sucking, even when maternal health is not a concern. Apparently, they wanted to help Clinton keep the state-sanctioned bloodbath available in case it was needed under other circumstances.
They have discredited themselves, and rightfully so. But let’s not discredit the Supreme Court by confirming Kagan.