Kagan’s Abortion Distortion

National Review Online: Kagan’s Abortion Distortion

I haven’t had a chance to really weigh in on the Kagan nomination.  It’s not that interesting of a story to me.  I’d like to see the GOP do their due dilligence of vetting her and then confirm her.  Is she going to be a good justice?  Absolutely not.  Neither is the man she’s replacing.  So what?  The people elected Barack Obama and their are consequences to that in our system of government.  But when I read stuff like this article, I start to second guess myself.

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.

I’m not sure if this is clinical, but it is unquestionably deceitful and unethical.  Elena Kagan lied, and her lie became a central element in national legislation and a Supreme Court case.  This makes her about as eligible for the post of Supreme Court Justice in my mind as Timothy Turbo-Tax Geithner is to head the IRS.



  1. Dee says:

    I figured “what the heck”, she doesn’t have any judicial experience but no one else in this administration has any experience either. She can join the rest of the “kids” running the country.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Standing ovation for 11:27…. oh snap!

Speak Your Mind