Those idiots at Townhall.com make pages so elaborate that they spend half their time crashing. Basically, it said that during her period in the Clinton administration, Elena Kagan, who was no scientist and had no authority to do anything of the kind, deleted and rewrote the findings of a scientific commission on partial-birth abortion - perjury with intent, evidence of bad moral character. Such a woman should not be within sniffing distance of a small claims court, let alone of SCOTUS.
Many of us have known for years that the scientific community is not as pristine pure as they’d like the public to think; politics has long been alive and well at American universities and among the peer-review networks. It is still shocking, however, to discover that the White House has tampered with scientific findings.
The political official in charge of defending the partial-birth abortion act in federal court during the Bush administration, Shannen Coffin, described for National Review his discovery of documents released by the Clinton White House that show the apparent manipulation of a scientific report on partial-birth abortion by Elena Kagan, the nominee for the Supreme Court who is undergoing confirmation hearings this week.
If the reports are true –– and there are hand-written notes that seem to indicate Kagan’s direct involvement in the deception –– Kagan’s name should immediately be withdrawn from consideration for the Supreme Court and she should be disbarred and disgraced.
Here are the facts. A “select panel” of physician-members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a professional medical association that sponsors/conducts medical studies and publishes results, issued a report –– with the professional credibility of ACOG behind it –– that 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.”
That statement was used in numerous court cases as “official” medical opinion regarding the partial-birth abortion procedure.
Now we learn –– thanks to Powerline blog and National Review –– that ACOG’s original statement said exactly the opposite. Further, we learn –– appallingly –– that ACOG sent their findings to the Clinton White House for review prior to publishing the report. [Astounding. Can you imagine any scientific report being sent to a conservative politician for review and editing prior to publishing. The media would, rightly, be up in arms.] At the White House, the original statement was read by Elena Kagan, who was Clinton’s deputy assistant for domestic policy.
According to Powerline and National Review, Kagan was horrified that the report said “ACOG could identify no circumstances under which” partial-birth abortion “would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” Kagan apparently “took matters into her own hands” and, in her own handwriting, produced a draft suggesting that the procedure “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.”
ACOG produced a final statement utilizing Kagan’s version verbatim.
If these facts are, indeed, true, Kagan –– a nominee for the Supreme Court –– manipulated a scientific report to suit her political opinions and deliberately, as Powerline put it, “subverted what was supposed to be an objective scientific process.” And, ACOG was complicit in the distortion for political and self-serving reasons. As Powerline further said, “The federal courts were victimized by a gross deception and a perversion of both the scientific process and the judicial process, carried out, the evidence appears to show, by Elena Kagan.”
ACOG’s involvement in this deception is especially egregious. Their president at the time, Douglas W. Laube, was self-righteous in his statement of opposition to the Supreme Court decision in 2007 upholding the partial-birth abortion ban. His statement called the decision “shameful and incomprehensible” and lamented a situation where “scientific knowledge frequently takes a backseat to subjective opinion.”
Lesser scholars have lost their positions and their reputations for plagiarism or scientific distortion. Here a prestigious professional organization deliberately manipulates its findings to accommodate a political ideology and aligns itself with a lowly deputy in the Clinton White House to accomplish its ideological distortion. The false report is used in courts to continue an abhorrent, brutal practice that repels people of compassion and decency.
In the meantime, the woman behind such a pivotal lie sits in the catbird seat, practically assured confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice of the United States by complicit senators who control the nomination process –– with dozens of television cameras recording her “charm” and practiced, vapid responses for future generations.
Will the Republican senators find the courage to stop such an outrageous nomination from proceeding? Will they quietly stand by while colleagues confirm someone who was willing to distort a scientific report to suit her purposes? Is this the caliber of person whose judgment will be considered high court “wisdom?”
Thanks. “ACOG could identify no circumstances under which” partial-birth abortion “would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” This, to me, is the conclusion that anyone with an ounce of medical knowledge should come to. If the woman's already carried the baby for 7 or 8 months, why not just induce labor or do a c-section in case of emergency? Preemies younger than 7 months are delivered and survive on a regular basis, and if the mother can't take care of the child, there's adoption.
If you think that's bad, how about the recent "report" from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, claiming that a 24-week-old foetus is incapable of feeling pain? This, mind you, in an age when hundreds of premature babies are brought out at 24 weeks and survive, and the mothers - let alone the nurses and doctors - are capable of seeing with their own eyes that the child does in fact feel? To that extent does abortion criminalize the mind of its practitioners and supporters. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10062906.html
Honestly, I do not get why some people are "for" abortion so aggressively. What causes that? Is it driven by evil? (Please note that I don't often use the word "evil", and so it's not the case I'm asking glibly. I really just do not understand at all the mad drive some seem to have about abortion.)
Honestly, do doctors over there really make that much money doing abortions? There are fewer and fewer doctors over here that will work in abortion clinics anymore. Even the docs that have nothing personal against abortions say it doesn't pay well and they don't like to have to deal with the protestors.
There are no protesters in England, but it is true that there are less and less doctors interested in the work - people don't become medics to rip human bodies to bits with suction devices. But the ones who do dominate the institutions, and are correspondingly obstinate and fanatical - as this insult to the public's intelligence shows.
I reckon I don't understand what kind of self-interest there is in abortion, other than maybe some kind of possible political interest... and even that's a stretch for me to conceive.
Where British instititutions are concerned, you have to imagine permanent insanity fuelled by ever-fostered groupthink. I know that it is not easy for a sane man to imagine.
Hmmm, at least this new costume looks something more like a proper superhero leotard - still oversexed, but what can you expect. Now if they could get rid of all the lesbian/BDSM baggage, they might have a character I can actually touch without a radiation suit.
I think she looks like an Emo-Chick, with bracelets to cover up her cutting episodes. Very Jet-Set, without the in-your-face trashiness of the Kardashians. (Maybe because she can paint the floor with Bruce Jenner.) v1.0 looked happier.
Has anyone else come out with this story? I'm told Townhall.com suffers the reputation of being the 'National Enquirer' of the Republican party. That will make anything published there are tough sell for some folks, regardless of the accuracy of the reporting.
I don't scour the internet for news, but you will notice that the story is sourced to a former Bush staffer and surrounded by responsible caveats - if this is true, etc. In my experience, the National Enquirer of the right is Joseph Farrah's World Net Daily, a tinfoil-hatted production I no longer read. WND does its own investigating and reporting, if you can call it that; Townhall.com reprints news from various agencies and columns from various syndicates.
Apparently she has now admitted it herself during the hearings. IF this is true, and IF she is confirmed notwithstanding, it means that integrity of character is no longer a requirement for a Supreme Court judge.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-07-01 02:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-01 03:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-01 03:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-01 03:08 pm (UTC)Here is the full text
Date: 2010-07-01 03:05 pm (UTC)The political official in charge of defending the partial-birth abortion act in federal court during the Bush administration, Shannen Coffin, described for National Review his discovery of documents released by the Clinton White House that show the apparent manipulation of a scientific report on partial-birth abortion by Elena Kagan, the nominee for the Supreme Court who is undergoing confirmation hearings this week.
If the reports are true –– and there are hand-written notes that seem to indicate Kagan’s direct involvement in the deception –– Kagan’s name should immediately be withdrawn from consideration for the Supreme Court and she should be disbarred and disgraced.
Here are the facts. A “select panel” of physician-members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a professional medical association that sponsors/conducts medical studies and publishes results, issued a report –– with the professional credibility of ACOG behind it –– that 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.”
That statement was used in numerous court cases as “official” medical opinion regarding the partial-birth abortion procedure.
Now we learn –– thanks to Powerline blog and National Review –– that ACOG’s original statement said exactly the opposite. Further, we learn –– appallingly –– that ACOG sent their findings to the Clinton White House for review prior to publishing the report. [Astounding. Can you imagine any scientific report being sent to a conservative politician for review and editing prior to publishing. The media would, rightly, be up in arms.] At the White House, the original statement was read by Elena Kagan, who was Clinton’s deputy assistant for domestic policy.
continued
Date: 2010-07-01 03:06 pm (UTC)ACOG produced a final statement utilizing Kagan’s version verbatim.
If these facts are, indeed, true, Kagan –– a nominee for the Supreme Court –– manipulated a scientific report to suit her political opinions and deliberately, as Powerline put it, “subverted what was supposed to be an objective scientific process.” And, ACOG was complicit in the distortion for political and self-serving reasons. As Powerline further said, “The federal courts were victimized by a gross deception and a perversion of both the scientific process and the judicial process, carried out, the evidence appears to show, by Elena Kagan.”
ACOG’s involvement in this deception is especially egregious. Their president at the time, Douglas W. Laube, was self-righteous in his statement of opposition to the Supreme Court decision in 2007 upholding the partial-birth abortion ban. His statement called the decision “shameful and incomprehensible” and lamented a situation where “scientific knowledge frequently takes a backseat to subjective opinion.”
Lesser scholars have lost their positions and their reputations for plagiarism or scientific distortion. Here a prestigious professional organization deliberately manipulates its findings to accommodate a political ideology and aligns itself with a lowly deputy in the Clinton White House to accomplish its ideological distortion. The false report is used in courts to continue an abhorrent, brutal practice that repels people of compassion and decency.
In the meantime, the woman behind such a pivotal lie sits in the catbird seat, practically assured confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice of the United States by complicit senators who control the nomination process –– with dozens of television cameras recording her “charm” and practiced, vapid responses for future generations.
Will the Republican senators find the courage to stop such an outrageous nomination from proceeding? Will they quietly stand by while colleagues confirm someone who was willing to distort a scientific report to suit her purposes? Is this the caliber of person whose judgment will be considered high court “wisdom?”
Re: continued
Date: 2010-07-01 03:14 pm (UTC)Re: continued
Date: 2010-07-01 03:34 pm (UTC)http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10062906.html
Re: continued
Date: 2010-07-01 05:20 pm (UTC)Re: continued
Date: 2010-07-01 06:35 pm (UTC)Re: continued
Date: 2010-07-01 10:52 pm (UTC)There are fewer and fewer doctors over here that will work in abortion clinics anymore. Even the docs that have nothing personal against abortions say it doesn't pay well and they don't like to have to deal with the protestors.
Re: continued
Date: 2010-07-02 02:02 am (UTC)Re: continued
Date: 2010-07-03 02:59 pm (UTC)Re: continued
Date: 2010-07-03 03:33 pm (UTC)Re: continued
Date: 2010-07-03 04:00 pm (UTC)Re: continued
Date: 2010-07-02 01:38 am (UTC)Re: continued
Date: 2010-07-02 02:04 am (UTC)Also, OT to this post,
Date: 2010-07-01 03:06 pm (UTC)http://www.stylelist.com/2010/06/30/wonder-woman-new-look/?icid=main|main|dl5|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stylelist.com%2F2010%2F06%2F30%2Fwonder-woman-new-look%2F
Re: Also, OT to this post,
Date: 2010-07-01 03:08 pm (UTC)Re: Also, OT to this post,
Date: 2010-07-01 03:16 pm (UTC)Re: Also, OT to this post,
Date: 2010-07-01 05:17 pm (UTC)Re: Also, OT to this post,
Date: 2010-07-02 11:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-01 09:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-02 01:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-04 04:07 am (UTC)