Yesterday Power Line posted an article about the actions of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan concerning the proposed ban on partial birth abortion. I won’t go into the details of the procedure here, if you are curious, google it.
A report from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) was used to support striking down the ban the state of Nebraska had placed on the procedure of partial birth abortion. The report stated:
“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.”
In the papers released as part of the confirmation of Ms. Kagan, there is a different story. According to Power Line:
“Here is the shocking part: the ACOG report, as originally drafted, said almost exactly the opposite. The initial draft said that the 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.” That language horrified the rabidly pro-abortion Elena Kagan, then a deputy assistant to President Clinton for domestic policy. This is what Kagan wrote in a memo to her superiors in the Clinton White House:
“Todd Stern just discovered that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is thinking about issuing a statement (attached) that includes the following sentence: “[A] select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which [the partial-birth] procedure … would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” This, of course, would be disaster — not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation. It is unclear whether ACOG will issue the statement; even if it does not, there is obviously a chance that the draft will become public.”
The draft was changed by Ms. Kagan and the statement released saying the procedure was justified. In other words, the scientific opinion was changed to accommodate the politics. Please follow the link above to Power LIne and see the handwritten notes there.
I rather doubt this will come up in the Senate testimony (Republicans are too polite to bring this up), but as an American, I am appalled by this sort of behavior. We are about to give a lifetime judicial term to someone with very questionable scruples.