Posted on 06/29/2010 5:56:05 PM PDT by macquire
The note does appear to be in Kagan's handwriting; you can see a sample of her writing here. Unless there is some other interpretation of these documents that does not occur to me, it appears that Elena Kagan participated in a gigantic scientific deception. On behalf of the Clinton White House, she deliberately subverted what was supposed to be an objective scientific process. The ACOG report was certainly seen in that light by the federal courts. Federal Judge Richard Kopf was deeply impressed by the scientific integrity of the report; he wrote: "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. This statement was obviously false. 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. Ms. Kagan has a great deal of explaining to do. Unless she can come up with an innocent explanation for these documents, she should not be confirmed.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
If this is true, the first Republican who next interviews her should start out by advising her of her Miranda rights.
And the next question is obvious. How many cases have the Democrats submitted to the courts where the text has been altered to change the facts?
___________________________________________________________
Exactly. Chilling, isn’t it?
bookmark
I sincerely doubt that there are any Labs that desperate...
..............kagan could have lesbian sex with a Labrador Retriever in the middle of the hearings tomorrow, and she will still be confirmed.
.............
Maybe if we can get Barney Frank into the Kagan action, so that the Labrator Retriever has some choices as to whose balls to lick to get his treat!
It’s nightmarish. It Federal judges are unable to verify the truth of what is being submitted, any number of legal atrocities can come about. If this is what really happened, I hope that the judge who ruled on the issue that Kagan was the advocate will cry foul and order a criminal investigation.
The reference was to Harvey Korman’s character in “Blazing Saddles.”
What the hell is the ACOG report?
I know, I can just skip it, but the article might actually be useful. On principle, I refuse to waste my time. I'll never know...
Take a look here for a better report:
http://article.nationalreview.com/437296/kagans-abortion-distortion/shannen-w-coffin
Thanks for posting that link. It’s an important story.
Sessions is trying to organize a filibuster, let’s hope he does it alone if need be. You are right about many of the fickin’ republicans however, they are CS to the core.
Hedy Lamar and she co-invented a method of changing radio frequencies randomly as a message was being sent and a method of receiving them on the other end. This method is still in use today in some instances. She was a great Patriot and, as you said, a real hottie.
I do hope this story has better legs than Elena. If I have to hear her voice again ... kill me now.
You’re welcome. This woman needs to be stopped. Shes a complete totalitarian.
Thanks ‘karnage’.
There is fact and truth in a common, little people way, and there is Harvard/Yale/Elite ‘higher’ truth.
“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.”
I don't think the two sentences are contradictory, although omitting the "could identify no circumstances" one of them does change the "tone" of the report.
[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.An intact D&X,, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.
As for why ACOG would agree to make the change, and radically change the tenor of the report, they are a pro-abortion organization. They are not neutral, as a policy matter, and only a fool would take them to be as such. The judge that lauded ACOG for its "objectivity" and "neutrality" was likewise engaging in policy-making, and wanted his decision to withstand appellate scrutiny.
ACOG is no more neutral than is the AMA, or the ABA. All of those professional organizations are agenda-driven.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.