Scandal: ACOG's collusion with the White House to rewrite objective medical opinion to fit subjective political script

kagan hearings logo.jpg

UDPATE, 1:09p: This is rich. NARAL has decided it had better speak up for Kagan, meaning the hoopla must be getting pretty serious, since pro-aborts detest talking anywhere near the subject of partial-birth abortion....

But in its attempt to defend Kagan for rewriting ACOG's scientific opinion about PBA, NARAL links to an ACOG statement decrying that "science be at the core" of PBA decisions, Whoops.

UPDATE, 12:58p: For all the hoopla since yesterday over the news Kagan meddled with ACOG's partial-birth abortion statement, you'd think she would have been better prepared for the questions, which started coming this morning and will apparently continue this afternoon.

Hot Air called her hamina hamina "Erkel 'Did I do that?" defense." Byron York wrote she sounded "slick" and "slippery." I think she sounded an awful lot like her former boss, Bill Clinton. Here was the dialogue:

"Did you write that memo?" Hatch asked.

"Senator, with respect," Kagan began, "I don't think that that's what happened -- "

"Did you write that memo?"

"I'm sorry - the memo which is?"

"The memo that caused them to go back to the language of 'medically necessary,' which was the big issue to begin with -- "

"Yes, well, I've seen the document -- "

"But did you write it?"

"The document is certainly in my handwriting."

UPDATE, 11:30a: From Human Events within the hour:

Republican Senators are "fully expected... to make an issue of this an issue in the 2nd round of questions this afternoon," a Senate source tells Human Events, referring to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's reported involvement in drafting a 1996 document on partial-birth abortion....

Senate Republicans appeared "very interested" in the questions raised by Shannen Coffin's report at National Review, the 1st source said.

None of the Democrats touched on the issues raised by Kagan's evident role in drafting ACOG's influential position paper on partial-birth abortion, which has been called "a gigantic scientific deception."

UPDATE, 11:20a: Statement from Senate Republicans: "Elena Kagan worked to re-write the findings of a medical group on partial birth abortion, used her adapted findings To persuade President Clinton, and remained silent when the adapted findings were used as medical evidence in subsequent court hearings."

10:46a: Read my column today for background.

acog logo.gifThis is a very big deal. This is a huge scandal, at least for the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. That it would 1st of all send its draft opinion of partial-birth abortion to the Clinton White House for review shows science and medicine colluding with pro-abortion ideology at the highest levels.

Revelations that ACOG in 1996 let the WH rewrite its collective professional medical opinion of PBA to fit Clinton's anti-PBA Ban agenda has at the very least marred ACOG's reputation forever. Why should anyone ever believe what ACOG says ever again?

But more so, here is evidence that pro-abortion medical and scientific professionals are perfectly willing to forgo facts to prop abortion.

So what does this say about the National Cancer Institute, which claims there is no link between abortion and breast cancer? Were any ACOG members on its panel of "experts"?

And what of last week's supposed findings by ACOG's sister, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, that preborn babies do not feel pain before 24 weeks? Does a willingness to let pro-abortion ideology trump science stretch across the pond? Even the New York Times smelled a rat:

Though it is not the 1st study to reach this conclusion, it is possibly the most politicized one, ordered up by the British Dept. of Health because certain members of Parliament wanted to reduce the legal time limit on abortion.

The Kagan/ACOG scandal could and should be used to take her down as a Supreme Court nominee. She showed she is willing and able to tamper with science and medicine to promote her ideology. And as she saw her very words used as objective evidence to overturn 2 PBA Bans, she obviously felt no moral obligation to fess up that those were her words, not the words of medical professionals, as the courts believed.

For more on this read, "Kagan's abortion distortion," at NRO, published yesterday, which got this entire conversation started.

Shannen Coffin, who authored that piece, wrote today we should not "overreact" to his findings but did list questions Kagan should be asked in her confirmation hearings:

Even The Atlantic Wire acknowledges, "There's something odd about this abortion case."

John at Power Line calls yesterday's revelations "shocking," "a smoking gun," and that "it appears that Elena Kagan participated in a gigantic scientific deception." He continues:

On behalf of the Clinton WH, 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.

Glenn Reynolds queries if this is "a budding Kagan scandal?

Of course, Reproductive Rights Blog Prof misses the point:

By clarifying that intact D&E may be the best or most appropriate method in some circumstances, the edit did provide better support for ACOG's stated opposition to the ban. But that does not prove that ACOG was being disingenuous in adopting the edit or that the new language failed to reflect ACOG's belief.

And the point is that ACOG sought and accepted the pro-abortion White House's input before releasing its supposedly objective opinion of PBA.

This makes laughable ACOG's indignant repudiation of the Supreme Court in 2007 for upholding the PBA Ban, when it huffed and puffed for a day when "science will again be at the core of decision-making that affects the life and well-being of all of us."

Yeah, right.

[Top graphic via HE]


This is a bit off-topic, but in August (I can't believe it's almost July already), HBO is going to air the following special:

12th and Delaware (August 2) - Ground zero for the abortion rights battle is on a street corner in Ft. Pierce, Florida, where a Women's World abortion clinic is across the street from the Pregnancy Care Center. The pro-life outpost is dedicated to heading off would-be abortion seekers at the pass. The film makers had access to both outfits and offers an eye-opening look at the ideological trench warfare that takes place. The film is directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady.

I don't have HBO, so hopefully someone will watch it and post a review!

Posted by: phillymiss at June 30, 2010 11:20 AM

It's all about the "narrative" - the fascist utopian narrative of the hard left.

From the innermost part of a heart to the highest levels of government - it's all about perpetuating the abortion lie.

I'll bet when asked Kagan will be proud of her successful effort.

I'm beginning to understand why God smote Sodom & Gomorrah. There's no reasoning with insanity.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault Author Profile Page at June 30, 2010 11:36 AM

Kagan and her ilk need lies and innocent blood to purchase their earthbound power from the prince of this world. It's the consideration demanded by their lord.

Posted by: Ted at June 30, 2010 12:10 PM

Everthing Kagan has ever had a hand in writing should be investigated: every aspect of her very education should be scrutinized for evidence of plagiarism. She has no respect for sources, so let's see what other creative writing she's been involved in. Perhaps her diplomas are invalid (including high school!). I'm pretty sure finding a decoder ring in a box of cracker jacks doesn't make me a real spy. She isn't a real...say, what the heck does she pretend to be anyway??

Posted by: ninek at June 30, 2010 12:29 PM

We discuss principle, which is nothing more than an occasion of bemusement to Obama & Co. Theirs is the pursuit of raw, unchecked power. The Constitution, morality and ethics are nothing more to these thugs than speed bumps on the road to tyranny. The hearings are nothing more than a mere formality on the road to cementing a judicial activist in place on the Court for the next 30 years.

The thugs know that few Americans tune in to these hearings, and far fewer still will even remember them come this November. Almost nobody will remember them in two years. They advance their agenda by stacking the judiciary with activist jurists.

Kagan will sail through committee and be confirmed simply because they have the votes. The Republicans are too stupid and cowardly to mount any sort of effective filibuster, and this will be the proof that they are still not ready to resume the reins of power. They consistently show up to Democrat gun fights with boxing gloves.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at June 30, 2010 1:11 PM

Ethically, it should be all over for her.
Unfortunately, the people voting for her are just as ethically challenged, if not more so.

Posted by: jim sable at June 30, 2010 1:31 PM

Prolifers, we should continue to pray regarding this pathetic pro-death candidate for the SCOTUS. God can continues to expose the agenda of this woman. 'The ends justify the means' mindset of Elena Kagen and her boss BHO must be exposed. It will take a miracle but God is able to perform miracles.

Posted by: Prolifer L at June 30, 2010 2:23 PM

Cato asks some good questions about Kagan hearing cases against Obamacare. Perhaps another question to ask is whether she advised Obama on his EO regarding abortion funding and Obamacare.

Posted by: Fed Up at June 30, 2010 3:30 PM

Apparently Kagan had her sights set on the AMA too.

"When discussing whether the AMA could reverse its policy that there is not an identified situation in which partial-birth abortion is the only appropriate method of abortion, ethical concerns surround it, and that it should not be used unless it is absolutely necessary, Kagan stated: “We agreed to do a bit of thinking about whether we (in truth, HHS) could contribute to that effort [convincing the AMA to reverse their policy]." -- Source: AUL

Posted by: Fed Up at June 30, 2010 3:57 PM

I just want to say Thank You to Jill Stanek for not only allowing us to post comments here, but also allowing opposing views. Time and time again when I attempt to post a comment on pro-abortion blogs and websites, my comments are denied, blocked outright, or mysteriously there is a 'technical difficulty.' Jill is obviously a class act! Thanks again!

Posted by: ninek at June 30, 2010 4:09 PM

May the unfit be exposed prior to being sworn-in so it won't be necessary to impeach her later!

We need leaders, now, to start impeachment against some judges who legislate from the bench!

Just some thoughts.......John

Posted by: John at June 30, 2010 4:14 PM

"The Constitution, morality and ethics are nothing more to these thugs than speed bumps on the road to tyranny."

I was thinking, generally, there has been a bit of over-reaction and unnecessary freak-out over Kagan's nomination. Then I read the sentence quoted above. Professor, stick to your field, political science is apparently beyond your ken. Tyranny? really? Let's not confuse the democratic process with tyranny.

Posted by: Hal at June 30, 2010 9:59 PM

Gerard has it exactly right. Hal, you are the last person to give an objective review on the Kagan nomination in that you have already expressed your unqualified support for her. Or is it that we are not allowed to express our apprehensions even as you express your approval?

You dismiss the notion of "tyranny" but I suggest you do so at your own peril. Your penance is to listen to Mark Levin for one week and to read his book: Liberty and Tyranny. Open your mind. I assure you that you will find the experience refreshing and liberating.

Oh, and by the way, "thugs" is exactly right on. Perhaps you have seen a thing or two about a little trial going on here in Illinois. The disgraced former gov, driven by his greediness and fevered imaginations of greatness and supported by none other than the full cast of characters--all Chicago and Illinois thug politicians and hacks--attempted to conspire to defraud the people of the our state and the U.S. Senate. And seeing how these people act we are to believe that the product of this environment--Barack Hussein Obama and his top advisors--are any better?

Posted by: Jerry at June 30, 2010 11:28 PM

Ted, you nailed it.

Gerard, you too, sad but true.

We need to pray that God gives us political leaders with courage, backbone and a passion for life.

Posted by: Ed at June 30, 2010 11:45 PM

Ninek, thanks!

Posted by: Jill Stanek at July 1, 2010 8:10 AM

Jerry, I have done no sin vile enough that I must listen to Mark Levin for even one night, let alone a week. If that is where you get any of your views, we have nothing to talk about.

Posted by: Hal at July 1, 2010 12:54 PM

Hal: I have listened to tingly leg, Madcow, and Keith Oberman. It is good to go beyond one's comfort zone as it forces a person to test their presuppositions and expand their horizons. It is too bad that you won't do the same.

Liberals are so smug. They claim they are the ones that are open minded, even as they refuse to consider opposing points of view. Hal, if you are so unwilling to even consider or discuss things with someone of a different persuasion what makes you different than a radical Muslim?

Posted by: Jerry at July 1, 2010 2:02 PM

For those libs who might want to save some cash - Levin's book "Liberty and Tyranny" is out in paperback now.

I'll listen to Levin at night once in a while - sometimes the news of the day is just too depressing. Happily, his listeners love this country, while the elitist liberals think we're a country of imbeciles. So sad. So wrong.

Posted by: Janet at July 1, 2010 3:55 PM


"Jerry, I have done no sin vile enough that I must listen to Mark Levin for even one night, let alone a week. If that is where you get any of your views, we have nothing to talk about."

My liberal college professors in the 1970's would be very put off by such a statement. We were encouraged to read conservative writings along with liberal writings and to do critical analysis. If any of us dared to put down an author whilst bragging about not having read them, that would have been academic suicide.

Levin liberally (pardon the pun) quotes the Constitution and the Founders. Your objection there?

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at July 1, 2010 3:56 PM

Gerard Nadal,
I'm afraid liberal college professors have devolved since the 1970's.
The Constitution is fluid, don't you know? If they have their way, we won't recognize our country in twenty years.

Posted by: Janet at July 1, 2010 4:01 PM

why would I want to be different than a radical Muslim? (joking, I'm joking)

Actually, I listen to Mark Levin for at least a few minutes at least once a week. I also listen to Medved, Rush, Savage and Hannity from time to time. So, I can say, Levin is the most unstable and ill informed.

Posted by: Hal at July 1, 2010 4:27 PM

Post a comment:

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Please enter the letter "x" in the field below: