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 WND.com column today for background.

This 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]