UPDATE, 9:25a: A high up source tells me GOP senators plan to bring up today Kagan's collusion with ACOG to rewrite its medical opinion of partial-birth abortion.
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology is well-known in pro-life circles to be radically pro-abortion.
For instance, ACOG supports the most heinous of all abortion practices, partial-birth abortion. When in 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the partial-birth abortion ban of 2003, ACOG released an indignant statement, which read, in part:
"Today's decision... is shameful and incomprehensible to those of us who have dedicated our lives to caring for women," said Douglas W. Laube, MD, MEd, ACOG president. "It leaves no doubt that women's health in America is perceived as being of little consequence.
"... The Supreme Court's action today, though stunning, in many ways isn't surprising given the current culture in which scientific knowledge frequently takes a back seat to subjective opinion," he added.
How admirable of ACOG to stand on the principle of "scientific knowledge" in the face of "subjective opinion," which overwhelmingly thought sucking out the brains and collapsing the skulls of almost-delivered late-term babies was gross.
But as it turns out, ACOG is the grandest of frauds.
It has just come to light through the process of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing that in 1996 ACOG let the Clinton White House, via then-associate counsel Elena Kagan, write its medical opinion of the partial-birth abortion procedure....
Continue reading my column today, "Exposed! Kagan's partial-birth abortion scheme," at WorldNetDaily.com.
[Photo via UPI]
Good catch, Jill. The very words Kagan inserted are cited on this site http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm which comes top of Google's list for "intact D+X" - so any uncommitted / uninformed person who goes to the internet to get "the facts" will read, in the guise of an authoritative medical pronouncement, the words of a lawyer with an opinion.Posted by: Joshua at June 30, 2010 8:20 AM
Now for the bad news.
In the event Kagan was confirmed to the SCOTUS or withdrew her name from consideration, the person next in line is probably as much as or more of a leftist idealogue than she is.
Kagan's actions have not and will not be limited to abortion related questions.
When she has been in a position of authority, she has miused that power to advance her own agenda, contrary to the facts and the law and she has resisted measures that were contrary to her ideology.
Rush Limbaugh was correct once again, even without having benefit of this newest revelation.
By nominating Kagan, b.o. has nominated himself to the SCOTUS.
If Kagan is confirmed we will have two leftist ideologues on the court who are more dogmatic and more extreme than the liberal justices they have replaced.
Just look at the recent decision the court handed down concerning the second ammendment. It was 5-4 and no person who can read and think could read the second ammendment find any sane basis for voting with the minority.
When people say b.o. is just replacing one liberal with another they either do not 'know' the justices of whom they are speaking or they are incapable of rational thought.
These would be the self same people who elected the prince of fools to the presidency.Posted by: yor bro ken at June 30, 2010 8:41 AM
Good job Jill.
Thanks for providing the documentation and the additonal background information.Posted by: yor bro ken at June 30, 2010 8:44 AM
Great job (again), Jill.
In case you didn't know, there is a pro life group within AACOG. They even are promoting a Hippocratic Registry of doctors.
They are still part of AACOG, however - something I wish they would reconsider given their recent history.
As for the reality in the senate, I think Scott Brown could be persuaded into a filibuster given this evidence - but I doubt the gals from Maine will go along. So we are back to the "will the 2 pro life dem senators filibuster with the republicans?" question. Very unlikely. Unfortunately, I think Kagan is getting confirmed.
But thanks again for this in depth story.
Let me contribute the obligatory pro-choice semantic complaint about the us of the phrase "partial-birth abortion."
-Partial-birth abortion is a made up term by anti-choicers to describe a legitimate medical procedure. The term isn't even accepted by the medical community! It is dishonest and shady to use a non-medical term like partial birth abortion. Please start using proper terminology.-
Okay, I'm glad we have that ridiculous objection out of the way. Carry on.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 30, 2010 8:54 AM
Bobby, you may want to have a look at this organization comprising over 2500 OB/GYN's:
They use the term rather frequently. And, might I add, that a child delivered in his or her entirety except for the head would look pretty partially born to me - and anyone else who dares put common sense and science ahead of politics.
Posted by: Sean
at June 30, 2010 9:05 AM
Bobby Bambino, how ironic, in my old stomping grounds, 'bambino' was slang for 'baby.'
Now that we've gotten the child out of the way by killing it while it was still viable and mostly out of the birth canal, let's move on. 'Cause when a doctor is scrambling my brains with a pair of scissors, I want to make sure he's using the proper vocabulary.Posted by: Ninek at June 30, 2010 9:10 AM
Sorry, I think my humor was lost on everyone. I was parodying the only "response" I ever hear from pro-choicers when it comes to the question of partial birth abortion. Never do they once mention the procedure itself, only the terminology. It's a product of the fact that the whole pro choice movement is built on a solid foundation of semantics. I would still bet that we will see a pro-choicer make a similar "argument" somewhere further down on this thread. I was just predicting it.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 30, 2010 9:20 AM
I am sorry but she just looks sinister every time I see her.Posted by: Bill at June 30, 2010 9:28 AM
Just wondering -- what is the "correct" term for sucking out a viable infant's brains?Posted by: Phillymiss at June 30, 2010 9:47 AM
I saw her note on another board and came here to see if it was posted. She is crooked. I am not suprised. She is gender confused, not a mom and as a lawyer claims to know more than the Doctors?Posted by: xppc at June 30, 2010 9:50 AM
D & X or Dialtaion and Extraction, Phillymiss.
See? Now when we use those terms, the procedure automatically becomes moral!Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 30, 2010 9:59 AM
I am outraged. If she is a lawyer, she knows this is criminal. You never forge changes on the writings of others. Would she cheat and change evidence? If she was a doc, would she lie on the patient chart? I know she would because the utopican goals justify it. Her dishonest will come up on the media she hates. Rush, hannity and others are in business because of these cheaters.Posted by: xppc at June 30, 2010 10:01 AM
xppc, I fail to see any criminal activity in suggesting edits.Posted by: Hal at June 30, 2010 10:55 AM
Regardless of legality, Hal, do you not find it disturbing that a political hack rewrote what was supposed to represent a scientific report?
Imagine if someone in the Bush whitehouse was found to have edited a report on Global Warming.Posted by: lauren at June 30, 2010 11:30 AM
I don't even know why they call it "PARTIAL birth abortion". Partial implies "part" (to me) part implies "half". The baby is COMPLETELY out except for his/her head. That would be MOSTLY birth, not "partial". Also..I'm wondering what they do if/when the baby wriggles, and the head slips out. We have no way to know if/how often the head actually DOES slip all the way out. What do they call it THEN?? How can ANYONE justify this horrific "Frankenstein experiment"? What condition/disease could they think this is a "cure" for? How does delivering a baby almost entirely and then killing him/her "help" the mother in any way? Just some thoughts....Posted by: Pamela at June 30, 2010 11:35 AM
Bambino! Your humor went right over my head! haha! Ya got me before my morning coffee.
I recently had to explain to a group of 20 somethings that late term abortions are not done by caeserean as they thought. (sorry for mispelling). They were so under-informed that they really believed it. I explained about dilating the cervix, beginning delivery, and all that. I told them about the news story from China, where the baby went to the crematorium while still alive. I told them how often Chinese women hide their pregnancies as long as they can until they are arrested.
They sat in stunned, horrified silence.Posted by: ninek at June 30, 2010 12:19 PM
Posted by: Hal at June 30, 2010 10:55 AM
"xppc, I fail to see any criminal activity in suggesting edits."
Is it 'ETHICAL' for an attorney to 'script' a witnesses statement that she/he knows will the court may or will rely upon to render a decision.
Elena Kagan was NOT representing the ACOG.
Her client was the United States of America.
She advised, coached, counseled a witness to change their statement and she gave the reason why she did it and it was for the shallowest of
If a no name attorney was caught doing this, she/he would be sanctioned or perhaps disbarred.
But what the heck great liberal leaders have even greater libidos so that makes all this right and good.
The nominee for Secretary of the Treasury lies, cheats, evades on his tax return an it is OK, because great liberal leaders have great libidos.
Slick Willy commits perjury but "So what?"
Great liberal leaders have great libidos so 'no problema'.
As long as his wife is OK with his philandering what any one else thinks is irrelevant else and even if the wife objects to his playing hide the wienie with the hired help it is OK because she should have known when she married the sexual predator that 'great liberal leaders have great libidos'.
The wife should have counted herself blessed to be a benficiary and recipient of his great libido.
Having a great libido must also mean you are great at lying.Posted by: yor bro ken at June 30, 2010 3:31 PM
"Is it 'ETHICAL' for an attorney to 'script' a witnesses statement that she/he knows will the court may or will rely upon to render a decision."
surePosted by: Hal at July 2, 2010 11:57 AM