Lying in order to justify what is evil

It is now clear that, while serving in President Clinton's administration, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan lied in official documents in order to push a radically pro-abortion agenda. She knowingly manipulated scientific data to justify the evil of partial birth abortion.

In 2000 the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law prohibiting partial birth abortion. The key document they cited in justifying their position came from a 'select panel' of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). The report from the ACOG stated that partial birth abortion, "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” There is only one problem. That is not what the ACOG wrote. The language was placed in the statement by Elena Kagan who was serving as a policy advisor to President Clinton. Originally, the statement from the ACOG read that they, "could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” The difference, of course, is radical.

In a devastating article written for National Review Online, Shannen W. Coffin writes:

Upon receiving the task force’s draft statement, Kagan noted in another internal memorandum [PDF] that the draft ACOG formulation “would be a disaster — not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation.” Any expression of doubt by a leading medical body about the efficacy of the procedure would severely undermine the case against the ban...

Her notes, produced by the White House to the Senate Judiciary Committee, show that she herself drafted the critical language hedging ACOG’s position. On a document [PDF] captioned “Suggested Options” — which she apparently faxed to the legislative director at ACOG — Kagan proposed that ACOG include the following language: “An intact D&X [the medical term for the procedure], however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.”

Kagan’s language was copied verbatim by the ACOG executive board into its final statement, where it then became one of the greatest evidentiary hurdles faced by Justice Department lawyers (of whom I was one) in defending the federal ban. (Kagan’s role was never disclosed to the courts.) The judicial battles that followed led to two Supreme Court opinions, several trials, and countless felled trees. Now we learn that language purporting to be the judgment of an independent body of medical experts devoted to the care and treatment of pregnant women and their children was, in the end, nothing more than the political scrawling of a White House appointee.

Read the entire article HERE.

So, a supposedly independent and nonpartisan scientific organization whose stated purpose is to care for pregnant women allowed themselves to be co opted by a political appointee in order to advance a political agenda. And now the one who distorted the original report from the ACOG will likely sit on the Supreme Court.