The handwriting is on the wall – but it’s not mine!

You know how he always hear about the Church and science and how generally religious believers are at war with science? ESCR was a prime example of that meme.

One of the defenses of Kagan’s revisions to the ACOG statement is that they really were just editorial, that they didn’t change the thrust of the statement. Let’s look at that argument.

The statement, prior to Kagan’s edits, reads in relevant part as follows: “However, a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” Kagan did not delete that sentence (and I never suggested she did). It remained in ACOG’s final statement. What she changed was the following sentence, which had read: “Notwithstanding this conclusion, ACOG strongly believes that decisions about medical treatment must be made by the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based on the woman’s particular circumstances.” That innocuous statement is little more than a statement of policy; ACOG was simply saying that, notwithstanding their inability to find any medical circumstances in which the procedure would be the only appropriate procedure, the medical association’s board concluded that the doctor should still have medical discretion to use the procedure, and a legislature shouldn’t get involved. Fair enough.

What Kagan did was insert a statement of medical opinion into that sentence. Her full suggested edit was: “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, and a doctor should be allowed to make this determination.” ACOG’s final statement adopted the first half of that sentence in toto. The final sentence read: “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, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman’s particular circumstances can make this decision.”

There is little question that Kagan’s edit changed the substance of the ACOG statement, not merely its policy implications. Previously, the draft had read that there were no such medical circumstances in which it was the only method to save the health or life of a woman; Kagan inserted language to water down or hedge that medical opinion, asserting — notwithstanding what her notes had shown regarding the lack of evidence regarding such circumstances — that the procedure still “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in particular circumstances.” That is not a statement of policy; it is a statement of medical opinion. [source]

So Kagan edited a medical opinion to give a policy dimension to justify sucking the brains out of children just before being born. If you can’t handle the truth, edit it till it fits. Nothing new for abortion supporters when it comes to science and how rhetoric is always used instead of scientific fact. Father Pavone noticed this when talking to pro-abortion supporters that when he brought up scientific facts they would reply with metaphysical ones instead.

The sad thing is the people who will confirm a judge that willingly subverted the truth. Great judge she will make. Even worse is that her subversion of the ACOG statement was used by the Supreme Court to strike down the Nebraska ban on Partial Birth Abortion.

“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.”

You would never know that she had been a President Clinton hire.

Wow, what an answer. It is up there with one of my favorites when Joshua L. Steiner, the Clinton Treasury Secretary’s chief, when questioned about notes in his diary concerning a meeting replied that “I lied to my diary.”