from Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
"When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000, the decision was fueled, by some degree, by a statement made by ACOG (American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists). In it, the group announced its sudden support for the procedure, writing that the partial-birth procedure "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman." What no one knew at the time is that the first draft of ACOG's statement said the exact opposite. The organization planned to say that it "could identify no circumstances under which the [partial-birth] procedure... would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."
What changed between the first and final versions? Well, the science certainly didn't--but the level of White House involvement did
Once Elena Kagan, the President's rabidly pro-abortion policy aide, saw the language, she sent around a frantic internal memo calling the report a "disaster" and urged the White House to intervene. It did. Using language that Kagan handwrote, ACOG released a statement endorsing partial-birth abortion, which ultimately persuaded the Supreme Court to rule in its favor. In a calculated decision to protect one of the most gruesome procedures in America, Elena Kagan deliberately circumvented the scientific process to advance her agenda. How can this impassioned activist be an impartial jurist? She wasn't bound by the law on Harvard's campus (where she banned military recruiters in protest of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell")--and in ACOG's case, she wasn't bound by science either. Elena Kagan has trampled every obstacle standing in the way of her pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda. And if the Senate votes to seat her on the highest court in America, the U.S. Constitution will be next."
Posts
