It’s becoming clear why President Obama first tapped Elena Kagan for his Solicitor General, and then Supreme Court nominee: their ideologies and ethics are remarkably congruent. And that alone should be enough to scuttle her nomination.
Back in the 1990’s, Kagan was working for the Clinton administration. At that time, there was a bit of a fight over partial birth abortion. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists offered their professional opinion on the matter, and their paper stated definitively:
“[A] select panel convened by ACOG 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.”
However, that statement never made it to the Supreme Court. Instead, Deputy Assistant To The President On Domestic Policy Elena Kagan apparently rewrote that section to read as follows:
the partial-birth-abortion procedure “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.”
That was not only the report, but the specific language cited by the Supreme Court in their ruling striking down the partial birth abortion ban.
That’s right. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan took a report from medical professionals, deleted a politically inconvenient section, and rewrote it so it said the exact opposite — purely to suit her political agenda. And then she presented it to the Supreme Court as if it was the unaltered expert opinion of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Perjury” doesn’t seem too strong a word here.
But the whole thing sounds so very familiar. Far more recently, the Obama administration solicited the opinions of experts on how to handle offshore drilling in the wake of the BP Deepwater Horizon spill. Those experts gave their report to the Obama regime, which studied it carefully — and then Interior Secretary Ken Salazar inserted a recommendation for a six-month moratorium on new and existing drilling. That was something that the experts had not only not said, but considered and rejected.
What a brilliant tactic. Say you want the “experts” to give their opinions on a highly controversial issue, then take their report and rewrite it to reflect the Obama regime’s political agenda. All you have to do is hope that the official authors of the report don’t actually read the final version.
Because then, especially if you’ve submitted the final report to a court, you’re open to charges of perjury.
Like Kagan ought to be. Like Salazar ought to be.