Is Elena Kagan Morally Blind?

American Thinker ^ | July 03, 2010 | James Lewis

[neverdem]

Elena Kagan has now admitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee that as a Clinton lawyer in 1997, she fraudulently revised an official medical opinion by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The medical society was going to publicly reveal that "its panel of experts found no circumstances in which the (partial birth abortion) procedure was the only option for saving the life of the woman."

In a secret internal memo, she wrote that "This, of course, would be a disaster[.]"

Kagan therefore secretly revised the language so the final statement in 1997 claimed that the partial-birth abortion "may be the best and most appropriate procedure in particular circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."

That was a pernicious lie. The medical panel originally said that was false. Kagan substituted her own judgment for a medical consensus.

No wonder eight hundred Jewish rabbis have publicly stated that in their opinion, Elena Kagan is not morally qualified to be on the Supreme Court. Her fraudulent actions in 1997 legally authorized the killing of approximately two thousand newborns or almost-newborns each year, according to the pro-abortion Gutmacher Institute.

Partial birth abortion means killing a full-term fetus, a human being. That is murder by biological definition. The media try to throw dust in our eyes about that fact, but most Americans know. We might have mixed feelings about abortion in the first month of pregnancy, but a full-term baby is a human being, and whether it is killed ten minutes before or after delivery makes no difference. It's still the same baby.

What part of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" don't liberals understand? These are the most compassionate people in the world, remember? Elena Kagan doesn't seem to get the biological reality of babies who are identical to newborns but still living in the womb. She seems to be so stuck that she cannot see reality.

In 2003, the Republicans passed a ban on partial birth abortion, later affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. That lead has now been followed by a number of states. But a recent medical article on the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Act claims that the law only forced abortion doctors to kill fetuses in the womb. That's not "partial birth," get it? You can do anything to a baby in the womb, no matter how developed it might be. These "abortion providers" are publicly boasting that they are getting around the law by killing near-term babies in the womb. It is astonishing what ideological blindness will do to people.

I know Miss Kagan is Jewish by heritage, but that only makes her more painful to watch. Of all the people in the world, the Jews, whose babies and toddlers were taken away to be killed by the Nazis, should be hypersensitive to this question. Dr. Kagan is a woman, and we think women are especially sensitive to babies. And yet, in a once-in-a-lifetime moment of decision in 1997, Kagan failed to stand for the most basic protection of innocent life.

Elena Kagan has some terrifying opinions about the government's ability to kill free speech. At Harvard she was part of the feminist establishment that got Larry Summers fired as president for dropping a politically incorrect remark. Kagan is no defender of free speech, not even on university campuses where telling the truth is the essence of scholarship. Just the opposite. We have censorship on our campuses today because of the likes of Dean Kagan.

In front of the Judiciary Committee she's been clowning it up. But I don't think Kagan is a funny lady. No, when I look at her, I look at a commissar of Political Correctness, who rose to the top at Harvard Law in the New Age of PC. Stalin's Commissars also made sure the right people died in Siberia and Lublyanka.

We know that premature babies born in the third trimester respond to touch, pain, cuddling, and baby talk. Many biomedical articles in peer-reviewed journals support that claim. Others dispute it, but when there is honest disagreement, we should follow the ancient medical rule: First, Do No Harm!

The  brain waves of third-trimester fetuses show that they go through sleeping, dreaming, and waking. The closer they grow to term, the more they are just like any other baby. And then you kill them at the moment of birth -- not in a desperate bid to save the life of the mother, but because it's not convenient to raise a Down Syndrome child? And then we don't even mandate general anesthesia for the baby, the way we do for convicted killers on death row?

Is this the person we want on the Supreme Court? 

[neverdem]

Kagan’s Explanation about partial birth abortion

[PhilDragoo]

ABORT KAGAN NOMINATION TO SAVE LIFE OF THE REPUBLIC

[Darkwolf377]

It doesn't matter, gutless Republicans jsut want the dems in the senate to like them.

If Kagan were a Republican choice and pro-life, the dems would have no problem turning up the volume and obstructing where they could.

[no dems]

To answer the question in the title of the thread:
I am pro-Israel and I bless the Jewish people, but, most American Jews are very Liberal and "morally" challenged. So, to answer the question, I would answer a resounding "YES"!!!

[television is just wrong]

Kagan is morally bankrupt.

[South40]

Most American Jews are socialists and thus, vote DemocRAT.

[LALALAW]

Evil Butch Pagan Kagan. A misguided intellect and a mal-formed conscience.

[South40]

Kagan is morally bankrupt.

My first thought when I read the title.

[Captain Beyond]

Morally Corrupt and a Progressive Criminal who wants to rob Americans of their freedoms and liberties.

[Jack Hammer]

The more appropriate question would be, “Are ALL liberals morally blind?”

[calex59]

Not only is she completely lacking in morals she is butt ugly to boot. This woman has no moral compass except that of communism.

[Psalm 144]

I don’t think we need to wait and see how the GOP will govern if returned to power.

The way they handle this nomination settles it for me.

The ball is in their court.

Filibuster this bag of mendacious suet.

[tallyhoe]

It doesn’t matter she is unqualified to be a Supreme Court Judge!!!!!

[TigersEye]

When confronted with a report that comes to the conclusion that partial birth abortion is unnecessary she responds “this is a disaster.” Yeah, I’d say she is morally blind. Ethically stunted. Emotionally dead. Mentally perverted.

[BradyLS]

I would think the simple fact of altering an official stance to suit political ends would be enough to end her appointment.

Silly me, I know.

[Darkwolf377]

It doesn’t matter she is unqualified to be a Supreme Court Judge!!!!!

That's blindingly obvious to all but the most partisan. and I've even read non-conservative pieces saying "This isn't how this is supposed to work."

She is unqualified, and no one in DC gives a damn, they'll just let her go through because that's what they do.

[TigersEye]

After altering those documents she filed them in a Federal court. I think that is an ethical violation that could get her disbarred. Is it too late to pursue that and who/how does that get done?

[Psalm 144]

I would think the simple fact of altering an official stance to suit political ends would be enough to end her appointment.

Silly me, I know.

*****************************

Crazy, isn’t it?

I think the Chinese were onto something with the “mandate of Heaven” thing. It appears to have been withdrawn from the United States.

[Lancey Howard]

[freekitty]

Yes she is.