Sunday, July 4, 2010

A Woman After Obama's Own Heart

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is morally unfit to serve in the highest court in the land.

Elections do truly have consequences, and Kagan is a woman after President Obama's own heart. Neither one will be satisfied with a limited number of abortions in this land. They just can't get enough. It's almost as if they get some sadistic pleasure out of killing babies.

Read from the American Thinker:

Is Elena Kagan Morally Blind?By James Lewis

"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?"


No, a thousand times "No".

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

"even on university campuses, where telling the truth is the essence of scholarship"
What planet are you writing from? I don't know what college campuses were like prior to the development of Marxist Theory, but I can guarantee to you that American and British Universities since the 1920's have supported ONLY counterculture ideas.
Perhaps it's because 'those who can, DO, while those who can't do, TEACH.' Perhaps it's just that the young are easily influenced, and everything is so new and different (that would make it OUR fault for not warning the young earlier about the seductive alternative life theories of Islam, Communism, Krishna, etc.). It is no accident that cults, drug experimentation, and yes, successful military indoctrination, thrive only among the young - you can get a teenage boy to accept ANYTHING if you frame it that he'll now be 'special', 'elite', have 'secret knowlege','not a fool like the others'...
Suffice it to say that Academia at present defines itself as being of value (socially and politically) BECAUSE it puts its thumb in the eye of 'Western values'. Anyone who doesn't hew to that particular line threatens how Academia defines itself and is IMMEDIATELY attacked by all the threatened parties. You may therefore speak to acclaim on campus of the glories of Multiculturalism, 'Man-Caused Global Warming' controls, Islam, Communism, Witchcraft, Eastern Mysticism, etc. On the other hand, if you are in any way CRITICAL of the aformentioned, or if you praise Christianity, Capitalism, Conservative Values, Gun Rights, etc. you will be shouted down, denied use of campus facilities, demonstrated against. Want to bring a terrorist to speak on campus? No problem. Want to bring Ann Coulter? NO WAY!
And if you think you can fight it from 'inside', just look at the 'CLIMATEGATE' scandal from East Anglia University of Norwich, England. These 'researchers' actually e-mailed each other as to how to suppress and block the publication of research that did not agree with 'Man Caused Global Warming.' THEN they would say that all the peer-reviewed publications agreed with their theory - but only because they controlled the publication process! And remember, since it's publish-or-perish in academia, if you don't say the correct thing you just lost your tenure, your professorship, your career.
Sure, now that the story is out no one respects East Anglia "research" any more, but that is just one example out of hundreds occurring daily in Academia. Frankly, "telling the truth" is only valued if it is THEIR version of the 'truth' that you tell. Do not look for truth or honesty in Academia.