Well, I suppose that was to be expected, considering that the president that nominated her supports infanticide over and beyond the usual abortion debate.
Back in 1996 during her days in the Clinton White House, Kagan apparently wrote a memo specifically designed to distort a physicians group’s opinion of whether partial-birth abortion is medically necessary.
A major bit of evidence cited by pro-partial birth abortion advocates is a report issued by a "select panel" of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a supposedly nonpartisan medial organization. That report said that 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." The Supreme Court used the ACOG statement as the major example of medical opinion when it struck down Nebraska legislation outlawing partial birth abortion.
Shannen Coffin was a deputy attorney general during the Bush administration which later instituted legislation curtailing the practice, the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Act. He was the lead attorney who defended the Bush Administration's federal partial-birth abortion act in court.
As he reveals in his NRO article, the initial draft of the report said that the ACOG panel "could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." So Kagan set about fixing the 'problem' by altering the language of the report itself:
Once the rabidly pro-abortion Elena Kagan, then a deputy assistant to President Clinton for domestic policy. This is what Kagan wrote in a memo to her superiors in the Clinton White House:
Todd Stern just discovered that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is thinking about issuing a statement (attached) that includes the following sentence: "[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." This, of course, would be disaster -- not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation. It is unclear whether ACOG will issue the statement; even if it does not, there is obviously a chance that the draft will become public.
So Kagan took matters into her own hands: incredibly, she herself appears to have written the key language that eventually appeared in the ACOG report. Coffin writes:
So Kagan set about solving the problem. Her notes, produced by the White House to the Senate Judiciary Committee, show that she herself drafted the critical language hedging ACOG's position. On a document [PDF] captioned "Suggested Options" -- which she apparently faxed to the legislative director at ACOG -- Kagan proposed that ACOG include the following language: "An intact D&X [the medical term for the procedure], however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman."
Kagan's language was copied verbatim by the ACOG executive board into its final statement, where it then became one of the greatest evidentiary hurdles faced by Justice Department lawyers (of whom I was one) in defending the federal ban. (Kagan's role was never disclosed to the courts.)
Her answers when she was asked about it by Senator Orin Hatch could almost be part of a Monty Python Routine:
Hatch: “Did you write that memo?”
Kagan: “Senator, with respect, I don’t think that that’s what happened — ”
Hatch: “Did you write that memo?”
Kagan: “I’m sorry — the memo which is?”
Hatch: “The memo that caused them to go back to the language of ‘medically necessary,’ which was the big issue to begin with — ”
Kagan: “Yes, well, I’ve seen the document — ”
Hatch: “But did you write it?”
Kagan: “Uhh, the document is certainly in my handwriting.”
What we're looking at here is a process by which The federal courts were scammed and deliberately deceived by an almost obscene manipulation of not only the scientific evidence by the legal system. And it was done by someone who wants a lifetime job as a justice on the highest court of the land - Elena Kagan.
Lagniappe: Conservative doyen Phyliss Schlafly has a superb piece in Investors Business Daily that explains exactly how an appointment like Kagan's endangers the Constitution.