The truth would be a “disaster to the cause...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Capitalist, Jun 30, 2010.

  1. Capitalist
    Offline

    Capitalist Jeffersonian Liberal

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    835
    Thanks Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +211
    (NRO)- It seems that the most important statement in the famous position paper of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists—a 1996 document that was central to the case of partial-birth-abortion defenders for the subsequent decade and played a major role in a number of court cases and political battles—was drafted not by an impartial committee of physicians, as both ACOG and the pro-abortion lobby claimed for years, but by Elena Kagan, who was then the deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy.
    Kagan saw ACOG’s original paper, which did not include the claim that partial-birth abortion “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman,” but, on the contrary, said that ACOG “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”
    She wrote a memo to two White House colleagues noting that this language would be “a disaster” for the cause of partial-birth abortion, and she then set out to do something about it. In notes released by the White House it now looks as though Kagan herself—a senior Clinton White House staffer with no medical background—proposed the “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman” language, and sent it to ACOG, which then included that language in its final statement.
    What’s described in these memos is easily the most serious and flagrant violation of the boundary between scientific expertise and politics I have ever encountered. A White House official formulating a substantive policy position for a supposedly impartial physicians’ group, and a position at odds with what that group’s own policy committee had actually concluded? You have to wonder where all the defenders of science—those intrepid guardians of the freedom of inquiry who throughout the Bush years wailed about the supposed politicization of scientific research and expertise—are now. If the Bush White House (in which I served as a domestic policy staffer) had ever done anything even close to this it would have been declared a monumental scandal, and rightly so.
    Rest here>>>









     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. topspin
    Offline

    topspin BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,149
    Thanks Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +196
    yawn
     
  3. Capitalist
    Offline

    Capitalist Jeffersonian Liberal

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    835
    Thanks Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +211
    I guess the number of lies they tell tend to put you to sleep?
     

Share This Page