failure to address the point from Boo, who prefers an ad sourcinem to deal with an embarrassing truth?
what a surprise.
failure to address the point from Boo, who prefers an ad sourcinem to deal with an embarrassing truth?
what a surprise.
I am going to have to agree with Boo on this one. If someone linked a daily kos or huffington post article to support their claim, there would also be cries of foul.
wonder if this will even have any bearings on the hearings. my bet is that - since Democrats tend to care more about the politics of the nominee - the answer to that question is sadly no.
When President Obama promised in his inaugural address to “restore science to its rightful place,” he never explained what that rightful place would be. Documents recently released in connection with the Supreme Court nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan suggest an answer: wherever it can best be used to skew political debate and judicial outcomes.
The documents involved date from the Clinton White House. They show Miss Kagan’s willingness to manipulate medical science to fit the Democratic party’s political agenda on the hot-button issue of abortion. As such, they reflect poorly on both the author and the president who nominated her to the Supreme Court.
There is no better example of this distortion of science than the language the United States Supreme Court cited in striking down Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000. This language purported to come from a “select panel” of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a supposedly nonpartisan physicians’ group. ACOG declared 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 Court relied on the ACOG statement as a key example of medical opinion supporting the abortion method...
In other words, what medical science has pronounced, let no court dare question. The problem is that the critical language of the ACOG statement was not drafted by scientists and doctors. Rather, it was inserted into ACOG’s policy statement at the suggestion of then–Clinton White House policy adviser Elena Kagan.
The task force’s initial draft statement did not include the statement that the controversial abortion procedure “might be” the best method “in a particular circumstance.” Instead, it said that the select 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.”...
Miss Kagan, then a deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy, already knew ACOG’s stance as a result of a July 1996 meeting at the White House, at which ACOG representatives told administration officials — according to a Kagan memorandum [PDF] — that “in the vast majority of cases, selection of the partial birth procedure is not necessary to avert serious adverse consequences to a woman’s health.”
Upon receiving the task force’s draft statement, Kagan noted in another internal memorandum [PDF] that the draft ACOG formulation “would be a disaster — not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation.” Any expression of doubt by a leading medical body about the efficacy of the procedure would severely undermine the case against the ban....
megapropman said:I am going to have to agree with Boo on this one. If someone linked a daily kos or huffington post article to support their claim, there would also be cries of foul.
liblady said:both wordings are essentially saying the same thing
if it was simply an opinion piece you would have a point; however, what is at issue here is not who is reporting (although NRO isn't comparable to Daily Kos or Huffington - though Townhall would be. NatRev is closer to a Newsweek equivalent), it is what they are reporting.
if any of you are actually able to address the memo's in question, and Kagan's apparent willingness to twist science in order to further her political agenda (oh but we promise she would never do such a thing with the law!), as opposed to attempting to raise strawmen, then i would be interested in hearing it.
that you can't is telling.
failure to address the point from Boo, who prefers an ad sourcinem to deal with an embarrassing truth?
what a surprise.
Oh how sad. I never saw how anyone could support partial birth abortions no matter how pro-abortion you were. Why would it be anymore dangerous to the mother to give birth to a live baby rather than a dead one?
Kagan gets more frightening all the time. Can't wait til she rules it's consitutional when Congress requires me to eat fruits and vegetables daily and when it's ok to ban books.
Can't wait til she rules it's consitutional when Congress requires me to eat fruits and vegetables daily and when it's ok to ban books.
they certainly are not.
try the following on for size:
"I can't think of a single good reason why we should have invaded Iraq"
v
"There are some good reasons why we should have invaded Iraq."
I would say those are rather markedly different statements.
they certainly are not.
try the following on for size:
"I can't think of a single good reason why we should have invaded Iraq"
v
"There are some good reasons why we should have invaded Iraq."
I would say those are rather markedly different statements.
She admitted the memo was in her handwriting but never actually admitted she wrote it. My source is Kagan's own words.
Boo said:Where the source can't be trusted, there is no issue to address. Use an accurate source (if you can), and I'll gadly contibute.
You are acting like she said those things in the same sentence
Maybe she was misconstrued like the republican's apology to BP.
Barbbtx once said that he thinks the moon is made out of cheese. My source is his own words.
(you seem to not really understand what a "source" is)
Barbbtx said:She admitted the memo was in her handwriting but never actually admitted she wrote it. My source is Kagan's own words
megapropman said:Barbbtx said:Can't wait til she rules it's consitutional when Congress requires me to eat fruits and vegetables daily and when it's ok to ban books.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?