Liberals in the Obama Administration and the “mainstream” media tried to placate us with reports of the faux support of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan for the partial birth abortion ban in 1997, but as you might expect, the claim doesn’t really hold water.
LifeNews brings more evidence to contradict this assertion in a story about an article Kagan wrote for the Daily Princetonian a week after Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980:
Reagan won a landslide victory over President Jimmy Carter and Kagan’s essay lamented that victory and had her hoping for a “more leftist left” in the 1984 elections.
“Even after the returns came in, I found it hard to conceive of the victories of these anonymous but Moral Majority-backed opponents” of certain pro-abortion candidates, Kagan wrote.
She called them “avengers of ‘innocent life’” who were “beneficiaries of a general turn to the right and a profound disorganization on the left.”
Douglas Johnson, the legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee noticed the comment and the scare quotes around the phrase “innocent life” — clearly inferring that pro-life advocates have a misread on the moral status of unborn children.
The Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion in the United States in 1973 was itself an act of raw judicial activism, based on nebulous overreach to the “penumbras” of “emanations” from actual rights. In case you don’t know what a penumbra is, it is the shadowy twilight of obscurity. So the “right” to kill your child comes from shadowy emanations rather than something solid and distinct. Basing the question of life or death on something as insubstantial as a shadow is weak–very weak. Would you want your life or death determined by shadows, or something more definitive?
Of course, this 37 year old decision was made before all that modern science has revealed about the life in the womb–including a beating heart and the ability to feel pain at just a few weeks development.
Even the chief activist and architect of the “right” to kill your own child, Justice Harry Blackmun, admitted in the Roe decision that if the personhood of the child in the womb could be established, the “right” to abortion “of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”
Unless she is willing to admit that she may have been mistaken, modern science and medicine may be on the verge of proving she has been on the wrong side of the most basic of all human rights: the right to life.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t think a person is fit to serve as a judge at any level if they are on the wrong side of an innocent person’s right to live.
Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.