- Egypt rights center raided, 2 Mubaraks acquitted
- New Mexico Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage constitutional
- Blame Bush: 5 years later, that’s still the mantra, pollsters find
- Dutch prostitutes demand same retirement benefits as soccer stars
- John McCain to Harry Reid: I’ll ‘kick the crap’ out of you
- Dogs that talk: Researchers seek $10K for ‘No More Woof’ technology
- 1,000 firefighters called to battle stubborn Big Sur wildfire
- Black Friday brouhaha: Millions of Target shoppers hit by credit card theft
- Britain orders airplane to rescue citizens from violent South Sudan
- Mega Millions winner emerges as Georgia mom, in ‘disbelief’
EDITORIAL: Kagan’s abortive ethics
Senate needs more time to investigate Obama court nominee
Question of the Day
Ms. Kagan, the U.S. solicitor general, was directly responsible for altering a key medical report in a way that stacked the deck in favor of keeping the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion legal. She then gave testimony to the SenateJudiciary Committee that appeared to veer from the actual record.
The ethical questions are threefold. First, was it unethical for her to alter the original medical-report language? Second, was it unethical for her to fail to inform the courts when a series of judges relied explicitly on her altered language in reaching their decisions to keep partial-birth abortion legal for an entire extra decade? Third, did her testimony under oath before the SenateJudiciary Committee veer far enough from the actual record to constitute a major ethical breach?
On the first question, the answer seems clear. Ms. Kagan changed a medical document for political reasons without running it back past the specific medical panel that drafted it. Result: Studies early last decade documented between 1,250 and 1,500 partial-birth abortions per year - and that’s from just an incomplete survey of doctors.
Analysts from right, center and left have criticized her for this. “Ms. Kagan’s amendment … has no basis in published medical studies or data,” wrote former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop earlier this month. “This is unethical, and it is disgraceful, especially for one who would be tasked with being a measured and fair-minded judge.”
The ethics of failing to inform the courts is covered in Rule 3.3 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which directs lawyers in such circumstances to “take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.” This she did not do.
As for her testimony to the Senate, it was problematic on several levels. For instance, Ms. Kagan told Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican, “There was no way in which I would have or could have intervened with [the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - ACOG] … to get it to change its medical views.” The record makes that statement look false as false can be. Meanwhile, her mindset at the time was evident in yet a second instance, when she wrote in a White House e-mail that she should “contribute to [the] effort” to see if “the [American Medical Association’s] policy can be reversed.”
As Dr. Koop wrote, and as was echoed by a separate coalition of about 30 policy organizations led by Americans United for Life Action (a pro-life legal group), this all bears investigation. The Senate needs to depose members of the relevant ACOG committees to describe Ms. Kagan’s actions. It needs to depose experts in legal ethics to determine if she violated Rule 3.3 or other ethical standards. And it needs to compare the findings of those depositions to various portions of her evasive testimony earlier this month.
The legal ethics in question are significant. The moral questions involved in partial-birth abortion should make senators and their constituents blanch. Ms. Kagan’s troubling combination of bending the rules to endanger the unborn is enough to disqualify her from the bench.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
- EDITORIAL: A man for 2016
- EDITORIAL: Spies unlike us
- EDITORIAL: Amnesty by another name
- EDITORIAL: Navigating the swindle
- EDITORIAL: Payback time in Wisconsin
Latest Blog Entries
By Andrew P. Napolitano
Fourth Amendment says Obama is not at liberty to collect metadata
Get Breaking Alerts
- Homeland Security helps smuggle illegal immigrant children into the U.S.
- Gov't wasted $30 billion on 'pillownauts,' crystal goblets -- buying human urine!
- Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson suspended indefinitely for gay quip
- Bill Gates: The Secret Santa disguised as a 'friendly fellow' on Reddit
- Democrats cite pope in call for minimum wage hike, jobless benefits
- Obamacare 'pajamas boy' gets roundly mocked
- Armed response, not restrictive gun laws, brought swift end to school shooting
- BOLTON: Nero in the White House
- U.S. Army mulls wiping out memory of Robert E. Lee, 'Stonewall' Jackson
- Outrage over Phil Robertson suspension, 'malignant' political correctness