Romney’s “Huge” Win??? [Reader Post]
[FloppingAces.net]
“A Big Win for Romney in Iowa” Karl Rove
“Romney’s huge win” Dick Morris
“A big win for Romney” Carter Eskew
“Media Downplay Big Win For Romney In Iowa” Editorial, Investors Business Daily
Come on man? Investors Business Daily too?
The first three headlines I expected. If there were to be a vote on who would be the face next to the entry for “Republican Establishment” in Merriam and Webster’s dictionary 2012 Edition it would be Karl Rove. Dick Morris is the “Smeagol” of Washington D.C. political pollsters and insiders. One never knows if he is being serious or just trying to get headlines to regain his “precious”, relevancy. Walter Eskew works for the Washington Post, that in itself is enough damning evidence but lord knows Jennifer Rubin could have had a gun to the back of his head as well. The one that surprised me is the usually sane Investors Business Daily editorial. Et tu IBD? Et tu?
Kagan’s SCOTUS deception to defend partial-birth abortions
HotAir.com
posted at 12:55 pm on June 29, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly
As Elena Kagan attempts to sail through a confirmation process to take her first job as a judge on the nation’s highest court, National Review’s Shannen Coffin discovers one of the reasons why the Clinton Library seemed determined to keep records of her previous work quiet. The issue of partial-birth abortion had raged during the Clinton years, with the President ultimately vetoing a measure by Congress to ban the procedure, but Nebraska banned it on their own. In order to defeat that law, Kagan manipulated a report by a panel from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to fool the Supreme Court into thinking that doctors had supported the idea that it was a medically necessary procedure, when in fact ACOG couldn’t specify a single set of circumstances where it would save the life of the mother:
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.
CWNews Posted Comments