Promoting their "Stop Kagan" scam, which asks readers to send WorldNetDaily $24.95 in order to mail personalized letters opposing Elena Kagan to all 100 senators, WorldNetDaily repeated numerous myths and falsehoods about Kagan including Larry Klayman's ridiculous charges that Kagan violated her ethical duties and possibly criminal statutes through her work on "partial-birth abortion" bills.
WND again promotes "Stop Kagan" scam
Farah promotes $24.95 "Stop Kagan" letter-generating campaign as "a phenomenal bargain." A July 27 WorldNetDaily article repeatedly promoted WND editor Joseph Farah's "Stop Kagan Campaign," which "delivers personalized, individually addressed, anti-Kagan letters to all 100 U.S. senators by FedEx for only $24.95." The article reported that Farah, who is "orchestrating" the effort, "is asking all of his constituents" to join his campaign, which Farah touts as a "phenomenal bargain." Farah also claimed his campaign "makes it easy for you to sound off on this historically bad nomination. It's a small investment. And I am convinced that if enough Americans take advantage of it, Kagan will be stopped -- even by this Senate." WND has been promoting Farah's campaign for over a month.
However, email can be sent to senators for free. In fact, individuals can send letters to senators via email, which is virtually cost-free.
Additionally, U.S. Senate recommends directing questions and comments to "the senators from your state." Moreover, the U.S. Senate recommends that "[a]ll questions and comments regarding public policy issues, legislation, or requests for personal assistance should be directed to the senators from your state" -- as opposed to all 100 U.S. Senators. According to the Senate website:
You can contact your senators by writing an e-mail or a letter, by calling, or by visiting. All questions and comments regarding public policy issues, legislation, or requests for personal assistance should be directed to the senators from your state. Please be aware that as a matter of professional courtesy, many senators will acknowledge, but not respond to, a message from another senator's constituent.
WND touts Klayman's ridiculous charge that Kagan should be disbarred and prosecuted
WND promotes Klayman's charges that Kagan should be "disbarred" and "possibly subjected to criminal prosecution" for "alter[ing] an official scientific report" regarding "partial-birth abortion." According to a July 27 WorldNetDaily article, headlined "Papers prepped to disbar Elena Kagan: 'She should not be a justice when she's defrauded the Supreme Court'":
One of Washington D.C.'s most feared and fearless corruption watchers has told WND he intends to file an ethics complaint to have Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan disbarred from practicing before the court she aspires to join - and possibly subjected to criminal prosecution - for her role in an escalating controversy over partial-birth abortion.
Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch USA, is bringing the complaint, alleging Kagan altered an official scientific report used as evidence by the Supreme Court to persuade the justices to overturn bans on partial-birth abortion.
As WND reported, dozens of pro-life organizations are already asking the Senate to investigate Kagan's 1997 amendment to an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists report, which was then used by the Supreme Court as justification for overturning Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000.
In her confirmation hearings, Kagan defended the amendment, saying, "My only dealings with ACOG were about talking with them about how to ensure that their statement expressed their views."
Several analyses have concluded, however, that Kagan's amendment dramatically changed the meaning of the ACOG statement, and court records show the statement was passed off on the Supreme Court as official scientific opinion, even though the ACOG's panel of scientists never approved Kagan's wording.
Klayman told WND he believes Kagan's behind-the-scenes work constitutes "conspiracy to defraud the Supreme Court," and he intends to take the evidence that has been compiled by the pro-life groups to file a complaint before the clerk's office of the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to have Kagan disbarred as a practicing lawyer in front of the Supreme Court.
But Klayman said he isn't stopping there.
"Then I'm going to ask the Supreme Court to refer the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation and possibly prosecution of obstruction of justice," he told WND, "because it was reasonably foreseeable that her altering that [ACOG] report would ultimately be used in court proceedings, including but not limited to the Supreme Court."
Klayman concludes, "Elena Kagan should not be a justice of the Supreme Court when she's defrauded the Supreme Court. In fact, she shouldn't even be allowed to practice in front of the Supreme Court under these circumstances."
In fact, the claim that Kagan manipulated medical science on "partial-birth" abortion issue is false. Klayman's claim that -- as reported by WND -- Kagan "altered an official scientific report used as evidence by the Supreme Court to persuade the justices to overturn bans on partial-birth abortion" is not true. In fact, Kagan did not ask the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to change its medical findings, and ACOG did not do so. In addition, according to sworn testimony by a member of the ACOG task force that studied "partial-birth abortion," the task force itself determined that there were some situations in which an intact D&X -- the so-called "partial-birth abortion" procedure -- would be "clearly the best choice" to preserve the health of a pregnant woman.
Legal expert Goldstein concluded that complaints that Kagan manipulated medical science are meritless. WND asserted that "Several analyses have concluded, however, that Kagan's amendment dramatically changed the meaning of the ACOG statement." In fact, the suggestion that analyses are unanimous in concluding that Kagan changed the meaning of what ACOG said is false. For instance, while anti-abortion rights advocates have made that argument, Supreme Court expert and SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein has debunked that charge:
The ACOG task force concluded that there were particular cases in which Intact D & X was the best available procedure for the mother's health. It reached that conclusion in October 1996, before Kagan's involvement in December 1996. The district court in Carhart found as a matter of fact that the task force reached that conclusion, relying on the sworn testimony of the task force's representative, as well as the task force's report. ACOG confirmed the chronology in its briefing in Carhart. Kagan's sworn testimony at her confirmation hearing is to the same effect.
There is no contrary evidence. And (as Kagan pointed out in her hearing testimony) the strong claim is on its face almost implausible, so it would need strong evidence to support it.
WND repeats falsehoods that Kagan is "against the U.S. military" and "banned" military recruiters
WND editor Farah claimed "a vote for Kagan is a vote against the U.S. military" and that Kagan "banned the U.S. military from recruiting on campus." In the July 27 WND article, WND editor Farah claimed, "We will continue to put every member on notice -- Republicans and Democrats -- that a vote for Kagan is a vote against the U.S. military." Farah also labeled Kagan a "radical antimilitary" "zealot" and said: "This woman, as president of her university, banned the U.S. military from recruiting on campus... Just contemplate rewarding that kind of vehemently anti-American action with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Elena Kagan must be stopped."
In fact, Kagan did not "ban" military recruiters. As Media Matters has documented, throughout Kagan's tenure as dean, Harvard law students had access to military recruiters -- either through Harvard's Office of Career Services or through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. Indeed, the number of Harvard Law School students recruited by the military did not decrease during Kagan's tenure as dean. Moreover, Kagan consistently followed existing law regarding access to military recruiters and during her confirmation hearing for solicitor general in 2009, Kagan pledged to defend the Solomon Amendment.
Kagan's support for the military is well-established. Kagan has repeatedly praised the military -- describing it as the "noblest of all professions" -- even while opposing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and military veterans at Harvard Law have affirmed Kagan's support for the military.
WND repeats falsehood that Kagan's natural rights comments are controversial
WND: "According to Farah, Kagan disqualified herself from serving on the Supreme Court with her statement under oath that she has no view of 'natural rights.' " The July 27 WND article also reported:
According to Farah, Kagan disqualified herself from serving on the Supreme Court with her statement under oath that she has no view of "natural rights."
"In all my years of observing Washington, I don't think I've ever been more stunned and disappointed by the testimony of a Supreme Court nominee than I was with Elena Kagan," said Farah. "This is someone, who, from her own testimony, doesn't believe in the Declaration of Independence, which we just celebrated and commemorated for the 234th time in our nation's history. This is someone who claims she doesn't have a view about 'natural rights' - those that real Americans believe are unalienable and God-given."
However, Kagan's noncontroversial comments on natural rights echo those of Justice Thomas. Kagan's statement during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing that she would rely on the Constitution and laws rather than natural rights is completely noncontroversial, and indeed, her comments echo what Justice Clarence Thomas said during his own confirmation hearing when he rejected the idea of using "natural law in constitutional adjudication." From Thomas' hearing:
As I indicated, I believe, or attempted to allude to in my confirmation to the Court of Appeals, I don't see a role for the use of natural law in constitutional adjudication. My interest in exploring natural law and natural rights was purely in the context of political theory. I was interested in that. There were debates that I had with individuals, and I pursued that on a part-time basis. I was an agency chairman.