Your history teacher probably annoyed you saying “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It’s a true statement, though, especially for us as we watch the destruction of millions to abortion. And today my horror rose as I read that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was a part of the very cloning practices I wrote about only last week.

As the Clinton library has released papers about Kagan, the ties between her to the very horrors of the death industry about which I just wrote grows stronger. According to Americans United for Life (AUL), “However, as the memo explains, Kagan’s ‘ban’ on cloning only banned the use of cloning aimed at the live-birth of a baby, not at cloning that takes human life.” That sounds nice enough, but if you recall, the distinction, if you recall, is as AUL says:

“The cloning of human embryos creates living human beings in the earliest stage of development.  “Using them for research” means they will be “disaggregated” and killed as part of the research.  By endorsing such practices, Kagan demonstrated her disrespect for unborn human life.” (Source)

It goes on to note that Kagan clearly “led an administration cloning meeting in March 1998 and was asked to provide specific advice about the President’s legislation and Statements of Administration Policy (SAP). The Administration’s position, which Kagan was deeply involved in constructing, is unethical and would be more accurately characterized as ‘pseudo-science’.  While Kagan and the Clinton administration tried to create a distinction between cloning humans to be used in research and cloning humans for live-birth, there are not two distinct forms of human cloning.”

Had I not just spent weeks reading through pages of research on this issue, seeking to understand it , I suspect this information would look more like scientific gobbly-goo than the horror of life destruction it is. But I did just sit through those pages and read about these polices. The absolutely bottom line is as AUL also says, there is no separate cloning process. One label is “therapeutic” and one is “reproductive.” We don’t allow reproductive cloning in the United States because that can create a separate person, so our solution is to clone and kill the baby before he or she comes out of the womb so we don’t reproduce a human.

And our current Supreme Court nominee was involved in the creation of this policy.

The Kagan nomination should be terribly disturbing to a pro-life person. Her close ties with the Clinton administration are problematic. Many of the laws that allowed for more freedom in areas of cloning, fetal-cell research and other issues of life were born in the Clinton Administration. To learn that Kagan was a key Clinton player is one thing, but then to have concrete evidence she helped form some of these very policies which horrify us should be a wake-up call now.

Take a look at the document from the Clinton Library, in other words, its own report on Kagan, not a biased news report. It’s 151 pages and the expectation is probably that you and I won’t read it, but again, having just researched this, I understand a lot more than I would have a few weeks ago. Go to page 35 and read a couple pages, see if what you see is anything like the processes I wrote about, specifically in part IV of the Industry of Death series. It’s starkly familiar to me.

AUL concludes:

Kagan’s disregard for the value of human life at its most vulnerable stage creates concerns about how she will consider common sense abortion regulations and other cases that will come before the Court.  First, it shows she is deeply hostile to protecting the unborn, even when abortion is not an issue.  Second…[it reveals] her judicial philosophy and her views on the constitutionality of regulations that protect unborn life, her views raise concerns  about whether she believes federal restrictions on funding for embryonic stem cell research or cloning, or bans on these procedures, at the state or national level, are constitutional. (Source)

We don’t always get to know before a nominee is confirmed by the Court if he or she is truly an abortion supporter or not, but in Kagan’s case we know she is. We know she advised one of the most pro-abortion presidential administrations in history, and she has been nominated to the Supreme Court by a another pro-abortion president. We have documents that show she advised President Clinton on both cloning policies and on upholding partial birth abortion, which lasted until Bush vetoed it in 2003.

There should remain no reasonable doubt that the confirmation of Kagan to the Supreme Court would create a vote for abortion, human medical research, and other related areas even some pro-choice bioethicists would oppose. And with the information so available, and even coming from the Clinton camp itself, it’s hard to buy that President Obama doesn’t know this.

Right now she is appearing to be an easy confirmation. Where is the call from the pro-life community to question this? God still gives us an opportunity to be involved when we see wrong:

29"The people of the land have practiced oppression and committed robbery, and they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice.  30"I searched for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before Me for the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one.  31"Thus I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; their way I have brought upon their heads," declares the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 22:29-31, NASB).

This is the time to stand in the gap, to cry out against injustice, and to pray like never before. Otherwise, in a few weeks, our land will take an even more serious turn toward destruction.