Paul  Kengor

In November 2008, just after the historic election of Barack Obama, I wrote a piece titled, “Pro-Life Death?” I noted that America’s choice of Obama as president and, equally important, of a massive liberal majority in Congress, constituted the death of the pro-life movement as we know it. That is, the pro-life movement had sought to reverse abortion through legislative action and the courts, and had made tremendous gains through eight years of George W. Bush—enough to place the nation at a crucial turning point. Unfortunately, we failed to turn the corner on Election Day 2008, instead moving in the exact opposite direction.

It was a moment of decision, one authorized by millions of pro-life Christian voters, many of whom gave this go-ahead to the Death Culture unwittingly, oblivious to the ramifications of their choice at the voting booth that day. According to CNN exit polling, 45 percent of Protestants and 53 percent of Catholics voted for Obama, giving the green light to a man who was without question the most radical abortion advocate of any serious presidential nominee in the history of America.

Michelle Malkin

This is background, of course, to what happened this week, as President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court to replace Justice John Paul Stevens. A 50-year-old former Harvard Law dean, Kagan’s abortion stance is surely one Obama supports, even as Obama seems reticent about discussing it openly. That reticence is understandable, with Republicans threatening to take back Congress in November—a conservative backlash that could halt Obama’s sweeping agenda—and with most Republican senators having voted against confirming Kagan to her post of solicitor general.

Nonetheless, pro-life groups, who monitor the likes of Kagan for a living, are deeply concerned. Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, legal arm of the pro-life movement, calls Kagan “an ardent abortion supporter,” telling LifeNews.com: “Elena Kagan has strong ties to abortion-advocacy organizations and expressed admiration for activist judges who have worked to advance social policy rather to impartially interpret the law.”