Left wing blogs have their dander up. They’re attacking me for saying that Elena Kagan favors cloning human beings. Once again, they are trying to confuse the public about what’s involved in cloning humans. Just because they favor killing the embryonic human being after they are done experimenting upon it, but before implanting it in a woman’s womb, they think they are against cloning humans. But they’re not. And neither is Kagan.

It’s almost the same thing as when semantic gymnasts in the pro-cloning camp say they’re not cloning humans, they’re just doing “somatic cell nuclear transfers (SCNT).” In fact, that’s the longer, more technical description of what cloning is.

The Clinton-appointed National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) recognized this simple fact in 1997—before political correctness overtook all these discussions:

The Commission began its discussions fully recognizing that any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo, with the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to term.

This is not conservative doctrine. Not Christian dogma. This is simple, scientific fact. It used to be recognized by all until the left muddied the waters.

The left also takes issue with my comments that Elena Kagan favors government censorship of political books and pamphlets. That’s an argument they should take up with Chief Justice John Roberts. The Chief Justice concurred in the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:

“The Government [as represented by Solicitor General Elena Kagan] urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern. Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is the foundation of our democracy.”

As President Reagan often said, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.