Kagan and partial birth abortion
When Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was a domestic policy adviser at the Clinton White House, she wrote a memo in the midst of the debate over Congress issuing a ban on partial-birth abortion. Her 1996 memo cites a statement from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a medical group that eventually opposed a ban on partial-birth abortion, which reads:
“A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which [the partial-birth] procedure…would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”
In the 1996 memo, Kagan worries the statement will go public – an eventuality which she described as a “disaster.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who has had a generally friendly demeanor towards Kagan, said today in her confirmation hearing,
Did you write that memo?
Kagan returned,
I’ve seen the document. The document is certainly in my handwriting.
Kagan explained that she thought the ACOG’s statement would be a “disaster” because she didn’t think the medical group had fully expressed its position. She characterized ACOG’s position as such: that there was never a circumstance where partial-birth was absolutely necessary, but it could be “medically best” and the procedure with the “least risk attached to it in terms of preventing harm to the woman’s health.” The ACOG copied her language in its statement, saying partial-birth abortion
may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.
Hatch wasn’t convinced.
As you know, many in Congress came to the conclusion too that it was a brutal procedure that was really unjustified. That bothers me that you intervened in that particular area in that way.
A year earlier, in her White House notes about a partial-birth abortion ban, Kagan indicated what “health of the woman” could mean:
Key of this analysis – All you need is a dr certifying ‘this procedure is safer’ don’t even need him to certify that woman is choosing to have an abortion for health reasons.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top28 Comments to “Kagan and partial birth abortion”
I cross-posted about this on Whirled Views. Basically she conspired to hide the truth for political purposes.
Report comment to moderator
Confirmation hearings = waste of time.
Report comment to moderator
She does come across as a jolly person. Do not be fooled.
Report comment to moderator
MAC #2
I agree.
And the news take on the whole thing is KAGAN BASHING.
Report comment to moderator
“I’ve seen the document. The document is certainly in my handwriting.”
That’s creepy.
Report comment to moderator
No kidding, Mrs.News2Me. Talk about politi-speak. Is there something wrong with the word “Yes”?
Report comment to moderator
Well, she COULD just come right out and say that she supports the brutal murder of innocent children. If she were honest, anyway.
Report comment to moderator
“I’ve seen the document. The document is certainly in my handwriting.”
Now you know where Clinton got his “”It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
Report comment to moderator
More on her answer, which really wasn’t an answer, from Shannen Coffin.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDUyYzU0ODY3NjAyOTE0Y2MzMzEyM2UzZTg5NDU5NDc=
“As I explained, however, there are reasons to doubt that. First, the ACOG task force — formed specifically and solely for the purpose of studying the medical efficacy of the procedure — met for two full days in October 1996, and the result of their collective work was a statement concluding only that it could identify no particular circumstances where the partial-birth method might be the only method to save the health or life of the mother, but that the committee thought it important to leave that judgment to the individual doctors — that is, a policy statement that Congress should stay out of it. After they deliberated in October 1996, the task force forwarded its draft statement to the ACOG board. It was only then that Kagan stepped in to suggest changes.
Therefore, any suggestion that her work was merely the synthesis of the task force’s deliberations doesn’t account for that time line — she had no interaction with the task force itself, only the executive board of ACOG.
Second and more significant, the White House had already met with ACOG’s former president and current chief lobbyist (to whom Kagan’s revisions were addressed) in June 1996, before the special task force was even formed. At that meeting (which apparently Kagan did not attend but recounted in a memo to her bosses, dated June 22, 1996), Kagan wrote that the White House staffers were basically told that ACOG couldn’t identify any particular circumstances where the procedure was medically necessary. But, to be fair, let’s quote her memo in relevant part:”
Report comment to moderator
From the National Right to Life Committee website, http://www.lifenews.com/nat6454.html
The letter notes Kagan is a judicial activist and points to her 1983 Oxford University thesis in which she said she believes that it “is not necessarily wrong or invalid” for appointed judges “to mold and steer the law in order to promote certain ethical values and achieve certain social ends.”
“For one with such a view, a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court is the apex of power – a lifetime license to make law and reshape public policy by decree, on a wide range of issues, without any need to achieve the degree of consensus required in legislative bodies or the distracting requirement for periodic accountability to an electorate,” the letter continues. “Thus, if she is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, we anticipate that Ms. Kagan often will ttreat the U.S. Constitution not as a body of basic law that truly constrains both legislators and judges, but rather, as a cookbook in which may be found legal recipes that will allow the imposition of the policies that Ms. Kagan deems to be justified or advisable.”
On abortion specifically, the National Right to Life letter says the documents reveal Kagan “to have been a key strategist, perhaps the lead strategist” in getting Clinton to veto a ban on partial-birth abortions.
Very sadly, in my opinion, none of the Senators seems to consider seriously that the American people, in more numbers, oppose her nomination than favor it! When will the peoples’ voice ever count again, hopefully AFTER November! Will there now be a murderer on the Supreme Court, a most respected body, as defined by our Constitution?
Report comment to moderator
How many “murderers” have there been on the Supreme Court so far, and how many are remaining?
Maybe Obama can just appoint her over the holiday weekend and bypass the Constitution as usual. After all the constitution is just a suggestion, no? Besides the party of no are just doing this because she is a liberal and they hate the USA.
Report comment to moderator
I’m thinking about Kagan, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor in a Charlie’s Angel pose.
Make it stop. Make it stop.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, please, Travis. Must you even make the suggestion?
I have not heard much of her confirmation, but she has the non-answer down perfectly. Why is she so afraid to just answer the question?
Report comment to moderator
NJL (#3),
IMHO, you are 100% correct!!!
Report comment to moderator
#3 “She does come across as a jolly person. Do not be fooled. ”
What, being pro-choice precludes joviality? I think not.
#4 “And the news take on the whole thing is KAGAN BASHING.”
Really!? What news? The Huffington Post? I’ve watched, read, and listened to, plenty of coverage of the Kagan hearings, and I don’t recall anyone calling it Kagan Bashing. I think your just making that up, or repeating some conservative website lie. Sure, it fits the conservative narrative, but it just isn’t true.
#7 “Well, she COULD just come right out and say that she supports the brutal murder of innocent children. If she were honest, anyway.
This is just plain viscous, obviously supporters of the right to choose abortion don’t believe it’s “the brutal murder of innocent children”, otherwise they would be on your side. Hatefulness is no way to win an argument.
#11 “How many “murderers” have there been on the Supreme Court…”
Murderers? is anyone who supports abortion rights a murderer? I support abortion. I’ve paid for three of them. Am I a murderer? What should we do with these murderers? You’re hateful, thru and thru, and as if that isn’t enough, you want to make others share your hate.
#12, 13,
That’s about as funny as the Judge Roberts gay jokes – Not at all.
Report comment to moderator
Kwatson,
Sometimes, you just make it too easy. You said “Really!? What news? The Huffington Post? I’ve watched, read, and listened to, plenty of coverage of the Kagan hearings, and I don’t recall anyone calling it Kagan Bashing. I think your just making that up, or repeating some conservative website lie. Sure, it fits the conservative narrative, but it just isn’t true.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2010/06/29/chris-matthews-sen-sessions-voice-confederacy-gop-wants-make-kagan-voodo
“Well, Matthews showed up in even finer form today. Describing Kagan as a liberal Obama prototype from the “high academia” of the Ivy League, Matthews proceeded to frame her opponent, Sen. Jeff Sessions, as the voice of the Confederacy.
Remarking that the hearing has become like a “red state-blue state” battle, Matthews claimed that “listening to Jeff Sessions is to listen to the, really, the Confederacy; to listen to, really the conservative view of the Deep South.”
Matthews also oddly added that Republicans want to make Kagan into a “voodoo doll” (repeating himself from the night before), an image associated more readily with New Orleans, Louisiana, than Sessions’ boyhood town of Hybart, Alabama.”
Wouldn’t that qualify as the same as saying they’re Kagan bashing? Sure seems like it to me.
Report comment to moderator
How about “attacks”? Does that count as bashing?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2010/06/29/nbc-and-abc-barely-touch-kagan-hearings-cbs-promotes-her-very-agile
“America and NBC’s Today spent little time on the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan on Tuesday, the CBS Early Show featured a report from legal correspondent Jan Crawford, who cheered Kagan finally being able respond to Republican “attacks” in a “very agile” way.
Report comment to moderator
Kwatson #15
Doesn’t it bother you that this person as an official of the Clinton White House deliberately conspired to hide the truth from the American people?
Report comment to moderator
Kwatson #15:
“Murderers? is anyone who supports abortion rights a murderer?” An accomplice at least.
“I support abortion. I’ve paid for three of them. Am I a murderer?”
This is very sad – a tragedy, and from my point of view you are complict in the deaths of three children. Why do you support ending the lives of children who are in the womb? Why is such a violent act viewed as good, rational, or even reasonable? Tell us why you think abortion is right, and be willing to listen to why we think it is wrong.
“What should we do with these murderers?”
Show them mercy, because they do not understand what they do.
“You’re hateful, thru and thru, and as if that isn’t enough, you want to make others share your hate.”
Just because someone takes a position contrary to yours doesn’t make them hateful. You want others to support your position that abortion is “good;” you want to be affirmed for paying for three abortions, and when that doesn’t happen your response is “you’re hateful?” How about asking this question instead: “Why don’t you support abortion?” Perhaps you should ask us why we value all human life, and our source for our values.
We should make good use of our freedom to speak and engage in dialog, rather than make unkind remarks.
Report comment to moderator
Kwatson 15 “#7 “Well, she COULD just come right out and say that she supports the brutal murder of innocent children. If she were honest, anyway.
This is just plain viscous, obviously supporters of the right to choose abortion don’t believe it’s “the brutal murder of innocent children”, otherwise they would be on your side. Hatefulness is no way to win an argument.”
Viscous words are used to describe viscous actions. I just called a spade a spade. The argument has already been won. Partial Birth Abortion is a viscous, barbaric proceedure in the name of convenience.
Report comment to moderator
“We should make good use of our freedom to speak and engage in dialog, rather than make unkind remarks.”
Like calling Supreme Court Justices murderers?
Report comment to moderator
TT…we should always seek to tell the truth. It’s ironic that your “handle” is the very same thing that you are incapable of understanding.
Report comment to moderator
Let me say this as kindly as possible:
“Kagan believes that it is okay to stick a sharp object into the back of a pre-born baby’s skull and insert a vacuum to suck out that baby’s brain, all the while as that baby writhes in pain”.
Hmmm…is that kind enough for you, TT and Kwatson?
Report comment to moderator
Ms. Kagan evidently tried to influence the AMA to change their statement about partial-birth abortion as well:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat6483.html
Report comment to moderator
“#7 “Well, she COULD just come right out and say that she supports the brutal murder of innocent children. If she were honest, anyway.
This is just plain viscous,(sic) obviously supporters of the right to choose abortion don’t believe it’s “the brutal murder of innocent children”, otherwise they would be on your side. Hatefulness is no way to win an argument.”
You probably meant vicious, as “having a high resistance to flow” doesn’t seem to fit. In fact partial birth abortion is a brutal method of killing babies, whether its supporters cling to their delusions otherwise or not, and, since Elena Kagan knew from the opinions of the doctors whose testimony she contaverted with her editorial revisions, it is almost never the only procedure available, that she supports the brutal killing of babies is incontrovertible.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the spell check, Ken. I was just copying TT…though I, myself, am not a very good speller.
Also, I appreciate your contribution. It always amazes me when people attempt to defend partial birth abortion.
Report comment to moderator
Just in the news this morning:
“A San Antonio woman [Otty Sanchez] who told authorities the devil made her mutilate and dismember her newborn was found not guilty by reason of insanity Thursday, in a deal that sends her to a state mental institution rather than to face a trial and possible prison sentence.”
Investigating authorities described the crime as one of the most horrific they had ever seen. Yet the substance of the article concentrates on the woman as the victim, not the child. She is said to have suffered from “postpartum psychosis” and “She will be committed until the court decides she is not a danger to herself or anyone else.”
So at some future date, when the publicity dies down, she will be quietly released to go on about her life. Presumably, she will then no longer be insane.
Also mentioned in the article were Andrea Yates, the suburban Houston mother who drowned her five children in a bathtub in 2001, and Dena Schlosser, who cut off her baby’s arms in 2004 and who both suffered from the same psychosis, their attorneys said.
Since all forms of abortion involve the mutilation of a living child, this question needs to be asked:
What is the difference, if any, between the crimes of Otty Sanchez, Andrea Yates, and Dena Schlosser and the millions of women who do the same thing to their children in the womb?
Perhaps KWatson, a proud three-time advocate, can tell us.
Report comment to moderator
Kagan is confidant that she will be confirmed by the Democrat majority now dominating Congress. So she plays the evasion game, not revealing her true agenda, and professing her intent to “honor the Constitution.” That is a lie in the same class as all those told by Obama prior to his election. These two are cut from the same bloody cloth, and the Democrats, to their everlasting shame, revel in it.
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's blogs to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!