A Supreme Court Justice needs to be better than this...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

FOXNews.com - Kagan Defends Revising Medical Group's Statement on Partial-Birth Abortion

I wonder what this woman would do to the rest of the Constitution if she played

God, once before. She has never been a judge. Her record as Solicitor General is

lacking, and she has a history of distorting the truth, well, making it up as she goes.

This woman is a danger to our society. It's not the abortion issue that angers me.

It's the lack of honesty to influence judicial decisions. Might as well call it perjury.

The abortion business bothers me enough, on its own, but when you have to do

this to further an agenda, it makes it much more disgusting.

Kagan Defends Revising Medical Group's Statement on Partial-Birth Abortion

In a rare moment of drama in her confirmation hearings, Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan was forced to defend her revision of an obstetrician group's policy statement on partial-birth abortion while she was an adviser in the Clinton White House.

As a Republican-controlled Congress in the 1990s debated whether to ban the controversial procedure, Kagan wrote a memo in which she expressed concern about a statement that the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologist was going to release that revealed its panel of experts found no circumstances in which the procedure was the only option for saving the life of the woman.

"This, of course, would be a disaster," she wrote.

Kagan revised the language so the final statement in 1997 said that the partial-birth abortion "may be the best and most appropriate procedure in particular circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told Kagan on Wednesday "that's a very different spin and obviously a more politically useful spin."

"Your language played an enormous role in both legal and political fights over banning partial-birth abortion," he said. "The political objective of keeping partial-birth abortion legal appears to have trumped what a medical organization originally wrote and left to its own scientific inquiry and that they had concluded."

Congress passed a ban on the procedure twice in the 1990s but President Clinton vetoed it both times. The procedure was finally banned in 2003 when President Bush signed it into law. The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban in 2007 in a 5-4 ruling.

On Wednesday, Kagan disputed Hatch's version of the events, but admitted that she did speak with ACOG to revise the statement.

She also refused to take ownership over the memos advocating the less restrictive language.

"What I did was to advance the policy of the president," she said.

Kagan also said ACOG couldn't identify any circumstances in which the procedure was the only one that could be used in a given case but could find situations in which it was least riskiest procedure for women.

"There did come a time when we saw a draft statement that stated the first of these things which we knew ACOG to believe, but not the second, which we also knew ACOG to believe," she said. "And I had some discussions with ACOG about that draft.

"And so we knew that ACOG thought of both of these things," she said. "We informed President Clinton of that fact."

Kagan said the "disaster" would have been a statement that didn't reflect the group's two beliefs.

Hatch wasn't satisfied with her explanation.

"Well, I'll tell you this bothers me a lot because I know that there are plenty of doctors in ACOG who did not believe that partial-birth abortion was an essential procedure and who believed that it was really a brutal procedure and it was a constant conflict there," he said.

"That's something that does bother me because it would be a disaster, you wrote, because ACOG opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion. If anyone ever found out -- and you wrote that it could leak -- even if ACOG did not officially release its original statement, it could have negative political consequences," Hatch said.

Dr. Manny Alvarez, a Fox News contributor, said he was "disappointed" and "outraged" that Kagan would revise the group's statement, calling it "highly inappropriate."

"Here you have an operative at the White House influencing a society that should be independent," he said. "It's disappointing."

Alvarez said Kagan should have told the group to be balanced in its statement instead of allowing it to "plagiarize" her language.

"At the end of the day, they're not serving the American people correctly nor serving the medical community correctly."

Americans United for Life, a group that opposes abortion, expressed concern about Kagan's testimony.

"There are serious discrepancies between her statements to Sen. Hatch and the documented evidence of her actions in December 1996," Charmaine Yoest, president and chief executive of Americans United for Life.

Yoest said senators need to ask Kagan why she thought it was appropriate to interfere in the positions of medical organizations.

"Further, does the lack of any evidence of harm to a woman's health because of the unavailability of partial-birth abortion for the past three years affect her perspective on the issue?" she said. "Does Kagan still believe that partial-birth abortion is necessary to protect a woman's health? If so, what is her factual basis to support this?"

Edited July 1, 2010 by 6.8 AR

[mcurrier]

Kagan the Pagan. She will come out of the closet as soon as she is confirmed, mark my words.

[Ebow1]

That's an insult to Pagans.

[Guest PapaB]

IMHO Kagan, Sotomayor and anyone else that believes in making Judicial decisions based on anything but the original intent of the writers of the law are unfit to serve on any bench. Judicial activism should be adequate grounds for not confirming them. It's time for the conservatives in Congress to grow a set and say they'll vote against confirmation of all judicial activists.

[Guest Phantom6]

The real reason Kagan didn't like Don't ask...

Edited July 4, 2010 by Phantom6

[leroy]

Dear folks:_______________

If you ever had any doubts about what Kagan (...and Nobama; Kagan's alter ego --I believe...) believes in regard to politics, economic theory, and equality of peoples; I urge you to read this very carefully. This is really who the Demorats are at this juncture in history. It is taken from the Libertarian Republican Blog. Link here: Libertarian Republican

Text here:

Saturday, July 3, 2010

Bombshell! Elena Kagen adoringly cited National Socialist in College Thesis

Warum gibt es in den Vereinigten Staaten keinen Sozialismus?

From Eric Dondero:

It seems that Elena Kagen in her earlier years, was fascinated by a notorious anti-Capitalist Jew hater, German Marxist turned National Socialist. (As if there's much of a difference?)

Human Events has the scoop.

Headline: "SHOCKING: Kagan's Princeton Thesis Cited German Socialist Who Endorsed Nazis"

HE explains:

Elena Kagan's senior thesis at Princeton University, recounting the history of socialist politics in New York City, cited the theories of an influential German Marxist who notoriously switched allegiances to Nazism after Adolf Hitler attained power.

Werner Sombart was widely recognized as an academic proponent of Marxism and was once praised by Karl Marx's colleague Friedrich Engels as the only German professor who understood Marx's Das Kapital. During World War I, however, Sombart endorsed Germany's "heroic" war against the "capitalist spirit" represented by England. In 1934, Sombart published Deutscher Sozialismus, which advocated the "total ordering of life" as an expression of the German Volksgeist, or "national spirit."

In the introduction to her 1981 thesis, Kagan addresses a question famously asked by Sombart: Warum gibt es in den Vereinigten Staaten keinen Sozialismus? -- "Why is there no socialism in the United States?"

HE provides further background. Ironically, Sombart was a bitter foe of libertarian economist Frederich Hayek.

Even before he embraced National Socialism, [Werner] Sombart's socialist theories reflected an anti-Semitic tendency that identified Jews with capitalism, a theme explored in his 1911 book, Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben ("The Jews and Economics," which was published in a 1913 English translation titled, The Jews and Modern Capitalism). In his 1915 book Handler und Helden ("Merchants and Heroes"), Sombart praised the "heroic" German character, contrasting them with "Trading Peoples," especially Jews, whose "commercial" habits Sombart depicted as prevailing among the English.

The influence of Sombart, who died in 1942 at age 78, was scornfully cited in Friedrich Hayek's famous 1944 book The Road to Serfdom. In Chapter 12 of that book -- "The Socialist Roots of Nazism" -- Hayek said that Sombart "had done as much as any man to spread socialist ideas and anticapitalist resentment of varying shades throughout Germany."

Posted by Eric Dondero at 6:09 AM 0 comments

This is exactly why you cannot afford to be ambivalent about elections, politics, or freedom... . Remember, elections do have serious consequences. The greatest legacy that most presidents have is nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. Those appointments stretch far passed any individual president's terms.

The real tragedy for us is that she will, most likely, be confirmed.

Food for thought.

Leroy

[Guest 1010011010]

Read something a while ago that suggested that D&X ("partial birth abortion") is used over D&C so that the parents can have a whole baby to hold (with the back of the skull neatly patched up) after the procedure is done to give them a sense of closure over the unfortunate medical necessity of terminating the pregnancy.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Read something a while ago that suggested that D&X ("partial birth abortion") is used over D&C so that the parents can have a whole baby to hold (with the back of the skull neatly patched up) after the procedure is done to give them a sense of closure over the unfortunate medical necessity of terminating the pregnancy.

Whatever that was you read, A D & C doesn't come close to a PBA. There is no medical

use for a PBA except outright murder. There may be a handful of doctors that would

consider PBA, except in China, where it is required for population control. A D&C is

much earlier during pregnancy and a PBA is at the end of term. Closure is not an

excuse for abortion. D&C is another word for abortion that people use when they

don't want to say it. It's just one more reason Elena Kagan is an insult to humanity.

A person like her shouldn't be considered for the supreme Court.

Leroy. Another good piece of information, man. If only those senators would look back

in time and vote to keep libertarian thoughts and justice minded Justices on the bench.

She is a "social justice" kind of person, otherwise known as a traitor to the

constitution.

[Guest 1010011010]

Whatever that was you read, A D & C doesn't come close to a PBA.

Whatever it was you read, I did not suggest D&C was D&X, which is why I used the specific terms rather than lumping them all as "abortion".

There is no medical use for a PBA except outright murder.

D&C is an effective replacement for D&X. The main benefit of D&X is that the grieving parents have an intact body to hold and say goodbye to rather than an collection of parts.

There may be a handful of doctors that would consider PBA, except in China, where it is required for population control.

Those godless commies!

A D&C is much earlier during pregnancy and a PBA is at the end of term.

D&C can be performed at the end of term, though D&X may be safer.

Closure is not an excuse for abortion.[/Quote]Closure is an excellent thing to be able to offer when an expectant mother and father discover late in term that it is medically necessary to terminate the pregnancy. The suggestion that it should be legally required to cut the child into pieces is by turns insensitive and abhorrent.

D&C is another word for abortion that people use when they don't want to say it.

Or when the discussion requires more specificity than just lumping D&E, D&C and D&X under "abortion" without consideration for why there are three different surgical abortion procedures.

[Falcon1]

And she needs to be better for this reason too:

American Thinker: Kagan: Unfit for the Supreme Court

Quoting in part, emphasis added:

Blackstone writes of the British "Bill of Rights," which was passed early in the first parliament of William and Mary following the "Glorious Revolution," the revolt which led to the expulsion of the last Stuart monarch, James II. He explains that the Bill of Rights was not an act to grant rights to Englishmen, but an act which Parliament believed was to restore natural rights which had been usurped by the Stuart dynasty. The British Bill of Rights included the right to bear arms for self-defense.

Blackstone wrote that there were three absolute rights which were recognized by the common law as being natural rights: personal security, personal liberty, and private property. These rights were protected by certain auxiliary rights, which included 1) the powers of Parliament, 2) limitation on the prerogative powers of the King, 3) access to the courts for justice, 4) the right to petition the King for redress of grievances, and 5) the right to keep and bear arms. The auxiliary rights were necessary, he said, to protect the absolute rights which no government could lawfully abridge.

Given what the Supreme Court precedent has already said, these rights are not "outside of the Constitution," as was suggested by Elena Kagan. Further, Blackstone was not the only influence on the framers.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Falcon1

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It's not worth continuing any discussion concerning abortion if you think it is "good for closure".

There are damned few reasons for abortion, in the first place. "Closure" is nothing to be

considered when considering the "Oath of Hippocrates" that all doctors are supposed to

subscribe. The issue of abortion is not found to be much more than another political

wedge between people in this country.

I make no argument for or against abortion. I know what I believe and I know how I

justify my beliefs, but if you wish to justify a partial birth abortion, you are treading on

thin ice with an overwhelming majority of american men and women.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And she needs to be better for this reason too:

American Thinker: Kagan: Unfit for the Supreme Court

Quoting in part, emphasis added:

Another great article from one of my favorite sites! Thanks for posting a great read!

[Guest 1010011010]

It's not worth continuing any discussion concerning abortion if you think it is "good for closure".

I'm not arguing about the justifiability of abortion in any specific circumstances. I'm pointing out that, when a late term abortion is necessary, the reason for choosing D&X over D&C (besides that it may be safer in some circumstances) is to give the parents of the aborted fetus closure over the unavoidable loss of a wanted child.

That it is cast as though elective PBA is common (or even exists at all) does a grave disservice to the pain and suffering of families faced with the medical necessity of late-term abortion.

There are damned few reasons for abortion, in the first place.

Agreed. In my opinion the debate begins and ends on the right of a person to control how their body is used. The state has no authority to force anyone to gestate a fetus against their will. The only reason necessary is "I don't want to". While you and I might agree that reason is morally repugnant, I consider it less so than allowing a state to claim a right to use someone's body against their will.

And, honestly, if someone gets to late-term and, on w him, decides to go get an abortion the last thing I think we should be doing is trying to force that type of person to be a parent.

"Closure" is nothing to be considered when considering the "Oath of Hippocrates" that all doctors are supposed to

subscribe.[/Quote]You seem to be thinking that "closure" is the justification for the abortion. It is taken as a given that the abortion is justified by reasons of medical necessity (e.g., the fetus has already died and must be removed). A reason for choosing D&X over D&C is "closure". Rather than being pregnant one day and not pregnant the next, D&X gives the chance for the mother to hold her child and say her goodbyes. Dictating the the fetus must be cut into pieces while still in the uterus (D&C) accomplishes nothing.

The issue of abortion is not found to be much more than another political wedge between people in this country.[/QUote]This reminds me of something I saw on AmericaSpeakingOut.com.

I make no argument for or against abortion. I know what I believe and I know how I justify my beliefs, but if you wish to justify a partial birth abortion, you are treading on

thin ice with an overwhelming majority of american men and women.

Depends on the justification and presentation, doesn't it? I do not think that an overwhelming majority of American men and women would agree there is a compelling state interest in denying a grieving mother the chance to hold her dead child and instead requiring it to be cut into pieces. And that is all the practical impact banning D&X has.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Your premise is so flawed it is appalling concerning partial birth abortions.

It is a rarely used procedure, in the first place. Very few doctors would even

consider performing it, and one of the few was murdered last year.

If a pregnant woman waited until the end of term to have this procedure

performed, of her own volition, please point it out to me, especially if she

just didn't want the baby. I might consider sympathy to such stupidity, if

it was known, medically, that the baby couldn't survive. That is usually

determined a bit earlier in the pregnancy. You don't take opportunity for

life away from the potential of life for trite reasoning.

I asked my wife what she thought about the closure reasoning. We can

argue quite well on such topics. We agreed.

When one justifies an action like this for closure, and uses" cutting the

baby into pieces" as an alternative, to argue a point, I wonder what the

next argument will be? I'm so glad my wife and I never had a discussion

whether we wanted this baby or not.

"Agreed. In my opinion the debate begins and ends on the right of a person

to control how their body is used. The state has no authority to force anyone

to gestate a fetus against their will. The only reason necessary is "I don't want to"."

If you didn't want to procreate, you shouldn't have had sex. It makes me

wonder why people don't understand actions and consequences.

If Kagan is your lady for the high seat, I guess I understand your logic, in

an alternative universe.

Edited July 5, 2010 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 1010011010]

From the tone of your writing it's pretty clear that you think you're disagreeing with me, but I'm having trouble finding where you actually do.

If you didn't want to procreate, you shouldn't have had sex. It makes me wonder why people don't understand actions and consequences.

The horrible thing about this comment is that it both trivializes the importance of taking responsibility for reproduction and makes the creation of new life a crass tool for the punishment of women.

What's your opinion of the Montgomery County Shooting Complex?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Good place! Maybe we could meet out there and waste

some good ammo.

I'll never give the right to choose crowd any slack. So

let's let that dog lie. Iade the comment because Ms.

Kagan is a communist and will make a lousy justice

because of her writings and comments, besides lying

about her views on the Bill of Rights.

Let me know when you can get free to go down to

Southside, or better yet, find a patch of land between

C'ville and Adams.