Kagan changed doctors’ language to say that partial birth abortion might be the “best” procedure in some circumstances
As President Clinton’s deputy advisor on domestic policy, Elena Kagan personally re-wrote a key sentence in a position paper on partial birth abortion by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists which became the basis for many pro-partial birth abortion suits and political debates in subsequent years. According to Yehuda Levin, drawing on a piece by Shannen Coffin at National Review:
Kagan saw ACOG’s original paper, which did not include the claim that 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,” but, on the contrary, said that ACOG “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure … would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” She wrote a memo to two White House colleagues noting that this language would be “a disaster” for the cause of partial-birth abortion, and she then set out to do something about it. In notes released by the White House it now looks as though Kagan herself—a senior Clinton White House staffer with no medical background—proposed the “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman” language, and sent it to ACOG, which then included that language in its final statement.John McCormack comments at the Weekly Standard:
If Kagan twisted science to advance her political agenda, why wouldn’t she do the same to the law?Indeed, why wouldn’t she? Everything about Kagan screams out that she’s a typical knee-jerk, New York, Russian-Jewish leftist, with everything that implies. It’s as though Obama, notwithstanding his messiah-like abilities, couldn’t raise Emma Goldman from the grave to be a Supreme Court justice, so he picked Elena Kagan instead.
Lest the above sound too hostile, I would add that there are things about Kagan I like. As I wrote at the time of her nomination, after watching her on video:The Phantom Blogger writes:
Was Emma Goldman not an Anarchist, rather than a Communist.LA replies:
Interesting, I had forgotten that she was known as an anarchist rather than as a Communist, especially as she was deported back to Communist Russia along with a couple of hundred other non-citizen leftists. I think in my mind I had simply associated her with Communists. But now that I think about it, the events that triggered the Palmer raids and the subsequent deportations were not Communist activities as such, but anarchist-terrorist bombings in New York City, including one at Wall Street. I’d have to read up on it, but maybe there was more alarm at that time about Goldman-type anarchism than about the American Communist Party itself, an organization formed in 1919 with the express goal of bringing about a dictatorship of the proletariat in this country. In my view, all immigrant Communists should have been barred or expelled from the U.S. The government should have deported far more than the mere couple of hundred non-citizen leftists (including Goldman) whom they did deport.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 30, 2010 09:41 AM | Send