Clinton Era Memo Betrays Kagan’s Extremist Pro-Abortion Thinking

From Operation Rescue with my edits:

Clinton Era Memo Betrays Kagan’s Extremist Pro-Abortion Thinking

Written by Operation Rescue
Posted June 30, 2010

Commentary by Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Policy Advisor, Operation Rescue

Washington, DC – Earlier this week, the Clinton Library released a number of memos related to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. The most discussed memo, dated January, 1997, concerns her take on the necessity of partial birth abortions and her input by adding language to a statement issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) that favored the now-illegal late-term abortion method.

While Kagan determined that the pro-abortion ACOG was perhaps the most reliable source of medical opinion on Partial-Birth abortions, she cites statements of opposing viewpoints issued by the Society of Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRCH) and “a group of mostly pro-life physicians called PHACT.”

Kagan does not include a written statement from PHACT and only quotes from that organization in part. In contrast to her dismissive attitude toward PHACT, Kagan not only includes a full, two-page statement issued by PRCH on their letterhead, but highlights portions of that statement that agreed with the position in support of partial birth abortion that she advocated.

The Society of Physicians for Reproductive Choice is without a doubt the most extreme organization of abortionists in the nation. It is a group of abortionists who proudly boast of having committed illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade and advocate for no restrictions on abortion at all – ever.

[...]

In other words, the PRCH wants abortionist to have the right to conduct human experimentation on their unwitting abortion patients in order to develop new ways to dismember, poison, or otherwise kill innocent pre-born babies, many which are viable and healthy. One of their members, Curtis Boyd has already admitted he has done so much in his development of new ways to kill babies in the second trimester of pregnancy.

It simply doesn’t get any more extreme than that. Yet, this is a group that Kagan has taken cues from in the past. The same basic philosophy promoted in the 1997 PRCH memo made its way into the policy statement of ACOG, thanks to recommendations made by Kagan in her own handwriting.

The 1997 ACOG statement, with the PRCH inspired Kagan additions, helped defeat the Federal ban on partial birth abortions that year and prolonged the use of this grisly brain-sucking technique an additional six years until the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 was finally passed and signed into law.

This memo shows us that Kagan had no problem dictating policy to physicians, just like she is going to dictate policy from the bench,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “Any Senator who supports Kagan supports abortion policy in its most extreme form, including abortions through the ninth month of pregnancy and human experimentation on women. This is unthinkable and unconscionable.

“The American people overwhelmingly oppose late-term abortions and radical abortion policy that is reflected in the Kagan memo. Senators who would have the bad judgment to vote for her confirmation invite serious voter backlash during their next election,” said Newman. “Remember the public outrage expressed when Senators Ben Nelson and Bart Stupak betrayed their pro-life constituency during the debate on tax funding of abortions in health care. Kagan supporters should expect nothing less.”

Read the full Kagan/ACOG memo

Contact your Senator to voice opposition to the Kagan confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Emanations from Penumbras and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Clinton Era Memo Betrays Kagan’s Extremist Pro-Abortion Thinking

  1. teomatteo says:

    We could sure use the voice of Doug Kmiec right now…

  2. Jack Hughes says:

    What does the attorney general of Malta think now? I hope he’s running out of the embassy headed to the nearest confessional!

  3. Maltese says:

    Does Kagan think it would have been licit for her mother to partially-abort HER?

    Guess it’s OK to believe in the “procedure” so long as you’re not the one it’s being performed on?

    Isn’t there something called the Hippocratic Oath? Remind me what that is….

  4. JosephMary says:

    Is anyone surprised???

    If so you must be HOPING for CHANGE from the man in the white house who has not deviated from his aganda. What other sort of person would he nominate but one in line with his agenda.

  5. TJerome says:

    Where is Pius XI when you need him? If he were around he would issue a sequel to Mit Brenneder Sorge and condemn the modern Democratic Party, aptly called the “Party of Death” by the soon to be named Cardinal Burke.

  6. JimGB says:

    Unfortunately, my two Senators (NY) are Schumer and Gillibrand and no amount of letter writing can dissuade them from voting for their fellow New Yorker, democrat and liberal. They would need to be struck by lightening before they would vote against her (here’s hoping).

  7. JonM says:

    On every level, this should surprise absolutely no one.

    This appointment is a new milestone in the long slide toward openly unqualified government.

  8. Andrew says:

    She dismissed the whole thing when asked about it by saying something to the effect of “I was merely providing information requested by the President.” As for answering questions about her own opinion regarding the matter she simply said “I’m not telling you.” What are these hearings supposed to accomplish? Is this a test to find out if the candidate holds any opinions, and if he or she does, then reject them?

  9. Kerry says:

    With stunning displays of character and courage, Brave, Brave Maid Kagan avoids defending her thoughts and justifying her action! “She was not afraid of having her memos thrashed, and her signature seen. Brave, brave, brave Maid Kagan!”

  10. Deacon Nathan Allen says:

    This shouldn’t be surprising, but I do think Operation Rescue are making more of this than the memo actually reveals. Kagan was a lawyer asked to assess whether her client’s position (in this case, President Clinton) could be effectively argued. The effect of this memo is simply to say that it could, even though there were arguments on both sides. I don’t think you can draw from this memo the conclusion that Kagan’s position = PRCH. That said, it’s probably fair to say her position isn’t Mother Teresa’s either!

  11. moon1234 says:

    Kagan is a homosexual, no doubt in my mind. This woman and others like here have no business on the high court. The interviews by the senate are a joke.

    A supreme court justice DOES NOT MAKE LAW. The response I want to hear would be something like “I will uphold, to the best of my ability and training, the constitution of the united states as it is written and those laws that have been passed in compliance with the constitution and the bill of rights. I will not inject my own personal opinion in any decision of law. It is up to the congress to make laws. The supreme court only decides those cases where the law is unclear. In such cases I will rely on previous case history and the views of the founders of this country.”

    Instead Kagan supports:

    - Outlawing books that critize the government
    - Institutionalizing thought crime. (Ever heard of hate crime? Crime is crime irrespective of why it is committed.)
    - Expaning genocide of the unborn.
    - Expanding the practice of Sodomy.
    - Communism and its ills. She wrote her college graduate thesis on the support of communism.
    - Outlawing the private ownership of arms. We should not be allowed to protect ourselves.

    Folks, this lady is someone who HATES this country and HATES the laws of God. There is no way this lady should sit on our highest court. She is unqualifed to be a Supreme Court Justice. She has NO business being a justice, much less being nominated.

  12. revueltos67 says:

    Curtis Boyd, the abortionist mentioned in the article, has an office here in Albuquerque, NM and is in the process of turning our city into the late-term abortion capital of the US.

    http://www.lifenews.com/state5043.html

    He can do this because of the near total lack of abortion restrictions in this highly Catholic state.

    Please pray for our city and state. Please ask New Mexico’s bishops to do all they can to stop this tragic development through both prayer and political action.

  13. John 6:54 says:

    I can’t wait for her to uphold the law that I need to eat 2 vegitables and 3 fruits each day even if its a “stupid law”

    Thanks Fr. Z for encouraging us to write our representatives. Thankfully my two Reps should be voteing against.

  14. SpokaneTrad says:

    JimGB, I’m in the same boat on the left coast. Cantwell and Murray (alleged Catholics) are as unlikely as your two to vote against confirming Kagan.

  15. wanda says:

    Hopeless in MD. Barbara Mikulski, D, MD. Oh, did I mention she is Catholic? Staunchly pro-abortion. I have written, e-mailed, called and signed petitions until my head is near exploding. She is backed by Planned Parenthood, Emily’s List, etc.

    However, I intend to keep hammering away.

  16. ssoldie says:

    This is the result of the last 45+ years of progressive modernism that has run rampant in not only our American society, but also in our Catholic Church from Vatican II, and to deny it is futile. We have been witnessing the fruits of that council for too long and the chaos and confusion that it has caused. It was shoved on our Catholic Faithful and if we disagreed we were called rigid and scorned. Please, will all you so learned show me what the fruits of Vatican II are? I am suppose to believe that the Holy Ghost was there when Cardinal Ottiavanni was humiliated, and the counsil fathers laughed and clapped. I believe not. Why is so hard for the Church to admit she was/is wrong about Vatican II, we laymen do that every mo. when we go to confession