Kagan advised Clinton ('97) to support late-term abortion ban

[PDittie]

I don't like this nominee, and and I am full-throated supporter of women's reproductive freedom. So I think this might be damaging to her prospects with the Democratic base. Either that or Obama is tubing us progressives again.

As a White House adviser in 1997, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan urged then-President Bill Clinton to support a ban on late-term abortions, a political compromise that put the administration at odds with abortion rights groups.

Documents reviewed Monday by The Associated Press show Kagan encouraging Clinton to support a bill that would have banned all abortions of viable fetuses except when the physical health of the mother was at risk. The documents from Clinton's presidential library are among the first to surface in which Kagan weighs in the thorny issue of abortion.

The abortion proposal was a compromise by Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle. Clinton supported it, but the proposal failed and Clinton vetoed a stricter Republican ban.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6998891.html

How do you think NARAL will respond?

[FrenchieCat]

1. Do you have the particulars on the language of the "Ban" she advised him on?

because it is obvious that whatever version was, it failed,
and that Clinton vetoed a stricter ban.

So the strict ban is not the one she advised him to go for, if indeed
this is true.

[PDittie]

3. AP via NPR

Documents reviewed Monday by The Associated Press show Kagan encouraging Clinton to support a compromise bill that would have banned all abortions of viable fetuses except when the health of the mother was at risk. The documents from Clinton's presidential library are among the first to surface in which Kagan discusses the thorny issue of abortion.

The proposal was a compromise by Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle. Clinton supported it, despite opposition from pro-abortion rights groups. The compromise failed and Clinton vetoed a stricter Republican ban.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/05/elena_kagan_in_clinton_white_h.html

edit: sorry, that's the same info as in the OP. I'll update with a different post if I find what you seek.

[FrenchieCat]

11. So NARAL has no problems with her at this time?

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2010/pr05102010_scotusnomkagan.html

If that's the case, then I'm not sure why I should.
I'm not a great rah-rah fan of late term abortion other than if there is a risk
to the woman's health......sorry to say. :shrug:

[Junkdrawer]

2. Who cares about NARAL? It will make her even MORE attractive to Republicans...

And isn't that what it's all about?

[PDittie]

5. You think this news will garner a GOP vote or three?

Your sarcasm must be too high for my head.

[Junkdrawer]

8. Liberals can be taken for granted. Pleasing Republicans is much harder....

But he tries. Lord knows he tries...

[zazen]

4. sorry, but I agree with that one

And I have the audacity to call myself a radical feminist. Why on earth would one abort a viable fetus unless the mother's physical health was at risk? Isn't that why there _are_ late-term abortions? "Physical health" can be broad enough to include complications from delivering a range of fetuses who have documented birth defects as well, and probably widened to include mental health issues too. If not, where does it end? Do I have the right to induce my externally viable 34-week-old fetus and then kill her on the spot without a legitimate legal/medical reason? Nope. At some point we have to draw the line. "Physical health of the mother" is sufficiently broad to allow exceptions.

Don't know about the rest of her record. Frankly, I think Obama's putting in a non-progressive Dem who happens to be a lesbian in an attempt to placate the GLBT crowd, whom he's otherwise really pissed off.

[PDittie]

6. Well it's that incrementalism that

I thought people of a strong pro-choice persuasion were against. Am I mistaken?

[zazen]

14. you're right that strong pro-choice people would be against it. . .

And incrementalism always has its risks.

I'm just not strongly pro-"choice," as it's commonly defined. I think abortion on demand mainly serves a system of male dominance. It's no accident that in the early 70s pornographers rushed to support legalized abortion. . . it was sex on the biological male's terms (meaning, no reproductive consequences, for the sexually "liberated" irresponsible men--not men who actually thought through the consequences of casual unprotected sex).

It should never be criminalized. . . but, just because a new mother is living in utter poverty and being battered and suffering all sorts of misery under conditions of male dominance isn't a reason (we generally agree as a society) for her to commit infanticide, however grossly unjust her circumstances and how much more difficult the responsibiilty of mothering makes it. We don't scapegoat the baby. So why is it okay for her to commit the same act because of those conditions of male dominance three months before the baby is born? I'm not talking about issues where physical health is an issue. I'm talking about the undeniable reality that women bear this enormous, largely unsupported biological and cultural burden because of the conditions of patriarchy in which we live. By focusing on abortion as this fundamental right/responsibility and only "out" of the mother, we let these bastards who go around getting women and girls pregnant (who if FBI statistics are right include many daterape victims) and not taking any responsibility get off the existential, financial, and moral hook. A system of male dominance that convinces women to kill their own babies so that the system continues, unabated and unchallenged, is one that's so fucked with our heads that we are thoroughly colonized. In a society without male dominance, abortion would be a rarity.

So, there are pro-life feminists. We don't accept the right-wing's definition of "pro-life" either.

[defendandprotect]

19. "System of male dominance convinces women to kill their own babies"-- hmmm....

I'm just not strongly pro-"choice,"

I think abortion on demand mainly serves a system of male dominance.


but, just because a new mother is living in utter poverty and being battered and suffering all sorts of misery under conditions of male dominance isn't a reason (we generally agree as a society) for her to commit infanticide, however grossly unjust her circumstances and how much more difficult the responsibiilty of mothering makes it. We don't scapegoat the baby. So why is it okay for her to commit the same act because of those conditions of male dominance three months before the baby is born?

How easily you describe and subscribe what another female should endure in pregnancy!

Meanwhile . . . "Infanticide" has nothing to do with abortion. Except in the right wing

"pro-life" confused mind.

infanticide ( ) n. The act of killing an infant.


A system of male dominance that convinces women

to kill their own babies

Sounds amazingly like something that right wing "pro-life" propagandists would be saying . . . !!


And your response to male-dominance is to limit the female's choices?

Rather, let's start offering free vasectomies to any male over 21 --




PS: "I'm just not that strongly pro-'choice'"

That seems more than clear!!

[LeftyMom]

21. Late term abortions are almost exclusively done due to serious medical issues.

"Male dominance" doesn't have fuck all to do with malformations incompatible with life. That's just bad luck, and it happens whether pregnancies were wanted or not, and the only male dominance issue involved is that of making a woman squeeze out a dead or dying baby just to score political points.

Don't you fucking dare couch that anti-woman bullshit in feminist language. If you haven't had a pregnancy go horribly fucking wrong you really have no idea what it's like to decide between waiting for the horrible inevitable and just getting it all over with so you can move on and grieve and try again, and until you do you should shut the fuck up and mind your own damned business.

[zazen]

22. God bless you. You've obviously been very hurt to misunderstand what I wrote.

I said that physical health reasons were a justifiable reason. And you don't know what I've experienced. You're clearly very emotionally upset to flame this way. I wish you well.

[LeftyMom]

26. I think you misunderstand. Nobody gives a damn what you think is a "justifiable reason."

Least of all me.

[defendandprotect]

18. First, these abortions have to be approved . . .

because they are a risk to the life of the female -- for a second reason.

This is a specific procedure which protects the life and future fertility of the female

which is banned under this law. It eliminates a primary method which is safer for the female.


Nor do I agree that "Physical health of the mother" is sufficient -- it has to include the

right to not bring to term a damaged fetus. And it has to include the physical and mental

health of the female.


Anyone who would believe this . . .

Do I have the right to induce my externally viable 34-week-old fetus and then kill her on the spot without a legitimate legal/medical reason?

hasn't done a lot of thinking on the subject. That lack of reasoning is very much part of the

"partial truth abortion" law that has passed and which Kagan sadly supported!

Wow!

[cutlassmama]

29. Agree with you on both counts

[stray cat]

7. Does she also support treating babies in utero and medical care for premies?

I don't see why we spend good money on treating a fetus or saving premature babies - if they can not survive outside the womb without any medical aid they are not human and we should let them die! (so at least we can be consistent)

[ProSense]

9. AP digging and offering little insight.

In a May 13, 1997, memo from the White House domestic policy office, Kagan and her boss, Bruce Reed, told Clinton that abortion rights groups opposed Daschle's compromise. But they urged the president to support it, saying he otherwise risked seeing a Republican-led Congress override his veto on the stricter bill.

Clinton generally supported banning late-term abortions but insisted there be an exception when the mother's health was at risk.

Because Kagan spent little time in court and never sat as a judge, she does not have the typical long history of court opinions and legal briefs. That has made it difficult to assess her legal acumen or ideology. President Barack Obama announced Kagan's nomination to the high court on Monday.

The memo is more of a political calculation than a legal brief, but Kagan and Reed urged Clinton to support the compromise despite noting that the Justice Department believed the proposal was unconstitutional.

<...>

The memos were contained in Reed's files. They do not include Kagan's papers from her time as domestic policy adviser and associate White House counsel. Those records, a several-thousand page collection that could provide the most revealing look at Kagan's legal work, are expected to be released this summer.

And for the record NARAL's statement:

Statement of Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, on the Nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court

Washington, D.C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued the following statement on President Obama's selection of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court.

"President Obama has selected a nominee with a sound record of legal accomplishment. We call on the Senate to give Solicitor General Kagan a fair hearing and look forward to learning more about her views on the right to privacy and the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. President Obama recently reiterated his strong support for constitutional principles that protect women's rights. We will work to ensure Americans receive clear answers to questions regarding these principles as this nomination process moves forward."

"Given the current composition of the court, we will assess Solicitor General Kagan's complete record on privacy and other relevant issues in the same way we did during Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation process. Unlike Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Alito, each of whom had anti-choice records before coming to the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor articulated several times throughout her hearing that the constitutional right to privacy includes the right to choose, and thus we supported her nomination for a seat on the nation's highest court."

[Canuckistanian]

10. I'm glad they didn't use that "other phrase" for late-term abortion

You know, that think-tank invented, emotionally-laden non-medical term for it.

[defendandprotect]

17. Partial truth abortion . . . really bad news re Kagan . . . !! Bleech -- !!

This will also encourage the right wing --

and further push away liberals/progressives --

[musette_sf]

12. NARAL said:

Statement of Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, on the Nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court

Washington, D.C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued the following statement on President Obama's selection of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court.

"President Obama has selected a nominee with a sound record of legal accomplishment. We call on the Senate to give Solicitor General Kagan a fair hearing and look forward to learning more about her views on the right to privacy and the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. President Obama recently reiterated his strong support for constitutional principles that protect women's rights. We will work to ensure Americans receive clear answers to questions regarding these principles as this nomination process moves forward."

"Given the current composition of the court, we will assess Solicitor General Kagan's complete record on privacy and other relevant issues in the same way we did during Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation process. Unlike Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Alito, each of whom had anti-choice records before coming to the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor articulated several times throughout her hearing that the constitutional right to privacy includes the right to choose, and thus we supported her nomination for a seat on the nation's highest court."

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2010/pr05102010_scotusnomkagan.html

[depakid]

13. "we will assess Solicitor General Kagan's complete record on privacy and other relevant issues"

Sounds like the rational thing to do.

[defendandprotect]

15. Looks like Dems have been getting ready for years to sabotage Roe vs Wade . . .

as we've learned from Clinton and Obama, Democrats move the right wing stuff

the GOP can't move!!

Seems clear that Obama is following DLC/corporate guidelines -- !!

[FrenchieCat]

24. Roe v. Wade always said that States should deal with the issue of

late term.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),<1> was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion is determined by her current trimester of pregnancy:

In the first trimester, the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion in any way. The court stated that this trimester begins at conception and ends at the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable'".

In the second trimester, the state may only regulate the abortion procedure "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health" as defined in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton.<2>
In the third trimester, the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

[defendandprotect]

31. Late term abortions occur at the rate of about one in every county in US every year ....

And, they have to be approved --

And, they generally have to do with health of the mother --

Nor IMO should any state bar a pregnant female from aborting an abnormal fetus --

The state's responsibility is to ensure that the life of the female is protected --

I would also include any case of rape or incest where a young pregnant female may not

have access to abortion until late in the pregnancy for one reason or another.



But coming back to my original point -- we now have a "pro-life" Democratic group and

many Dems -- including Gephardt and Bonier and others voted for "partial birth abortion"

law -- which many describe as "partial truth abortion" law . . .

I agree with that definition!

[defendandprotect]

16. NARAL should respond strongly . . . do we think Obama checked with them first?

The signs have been clear that Dems are shaping up to betray women on abortion . . .

Over time, I believe they will --

And, the women's groups, in general, have been disgustingly supportive of even the

move to DLC - corporate wing and many questionable positions by Dems . . . as long

as they supported abortion. You can't have fascism and abortion!! Will never happen!

PLUS, as usual, it looks like every liberal organization is competiting with one another

for the Dem dollar -- rather than moving on principle.

Same ole, same ole --

Another old saying is . . .

"You can only really be betrayed by those closest to you!" -- so true!!

[cbdo2007]

20. This doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

Really, how long should it take someone to decide if they want to keep their baby or not? You've got 5 months to think it over and then just have the baby unless it is risking your health. I know many people here think anyone should be able to have an abortion any place any time until birth, but I'm pretty sure the majority of "pro-choice" people agree with Kagan's stance on this.

[Kitty Herder]

23. K&R We need to know these things.

[inna]

25. Damn, I thought she was solidly pro-choice, at least.

:(

[FreeState]

27. Shes also not hip on marriage equality...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304846504575178390602940072.html

In written follow-ups to the confirmation hearing, Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) asked Ms. Kagan if the Constitution provided for gay marriage.

"There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage," she responded. She added that she didn't recall ever expressing an opinion on whether there should be such a right.

[democrat2thecore]

28. Well, that was a literal answer. do you think there is a *constitutional right* to Gay marriage?

Despite our personal feelings, I think Kagan answered that question the only way she could.

[PDittie]

30. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Yes I know that's not in the Constitution.

http://www.freelaunch.com/essays/liberty.html

[defendandprotect]

32. Where does the Constitution mention hetereo marriage right?

Society/culture/male-supremacist religion established that right . . . ???