Kagan is plainly lying about her involvement on partial birth abortion policy

[statman]

in the Clinton Administration: http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...UzZTg5NDU5NDc=

The link quotes her words straight from a memo written whil crafting WH verbage. She clearly understood that it was the opinion of SCIENTISTS that there was no medical justification for partial birth abortion in terms of preserving the mother's health. Medically, it is simply no less risky than simply delivering the baby.

Yet the language in the partial birth abortion exception states the opposite. She wrote that there ARE circumstances that it's the best option for the health of the mother - again, somthing that the committee of physicians used to help formulate the opinion simply DID NOT SAY.

She made the shit up. And, IMHO, she'll burn in hell for it. Partial birth abortion is an horrendous evil with no medical justification. It is infanticide in every sense of the word. But she'll still almost certainly become our next supreme court justice. Josef Mengele would be proud...

[il Padrino Ute]

She's also dishonest about what she did while at Harvard in regards to military recruiters.

If this woman is confirmed, Etra Taft Benson's words will come to be.

[All-American]

Yeah, well, the second choice for the nomination lies about whether class action suits would be on her Civ Pro tests. Nuts to the lot of them, says I.

[RobinFinderson]

in the Clinton Administration: http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...UzZTg5NDU5NDc=

The link quotes her words straight from a memo written whil crafting WH verbage. She clearly understood that it was the opinion of SCIENTISTS that there was no medical justification for partial birth abortion in terms of preserving the mother's health. Medically, it is simply no less risky than simply delivering the baby.

Yet the language in the partial birth abortion exception states the opposite. She wrote that there ARE circumstances that it's the best option for the health of the mother - again, somthing that the committee of physicians used to help formulate the opinion simply DID NOT SAY.

She made the shit up. And, IMHO, she'll burn in hell for it. Partial birth abortion is an horrendous evil with no medical justification. It is infanticide in every sense of the word. But she'll still almost certainly become our next supreme court justice. Josef Mengele would be proud...

As soon as you accept the woman's emotional and mental health as a significant part of the equation, then late-term abortion can still be medically justified. If you are only talking about the risk of bleeding out, then late-term abortion may be just as dangerous as live birth. If having the child will wreck the woman mentally, and she only realized that late in the game (say a late DNA test reveals that the child is the result of a rape rather than the planned pregnancy with a husband... I don't know. I'm just thinking about situations where a late-term revelation could make the pregnancy an emotional threat that might not have otherwise been anticipated), then maybe a late-term abortion could prove to be medically expedient.

It would be a rare situation, but not out of the equation. Kagen may be technically on firm ground here, even if the situation that justifies her statement is extremely rare.

[Jacob]

As soon as you accept the woman's emotional and mental health as a significant part of the equation, then late-term abortion can still be medically justified. If you are only talking about the risk of bleeding out, then late-term abortion may be just as dangerous as live birth. If having the child will wreck the woman mentally, and she only realized that late in the game (say a late DNA test reveals that the child is the result of a rape rather than the planned pregnancy with a husband... I don't know. I'm just thinking about situations where a late-term revelation could make the pregnancy an emotional threat that might not have otherwise been anticipated), then maybe a late-term abortion could prove to be medically expedient.

It would be a rare situation, but not out of the equation. Kagen may be technically on firm ground here, even if the situation that justifies her statement is extremely rare.

That may be true, but it misses the point. The point here is that her language made it into an official statement of OB/GYN experts with respect to a medical and scientific report related to whether the procedure was necessary. The report prior to her change stated that the experts weren't aware of any such circumstance. She had no basis for making her recommended change, except for political reasons. that her statement made it into the official report is a scandal, but I'm not sure whether it says more about her or about the people who issued the report -- those supposedly objective and expert OB/GYN folk.

She was a political operative working for a president. She was doing her job. It shows that she is very radical on the issue of abortion. it shows that she was willing to interfere with what was intended to be an objective medical statement. It shows the dearth of foundation for those justices who opined that the law was unconstitutional, based in part on Kagan's language in that report. There's not doubt Kagan will be just like those justices who took up her language, and for me, that is reason enough to hope that something happens to torpedo her nomination.

[BigFatMeanie]

As soon as you accept the woman's emotional and mental health as a significant part of the equation, then late-term abortion can still be medically justified. If you are only talking about the risk of bleeding out, then late-term abortion may be just as dangerous as live birth. If having the child will wreck the woman mentally, and she only realized that late in the game (say a late DNA test reveals that the child is the result of a rape rather than the planned pregnancy with a husband... I don't know. I'm just thinking about situations where a late-term revelation could make the pregnancy an emotional threat that might not have otherwise been anticipated), then maybe a late-term abortion could prove to be medically expedient.

It would be a rare situation, but not out of the equation. Kagen may be technically on firm ground here, even if the situation that justifies her statement is extremely rare.

Umm, nobody was talking about late-term abortion and the law in question wasn't about late-term abortion. It was about partial-birth abortion.

[RobinFinderson]

That may be true, but it misses the point. The point here is that her language made it into an official statement of OB/GYN experts with respect to a medical and scientific report related to whether the procedure was necessary. The report prior to her change stated that the experts weren't aware of any such circumstance. She had no basis for making her recommended change, except for political reasons. that her statement made it into the official report is a scandal, but I'm not sure whether it says more about her or about the people who issued the report -- those supposedly objective and expert OB/GYN folk.

She was a political operative working for a president. She was doing her job. It shows that she is very radical on the issue of abortion. it shows that she was willing to interfere with what was intended to be an objective medical statement. It shows the dearth of foundation for those justices who opined that the law was unconstitutional, based in part on Kagan's language in that report. There's not doubt Kagan will be just like those justices who took up her language, and for me, that is reason enough to hope that something happens to torpedo her nomination.

I disagree with your assessment bolded above. My only exposure to this issue (I haven't been following the Kagen proceedings, because I don't really care if she makes it in or not) is the article cited by Statman. I quote from the author:

...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.

The result was that no circumstance could be identified. This is not a conclusion that no circumstance exists. Indeed, it is reasonable to infer that the committee's recommendation that the partial-birth method remain an option means that some justifiable circumstances could arise, but that the committee was either unable or unwilling to go on the record in identifying those situations. In Kagen's memo she writes about the testimony of five women who all had 'partial-birth abortions.' I think that it is telling that she concludes that for only two of the women was 'partial-birth abortion' the best alternative.

Finally, Kagen didn't craft the statement of the scientific community. She helped craft a policy position which cited the study. She isn't guilty of manipulating a 'scientific study' (I use the term loosely here, because a committee of doctors, meeting to discuss whether or not they think a partial-birth abortion is ever medically necessary is NOT a scientific study).

[Jacob]

I disagree with your assessment bolded above. My only exposure to this issue (I haven't been following the Kagen proceedings, because I don't really care if she makes it in or not) is the article cited by Statman. I quote from the author:



The result was that no circumstance could be identified. This is not a conclusion that no circumstance exists. Indeed, it is reasonable to infer that the committee's recommendation that the partial-birth method remain an option means that some justifiable circumstances could arise, but that the committee was either unable or unwilling to go on the record in identifying those situations. In Kagen's memo she writes about the testimony of five women who all had 'partial-birth abortions.' I think that it is telling that she concludes that for only two of the women was 'partial-birth abortion' the best alternative.

Finally, Kagen didn't craft the statement of the scientific community. She helped craft a policy position which cited the study. She isn't guilty of manipulating a 'scientific study' (I use the term loosely here, because a committee of doctors, meeting to discuss whether or not they think a partial-birth abortion is ever medically necessary is NOT a scientific study).

I'd suggest you read the article. The link statman cited was merely a bog post in response to the article. Here's the article: http://article.nationalreview.com/43...annen-w-coffin

Kagan reviewed the statement by the "scientific community". She didn't like that it said they couldn't identify any circumstance that required D&X abortion or where D&X would be the least risky. She thought that conclusion was a "disaster". Kagan then crafted a sentence to be added to the "scientific community's" statement. Her suggestion was in fact added to the final draft and was cited by the supreme court and others as a reason to rule the ban on that particular disgusting procedure unconstitutional.

[old_gregg]

Etra Taft Benson's words will come to be.

NOT THE GODLESS COMMUNISTS! THE HORROR!

[RobinFinderson]

I'd suggest you read the article. The link statman cited was merely a bog post in response to the article. Here's the article: http://article.nationalreview.com/43...annen-w-coffin

Kagan reviewed the statement by the "scientific community". She didn't like that it said they couldn't identify any circumstance that required D&X abortion or where D&X would be the least risky. She thought that conclusion was a "disaster". Kagan then crafted a sentence to be added to the "scientific community's" statement. Her suggestion was in fact added to the final draft and was cited by the supreme court and others as a reason to rule the ban on that particular disgusting procedure unconstitutional.

Like I said, I'm just reading these links as you and others post them. I'm less interested in whether or not Kagen did anything wrong than I am in the process by which these sorts of policies are made. I still think that your characterization of what happened is inaccurate. Now quoting from the the NRO reporter (not much different than a blog post, imo):

The task force’s initial draft statement did not include the statement that the controversial abortion procedure “might be” the best method “in a particular circumstance.” Instead, it said that the select ACOG panel “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”

I've italicized and bolded what I see as significant. Just because there are other options does not mean that the partial-birth abortion choice wouldn't be the best option. Kagen's recommendation does not contradict the lower committee's original opinion.

Also, both the blogger and the NRO writer try to make a point about the ACOG executive committee deciding to include Kagen's statement, as opposed to the original task group. This shouldn't be controversial one bit. Executive committees exist for this very purpose, to review and make executive decisions about opinions that represent the organization's views. As it turns out, the executive committee agreed with Kagen's suggestion, which is not surprising. As I've already noted, it is a reasonable inference from the fact that the original committee still argued that partial-birth abortions remain a doctor's option that some situations might call for a doctor to perform such a procedure.

Anyhow, it was Kagen's job to review the report, not to change the findings (which she didn't do, since her recommendation does not contradict the original report the way statman's blogger seems to think), but to clarify the intent with an eye to policy. It should surprise no one that a group of medical professionals might word an opinion in a way that would bring about unintended political consequences, yet without altering the meaning of their words, a slightly different phrasing could bring about a whole different set of political interpretations. Apparently the ACOG executive committee agreed with Kagen that her recommendation reflected a more accurate statement of the original committee's intent when it argued that d&x remain a doctor's option.

[Green Lantern]

She's also dishonest about what she did while at Harvard in regards to military recruiters.

If this woman is confirmed, Etra Taft Benson's words will come to be.

IPU, can you clarify a bit more about how she was dishonest here and how Benson's words come into it?

[statman]

IPU, can you clarify a bit more about how she was dishonest here and how Benson's words come into it?

She took wording from the report from a panel of experts that said there was no time that the procedure was safer than alternative procedures, and inserted wording that said there were some cases where it was the safer procedure.

Experts: It's never safer.

Kagan: it's sometimes safer.

Her position - the position sited in court cases saying that the "science" says it's sometimes necessary and therefore must remain legal - is a fabrication. A politically-oriented twist of words that completely changes the conclusions of an expert panel as a sacrifice on the altar of progressivism...

[RobinFinderson]

She took wording from the report from a panel of experts that said there was no time that the procedure was safer than alternative procedures, and inserted wording that said there were some cases where it was the safer procedure.

Experts: It's never safer.

Kagan: it's sometimes safer.

Her position - the position sited in court cases saying that the "science" says it's sometimes necessary and therefore must remain legal - is a fabrication. A politically-oriented twist of words that completely changes the conclusions of an expert panel as a sacrifice on the altar of progressivism...

As far as I can tell, from reading only biased sources (the NRO article, and your original blogger's post), you are misrepresenting both the original committee AND Kagen. As best I can tell, the original committee found that there were never situations when d&x was the ONLY option, but they went on to recommend that d&x continue to be an option. They also noted that it was equally safe to the other options. Kagen's recommendation doesn't deal with safety. It deals with what is BEST. The safety of the mother is only one consideration when determining the BEST procedure. Kagen recognized that the original wording could easily be interpreted by abortion opponents as tacit support of their position, even though the original committee clearly stated that d&x should remain an option. Kagen recommended a clarification of the intent on this point, which the ACOG executive committee accepted as a more clear statement of the organization's intent.

Was the ACOG executive committee strong-armed behind the scenes? If so, then the NRO critics have a point. Otherwise this is simply an example of where a wordsmith interpreted an unclear point, clarified it, asked if the clarification was acceptable, and the founding organization accepted the recommendation as a better articulation of their position. If folks have evidence of strong-arming, then there is something to discuss. Otherwise I fail to understand how this is a real issue.

[Green Lantern]

She took wording from the report from a panel of experts that said there was no time that the procedure was safer than alternative procedures, and inserted wording that said there were some cases where it was the safer procedure.

Experts: It's never safer.

Kagan: it's sometimes safer.

Her position - the position sited in court cases saying that the "science" says it's sometimes necessary and therefore must remain legal - is a fabrication. A politically-oriented twist of words that completely changes the conclusions of an expert panel as a sacrifice on the altar of progressivism...

Actually, IPU was talking about the military recruiting on the college campus. That's the issue I'm asking about.

[il Padrino Ute]

Actually, IPU was talking about the military recruiting on the college campus. That's the issue I'm asking about.

She's been trying to downplay her role in trying to ban the military recruiters from campus. This article is a pretty good summary of what she did.

As for what I mean about Benson, he supposedly said something about the Constitution hanging by a thread. It was more a TIC comment to rile some of the more progressive members of CUF, as Kagan is like most progressives who think the Constitution is something that should evolve to fit the times, rather than accepting it as it was (IMO) intended to be - strictly followed, particularly the Bill of Rights which tells the government what it can't do to the people.