June 05, 2010

Baby Killer Kagan

I don't think any rational person was ever under the delusion that a President as radical as Barack Obama would nominate a moderate for the Supreme Court, so it is no surprise at all that documents have come out proving that Elena Kagan is a flaming liberal.

I just didn't expect Obama to be so out of touch that he would nominate an advocate of fetal murder:

A newly-produced document today from the Clinton archives is the second to show Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan defending ex-President Bill Clinton's veto of a bill to ban partial-birth abortions. The memo, and others, may increase Republican opposition to her nomination.

In one of the documents that comprises the 46,000 pages of material the William J. Clinton Presidential Library released today, Kagan opined on the ban for Clinton as an attorney with the administration's Office of Domestic Policy.

In a February 27, 1997 memo to top White House staff, Kagan referred to the startling admission from Ron Fitzsimmons, at the time the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.

The debate then had been on whether the partial-birth abortion procedure was done for health reasons for the mother or essentially on healthy unborn children for elective reasons only.

Leading pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL made claims that flew in the face of medical practice by saying the three-day-long abortion procedure would somehow be able to save a woman's life in a life-threatening medical circumstance.

Fitzsimmons signed on to that mantra but eventually relented, saying he "lied through my teeth" about the statistics and supposed reasons for the abortion procedure.

According to CNN, the new memo showed Kagan advising Clinton, saying it "it would be a great mistake to challenge" Fitzsimmons' statements given how embarrassing they were for abortion advocates...


Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee eventually told the Kagan memo likely helped keep partial-birth abortions legal longer.

While it is a purely personal belief, I hold that partial birth abortion, in most cases, amounts to murder.

You cannot tell me this procedure is merely the removal of a mass of cells. It is the murder of an infant, performed by zealots as an act of political defiance and individual selfishness instead of medical necessity in most instances.

I feel a deep and abiding sorrow for the few women each year that must legitimately chose between their lives and the lives of their baby. But this bill was never really about them.

Elena Kagan embraces infanticide as a political statement. No one this radical should ever see the inside of the Supreme Court.

Except, perhaps, as a defendant.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at June 5, 2010 06:52 AM


Do you really think a woman goes like 8 months pregnant thinking "Oh, I'll just get the abortion done at the last minute, it's kinda fun being pregnant with a kid I don't want!"

Oh and "While it is a purely personal belief, " doesn't make for law.

Posted by: Fred at June 5, 2010 09:38 AM

>Except, perhaps, as a defendant.

Yeah, you really understand how the SC works.

Posted by: Fred at June 5, 2010 09:39 AM

The AMA has issued a position statement on partial-birth abortion, and also on third-trimester abortion. Even the AMA says that there is never a reason to invoke either of these to save the mother's life; that the infants are viable by that point and a simple C section will suffice and be less detrimental to the mother than inducing birth to essentially tear the infant limb from limb. The position statement can be found at the AMA web site. It's time to speak the truth about this and stop hiding behind the "woman's right to choose." By the third trimester, it ought to be the infant's rights, because those can be upheld without affecting the mother's health at all.

Posted by: KSterling at June 5, 2010 11:38 AM

When facts interfere with the flagrantly biased narrative of the left...the facts just have to change!

The ghost of Lysenko is smiling on these nuts.

Posted by: iconoclast at June 5, 2010 11:57 AM

No, the AMA supported the bill because:

"the bill would allow a legitimate exception where the life of the mother was endangered"

and that's the only time they do it.

So the bill? It doesn't change a thing.

Are you really so thick as to think a woman who doesn't want to have the kid is going to wait till the last possible moment?

All they have to do is say "abortion" and you morons start howling and gibbering. What? You think Kagan is going to make abortion super-legal?

Bush could find the political will to launch a war (that you "pro-lifers" cheered on) but not to do anything about abortion. In fact can you name one single politician you have voted for that has stopped one abortion?

They talk about it because it gets you twits to vote for them but they never actually do anything because anyone with any sense knows it has to be legal.

Or have you noticed that making things people do with their bodies illegal doesn't stop them from doing it?

Posted by: Fred at June 5, 2010 05:05 PM

Obviously, a liberal President will produce a liberal supreme court judge. Seems like things get more and more liberal every year, though. Even some of the conservatives are liberal compared to 20 years ago.

Elections matter. Have to make sure we all vote in November to take back the Congress so at least there is a shot at a more moderate appointee next time.

Posted by: Muck at June 5, 2010 05:44 PM

Fred's got pretty good control. It took him three posts to get to the "Bush-evil" mantra of the dncmsm.

Posted by: emdfl at June 5, 2010 07:59 PM
Are you really so thick as to think a woman who doesn't want to have the kid is going to wait till the last possible moment?

Of course all women are the same and none, according to you, would ever want something as vile as a partial birth abortion just to free themselves from giving birth to a baby. No more than any mother would killer her own children.

Your offensiveness is only exceeded by your obstinate ignorance.

Posted by: iconoclast at June 5, 2010 08:24 PM


There is NO situation that I am aware of where killing a live full, or almost full term baby is necessary to save the life of the mother.

Think about it. The baby is almost ALL the way out of the mother ALREADY when its birth is stopped in order to kill it, before pulling its head out. Physically, the process is the same. The infant being killed at the last possible moment could not possibly do anything to "save" the mother.

I'm sorry, Fred, but you lose this one.

Posted by: Bill Smith at June 5, 2010 08:26 PM

All abortions are murder, the late-term abortion is horrible murder, if mom is at risk why not a c-section? Why induce labor, then turn baby around in a breech position, them stop the birth so baby can be killed with head in poor sick moms vagina??? Murder. My 1st daughter was born at 6 months, I was in a coma and yet she was saved and lives today, given the choice my life/her life I would chose her life, she wieghed just under 2 lbs and the docs and nurses fought for her and for me too, so do not tell me that murder is ever an option. And my daughter was born in the early 70s , I chose life as I know abortion is murder.

Posted by: duncan at June 5, 2010 09:54 PM

Fred, you are dead wrong. There is no situation where a mother's life could be in danger and a C section could not be performed more safely than an abortion. You don't understand how a partial-birth abortion works vs. a C section if you can't see that. A partial-birth abortion is much harder on the mother than a C section - ergo, it would never be performed if the mother's life were in danger; a simple C section would suffice and the baby would be viable. And yes, I mean "baby." Partial-birth abortions are not performed except during the third trimester, and by that time the infant is viable. THEREFORE, if you are able to think critically, you can see that an abortion during the third trimester is tantamount to murder, b/c if the baby were simply born during that time (as I was, I was a 7-month baby way back in the Stone Age of 1957), it would live on its own.

Also, Fred, please see this article from the NY Times, where the head of the National Coalition for Abortion Providers admitted that he lied on numerous occasions about partial-birth abortions and that the procedure is most often performed ON A HEALTHY MOTHER.

Posted by: KSterling at June 6, 2010 09:15 AM

Wow. Did you not read this:

"the bill would allow a legitimate exception where the life of the mother was endangered"

That's the AMA, ya think they know a wee bit more about it than you do?

Women die in childbirth you idiots, it used to happen more often than not before medical science came along with options and one of those options is abortion.

You're ignorant morons who fortunately are a minority.

Abortion is legal and no one in power has made any serious effort to change that, not even your Dear Leader Bush. They use abortion to get you tards to drag your knuckles to the ballot box and vote for them. They use abortion to get you idiots to screech about stuff like SC and other appointments. In fact banning abortion would be a mistake they'll never make, otherwise how would they get you twats to do what they want?

Posted by: Fred at June 6, 2010 10:09 AM

Fred, ha ha, can you not connect the dots? "women die in childbirth" ... yeah, so THAT is why the AMA recommends, in their position statement, that a woman who is in distress in her third trimester undergo a C section. Because in order to have a partial-birth abortion, you must induce birth. Which is dangerous for the mother. If her life is in danger, the quickest fix is to cut open her stomach and take the baby. Unless, of course, she doesn't want the baby - in which case she would opt for a partial-birth abortion. Read the NYT article (link above) where the leading abortion doc admitted this procedure was done on healthy women. Do you think women don't get "cold feet" late in a pregnancy, that perhaps their circumstances don't change and they get scared and just want to end it, w/o any further responsibility? If you don't think this is possible, you really don't understand women at all, or much of anything else.

And yes, the AMA supported the partial-birth abortion ban b/c of the change in the language in the bill; their worry was that the ban would be extended to other abortion situations. Their concern was not partial-birth abortions, which the AMA does not support.

Stop screaming about abortions being practiced on women whose health is in danger. A very minor fraction of abortions are performed for that reason. Most of them are performed as a measure of birth control. And that is the honest, despicable truth.

Posted by: KSterling at June 6, 2010 03:42 PM

Elana Kagan is a left wing extremist. Would Barrack Obama appoint anyone else? Any Republican who votes to confirm anybody appointed by Mr Obama is failing the country.

Posted by: Ken Hahn at June 6, 2010 05:40 PM
Women die in childbirth you idiots, it used to happen more often than not before medical science came along with options and one of those options is abortion.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read, Fred. What's that you were saying about ignorant morons?

Posted by: Pablo at June 6, 2010 06:38 PM

Registered Labor and Delivery nurse, weighing in; you'd be surprised, Fred, and probably thrilled, at how many women come in well in to their 8 month for abortions. Because all of the nurses that I work with refuse to assist in such a ghastly procedure, most of these cases are sent out to clinics who are more than happpy to provide this service.

Posted by: JolieFleurs at June 7, 2010 08:31 PM