Will Kagan be the final Anti Choice justice needed to overturn Roe v. Wade

[Nikki Stone1]

WASHINGTON – A senior House Democrat said Tuesday that senators should fully question Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan to make sure she supports abortion rights, in light of her previous backing for limiting late-term abortions.

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York said she views as "troubling" a 1997 memo Kagan wrote urging then-President Bill Clinton to back a ban on all abortions of viable fetuses except when the physical health of the mother was at risk.

Slaughter, the co-chair of the House Pro-Choice Caucus, wrote that the lack of a judicial record for Kagan, who has never been a judge, makes it imperative that the committee scrutinize her abortion views.
Kagan, President Barack Obama's choice to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, was a domestic policy adviser to Clinton when she wrote the memo Slaughter cited. That memo is part of a trove of documents, most of them unreleased, at the Clinton presidential library in Little Rock, Ark.

In the 1997 memo, Kagan urged Clinton to support a ban on late-term abortions, a political compromise that put the administration at odds with abortion rights groups. Kagan and her boss, Bruce Reed, told the president that he should support the ban because it might help him avoid even stricter language from a Republican-led Congress. Clinton supported it, but the proposal ultimately failed and Clinton vetoed a stricter Republican ban.

Slaughter raised her concerns as the White House delivered to Capitol Hill Kagan's lengthy response to a Judiciary Committee questionnaire, including cartons of new documents from her past that could shed light on her views and legal approach.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_kagan_supreme_court

[onehandle]

1. No. nt

[usregimechange]

2. I've looked at this, supporting a ban on some late term abortions to prevent a larger ban...

doesn't even come close to anti-choice.

[EFerrari]

11. Well, bans take choice away so, yes, it is an anti-choice position. n/t

[DefenseLawyer]

3. It only shows me she is another pragmatic political operative of the Clinton generation

Ve believe in nussing, Lebowski.

[Nikki Stone1]

5. That would make Obama Clinton II.

The sequel.

[sharesunited]

4. The Roe decision itself admitted to the state's compelling interest in the life of the unborn

after the first trimester.

[pnwmom]

6. I would rather she have been on the winning side of a decision that limited late-term abortions

than on the losing side of a decision that banned all abortions.

She was just being practical.

[DefenseLawyer]

9. Good quality for a politician, but a Justice? Not so much. n/t

[onenote]

22. and since she wasn't acting as a justice but as a political advisor

her actions tell you absolutely nothing about how she would act as a justice.

[pnwmom]

28. Why do you assume that her orientation working for herself as a lifetime

appointee will be the same as when she was working for Clinton the politician?

But actually, I'd still prefer this quality in a Justice. Suppose she were a William Douglas, for example, but on this court. She'd write lots of great dissents but wouldn't be helping to make policy -- and wouldn't be helping to rein in the excesses of the right.

[DefenseLawyer]

30. I didn't say it would be the same.

I just said being able to make practical political calculations at the cost of one's principles isn't a quality I look for in a Supreme Court Justice.

[pnwmom]

33. And an ineffective idealism isn't a quality I look for. n/t

[joeybee12]

39. I agree 100%...sounds like she'll be cutting back-room deals on the constitution...

...I want someone with principles, not a deal-maker.

[FrenchieCat]

7. no.

Although I'm sure AP will try to say so.
and some gullible souls who buy what the AP feeds them will believe it! :shrug:

[David Zephyr]

8. It concerns me, Nikki.

She will now have to address this issue. Women (and girls) and only women and girls have this right that the Supreme Court correctly held years ago. That right does not have an artificial or arbitrary time-limit on it to six months or whatever. This matter is fundamental to liberty in this nation.

Kagan will now have to address this issue.

[Nikki Stone1]

12. Me too. And Kagan will have to answer this.

I worry for the whole rightward direction I have seen in this administration. This isn't the Democratic party I went pounding the pavement for fifteen years ago.

[cbdo2007]

10. No - the problem with focusing on specific issues with SC candidates is that people

i.e. everyone - you, me, everyone - changes their mind about stuff during life. Even if you get a judge who says for sure they are pro-choice or anti-choice, it isn't unreasonable to think that this may change at some point still in their life.

[dumpdabaggers]

13. Late term abortion is a debatable issue.

I think liberals make a huge mistake being so unrelenting on this.

[Cleobulus]

14. Medical procedures should NOT be singled out through special legislation...

especially legislation that has no relation to medical ethics or practice.

[dumpdabaggers]

17. I agree

NT

[LAGC]

18. What's there to debate about?

Either the potential child is wanted and will grow up in a loving home, or the potential child is unwanted in which case why should it be forced to be conceived and live an unloved life, growing up and likely becoming a criminal? There's a reason crime rates are still falling, ever since Roe v. Wade's generation came of age. Lets not forget about the quality of life of the potential child after it is forced to be born, not just the fetus still developing in the womb here. Until birth, its still part and parcel of the woman's body, so its her choice, plain and simple.

[pnwmom]

29. Because Roe V. Wade itself didn't extend to abortions after viability. n/t

[saracat]

36. Few if any Late term abortions are done on "viable babies. Unless being born without a face or brain

is "viable", or living wracked in agony for several hours is viable. This considewring of Late tern abortion as the "murder" of a viable child is nothing more than RW spin and those that want to open it up for debate are willing to sacrifice the right of a woman to provide the best medical decisions for herself and her child to score points with the Religious Right. that is disgusting.
The RR delayed an abortion on a woman in a coma who could only be saved if an abortion was performed until it became a late term abortion and fought the husband every inch of the way.The abortion was finally granted but not until they forced the husband to choose between his wife and child. They thought the woman should die. At the time of the accident that put the woman in the coma , the women had just become pregnant.

[pnwmom]

38. Of course, and that makes sense to me. However, the mechanics of how a law

is written to cover the situations you're talking about are debatable.

[saracat]

41. There needs to be NO Law governing this. It is a medical decision.

And a painful one.Women who have to make this decision should be respected and not questioned as to their morality. Debating this issue in any way, especially regarding restrictions, does exactly that. I do not think anyone has a right to an opinion, legal or otherwise on another woman's tragedy.

[pnwmom]

42. Not always. You acknowledged the rare possibility that someone might abort a viable fetus.

And by that I mean a healthy fetus, old enough to survive outside the womb.

Roe v. Wade states and many Democrats accept that it is legitimate use of the law to regulate that situation. It is certainly worthy of debate.

And if you are now going to insist that there are NO such abortions EVER carried out, then you shouldn't object to a law prohibiting them.

[saracat]

35. Not to the woman who finds it necessary to have one.They are rare and traumatic

Have you ever read any thing about the abortion doctor who was killed and how delicate and emotional a procedure this is? Anyone who thinks this is debatable is wrong.It isn't as if late term abortions are done on whim or as birth control. It is a very serious and sad but sometimes necessary medical procedure and it isn't at all as described by the RW.

[cornermouse]

40. Late term abortions are done specifically for medical reasons.

Doctors don't do late term abortions lightly or frivolously. That (the memo that is put out so often that late term abortions are not necessary) is a republican position.

[MadBadger]

15. I dont think Planned Parenthood would endorse an Anti-Choice Candidate

[Zynx]

16. I'm about as concerned that she is anti-choice as I am that the sun won't be there in the morning.

[elleng]

24. DITTO!

Made my day! Thanks!

:hi:

[WeDidIt]

25. I am actually FAR more concerned

the sun won't be there tomorrow.

It's about a 100 times more likely event than for Elena Kagan to be an anti-choice Associate Justice on the SCOTUS.

[Zynx]

27. Actually, considering how relatively little we know about the sun, that is fair.

[ChicagoSuz219]

19. I'm not a fan of late-term abortions, either...

...however, I think it should be on a case-by-case basis, decided between a woman and her doctor.

[Nikki Stone1]

20. .

.

[CTyankee]

31. That's exactly where late term abortions ARE decided.

It is why they are so rare. They are wanted pregnancies that have gone terribly wrong and threaten physical harm or even death to the woman. They are wrenching and awful decisions for the women and their partners. It is a RW LIE that women take late term abortions lightly and just get it into their silly heads that they don't want to be pregnant...it makes me furious...

[onenote]

21. No.

[Nikki Stone1]

23. Yes.

.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. I hope they can pin her down on women's rights. K&R

[Ikonoklast]

32. She's a Stealth Republican.

Only in your fevered imagination, as you have a problem with all things Obama.


But keep trying with the right-wing talking points, they are converging with the far left.

[saracat]

34. This is troubling and as for those that think we should blindly endorse

any WH pick without vetting her, particularly on this issue, I have zero respect for them. This appointment and others like it was presented as the major reason for us to vote for this president and if there are any doubts whatsoever about her standing on this issue, the nomination should be reconsidered. I do not know that doubts are justified but enough evidence exists to question her position. On this issue we must be certain. I will not take any politicians "word for it", particularly not one that seriously reinforced Hyde by executive order. We cannot afford to make a mistake. Her position on Gay Marriage may also be troubling. That needs further examination as well. Kagan may be a very good choice but the fact is , as yet we do not KNOW and we do need some assurance. How we will get such assurance is difficult to say.

[TheKentuckian]

37. I'm more worried she'll be a part of some 6-3 and 7-2's for corporate considerations

I don't think she'd directly oppose Roe. More likely an erosion rather than an overturn situation. Roe is a privacy decision and its doubtful a late term case would attack Roe head on.

The most troublesome thing that is clear is that Kagan is a big time triangulator and that alone sucks.