• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kagan's Abortion Distortion

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
wonder if this will even have any bearings on the hearings. my bet is that - since Democrats tend to care more about the politics of the nominee - the answer to that question is sadly no.

When President Obama promised in his inaugural address to “restore science to its rightful place,” he never explained what that rightful place would be. Documents recently released in connection with the Supreme Court nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan suggest an answer: wherever it can best be used to skew political debate and judicial outcomes.

The documents involved date from the Clinton White House. They show Miss Kagan’s willingness to manipulate medical science to fit the Democratic party’s political agenda on the hot-button issue of abortion. As such, they reflect poorly on both the author and the president who nominated her to the Supreme Court.

There is no better example of this distortion of science than the language the United States Supreme Court cited in striking down Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000. This language purported to come from a “select panel” of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a supposedly nonpartisan physicians’ group. ACOG declared that the partial-birth-abortion procedure “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” The Court relied on the ACOG statement as a key example of medical opinion supporting the abortion method...

In other words, what medical science has pronounced, let no court dare question. The problem is that the critical language of the ACOG statement was not drafted by scientists and doctors. Rather, it was inserted into ACOG’s policy statement at the suggestion of then–Clinton White House policy adviser Elena Kagan.

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.”
...

Miss Kagan, then a deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy, already knew ACOG’s stance as a result of a July 1996 meeting at the White House, at which ACOG representatives told administration officials — according to a Kagan memorandum [PDF] — that “in the vast majority of cases, selection of the partial birth procedure is not necessary to avert serious adverse consequences to a woman’s health.”

Upon receiving the task force’s draft statement, Kagan noted in another internal memorandum [PDF] that the draft ACOG formulation “would be a disaster — not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation.” Any expression of doubt by a leading medical body about the efficacy of the procedure would severely undermine the case against the ban....
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
NRO? What a surprise.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
failure to address the point from Boo, who prefers an ad sourcinem to deal with an embarrassing truth?

what a surprise.
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,778
Reaction score
20,611
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
failure to address the point from Boo, who prefers an ad sourcinem to deal with an embarrassing truth?

what a surprise.
I am going to have to agree with Boo on this one. If someone linked a daily kos or huffington post article to support their claim, there would also be cries of foul.
 

LiberalAvenger

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
2,980
Location
virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
When men start having babies I will listen to them. In the meantime I would rather let the ones bearing the child decide what is good for them.

It's like women deciding if it is ok for men to have vasectomies.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,266
Reaction score
50,279
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
failure to address the point from Boo, who prefers an ad sourcinem to deal with an embarrassing truth?

what a surprise.
What point? That Kagan made a recommended language change on a document? Oh lordy, hang her!
 

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
16,842
Reaction score
9,640
Location
Rocky Mtn. High
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I am going to have to agree with Boo on this one. If someone linked a daily kos or huffington post article to support their claim, there would also be cries of foul.
I further agree. If you want to build an argument based upon something from fringe sources, that is ok, as long as you have cites the include more objective and more generally accepted mainstream sources. Please don't build an argument citing only a fringe source (left or right) as your only back-up. People on this forum should be forced to read things outside of their comfort zone.

If you are only getting your news from the NRO, or FOX or MSNBC or Huffington Post, and that is all you wish to post, then spend your time posting on those websites as arguing with those positions is just like shouting down the other guys on those channels; no one is learning anything. What a waste of time. If on the other hand, you want to do the research (which means leaving those respective websites) to support those positions and then state them in you own words, then you add value here (no matter how wrong you are, conservatives [just kidding]).

As for Kagan, see is going to be confirmed with minimal (and only for the record) objection. The right dodged a bullet here and Obama showed weakness in not nominating a truly liberal judge. Clearly her politics are left of center, but they are also right of Stevens... so its a net right victory for those keeping score. You should be happy and move on.... its kind of like holding the other team to a field goal,
 
Last edited:

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
wonder if this will even have any bearings on the hearings. my bet is that - since Democrats tend to care more about the politics of the nominee - the answer to that question is sadly no.

When President Obama promised in his inaugural address to “restore science to its rightful place,” he never explained what that rightful place would be. Documents recently released in connection with the Supreme Court nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan suggest an answer: wherever it can best be used to skew political debate and judicial outcomes.

The documents involved date from the Clinton White House. They show Miss Kagan’s willingness to manipulate medical science to fit the Democratic party’s political agenda on the hot-button issue of abortion. As such, they reflect poorly on both the author and the president who nominated her to the Supreme Court.

There is no better example of this distortion of science than the language the United States Supreme Court cited in striking down Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000. This language purported to come from a “select panel” of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a supposedly nonpartisan physicians’ group. ACOG declared that the partial-birth-abortion procedure “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” The Court relied on the ACOG statement as a key example of medical opinion supporting the abortion method...

In other words, what medical science has pronounced, let no court dare question. The problem is that the critical language of the ACOG statement was not drafted by scientists and doctors. Rather, it was inserted into ACOG’s policy statement at the suggestion of then–Clinton White House policy adviser Elena Kagan.

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.”
...

Miss Kagan, then a deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy, already knew ACOG’s stance as a result of a July 1996 meeting at the White House, at which ACOG representatives told administration officials — according to a Kagan memorandum [PDF] — that “in the vast majority of cases, selection of the partial birth procedure is not necessary to avert serious adverse consequences to a woman’s health.”

Upon receiving the task force’s draft statement, Kagan noted in another internal memorandum [PDF] that the draft ACOG formulation “would be a disaster — not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation.” Any expression of doubt by a leading medical body about the efficacy of the procedure would severely undermine the case against the ban....
non issue. both wordings are essentially saying the same thing. it's true that in a vast majortiy of cases partial birth abortion is not necessary, which is why they are so rarely performed. however, kagan's wording did not contradict that. "may be the best procedure" doesn't negate that it's not the only procedure.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
megapropman said:
I am going to have to agree with Boo on this one. If someone linked a daily kos or huffington post article to support their claim, there would also be cries of foul.
if it was simply an opinion piece you would have a point; however, what is at issue here is not who is reporting (although NRO isn't comparable to Daily Kos or Huffington - though Townhall would be. NatRev is closer to a Newsweek equivalent), it is what they are reporting.

if any of you are actually able to address the memo's in question, and Kagan's apparent willingness to twist science in order to further her political agenda (oh but we promise she would never do such a thing with the law!), as opposed to attempting to raise strawmen, then i would be interested in hearing it.

that you can't is telling.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
liblady said:
both wordings are essentially saying the same thing
they certainly are not.

try the following on for size:

"I can't think of a single good reason why we should have invaded Iraq"
v
"There are some good reasons why we should have invaded Iraq."

I would say those are rather markedly different statements.
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,778
Reaction score
20,611
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
if it was simply an opinion piece you would have a point; however, what is at issue here is not who is reporting (although NRO isn't comparable to Daily Kos or Huffington - though Townhall would be. NatRev is closer to a Newsweek equivalent), it is what they are reporting.

if any of you are actually able to address the memo's in question, and Kagan's apparent willingness to twist science in order to further her political agenda (oh but we promise she would never do such a thing with the law!), as opposed to attempting to raise strawmen, then i would be interested in hearing it.

that you can't is telling.
Its not that I cannot. I don't know if I can or not as I have not looked at the source material. Also, I disagree with what you see as the value of the media outlet. Its just a partisan hack outlet like media matters and as such, its not worth discussing.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
failure to address the point from Boo, who prefers an ad sourcinem to deal with an embarrassing truth?

what a surprise.
Where the source can't be trusted, there is no issue to address. Use an accurate source (if you can), and I'll gadly contibute.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oh how sad. I never saw how anyone could support partial birth abortions no matter how pro-abortion you were. Why would it be anymore dangerous to the mother to give birth to a live baby rather than a dead one?
Kagan gets more frightening all the time. Can't wait til she rules it's consitutional when Congress requires me to eat fruits and vegetables daily and when it's ok to ban books.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Oh how sad. I never saw how anyone could support partial birth abortions no matter how pro-abortion you were. Why would it be anymore dangerous to the mother to give birth to a live baby rather than a dead one?
Kagan gets more frightening all the time. Can't wait til she rules it's consitutional when Congress requires me to eat fruits and vegetables daily and when it's ok to ban books.
This of course starts with an assumption that the article is accurate, which it has a history of not being. So, you can't trust it on that. So, before we can go on, we really need to know what her postition really is.
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,778
Reaction score
20,611
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Can't wait til she rules it's consitutional when Congress requires me to eat fruits and vegetables daily and when it's ok to ban books.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I know what I heard from her mouth.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
they certainly are not.

try the following on for size:

"I can't think of a single good reason why we should have invaded Iraq"
v
"There are some good reasons why we should have invaded Iraq."

I would say those are rather markedly different statements.
what don't you understand about "in a particular circumstance"?
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
She admitted the memo was in her handwriting but never actually admitted she wrote it. My source is Kagan's own words.
 

LiberalAvenger

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
2,980
Location
virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
they certainly are not.

try the following on for size:

"I can't think of a single good reason why we should have invaded Iraq"
v
"There are some good reasons why we should have invaded Iraq."

I would say those are rather markedly different statements.
You are acting like she said those things in the same sentence. Maybe she was misconstrued like the republican's apology to BP.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,197
Reaction score
32,359
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
She admitted the memo was in her handwriting but never actually admitted she wrote it. My source is Kagan's own words.
Barbbtx once said that he thinks the moon is made out of cheese. My source is his own words.

(you seem to not really understand what a "source" is)
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Boo said:
Where the source can't be trusted, there is no issue to address. Use an accurate source (if you can), and I'll gadly contibute.
:roll: your evidence that these memos are not part of Kagan's legal documentary history?

You are acting like she said those things in the same sentence
:fail: do you even read the stuff, or do you just do your "NRO" shtick?

Kagan didn't say both. She said that the first is a problem for us, so we need to cut it out of the report and replace it with the latter.

you know, sort of like the Obama administration did with it's experts "recommending" the six-month moratorium?

Maybe she was misconstrued like the republican's apology to BP.
no, that guy is just an idiot who says stupid things. sort of like joe biden, except not nearly as abysmally wrong-headed.
 
Last edited:

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Barbbtx once said that he thinks the moon is made out of cheese. My source is his own words.

(you seem to not really understand what a "source" is)
Huh? My friend sends me a birthday card. It is signed in her handwriting. She's says, "did you get my card?" I say "Yea, but I'll have to check with another source for more evidence that it's really from you."
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Barbbtx said:
She admitted the memo was in her handwriting but never actually admitted she wrote it. My source is Kagan's own words
Sorry Barb. as a conservative, you cannot be trusted to quote a source, and therefore obviously not only did Kagan never say that, but Kagan probably does not exist.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Top Bottom