Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Kagan's Abortion Distortion

  1. #1
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,073

    Kagan's Abortion Distortion

    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....

  2. #2
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Kagan's Abortion Distortion

    NRO? What a surprise.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #3
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,073

    Re: Kagan's Abortion Distortion

    failure to address the point from Boo, who prefers an ad sourcinem to deal with an embarrassing truth?

    what a surprise.

  4. #4
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Kagan's Abortion Distortion

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Last Seen
    04-01-13 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    16,881
    Blog Entries
    19

    Re: Kagan's Abortion Distortion

    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.

  6. #6
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,268
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Kagan's Abortion Distortion

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    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!
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #7
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,053

    Re: Kagan's Abortion Distortion

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    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 by upsideguy; 06-30-10 at 11:28 AM.

  8. #8
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Kagan's Abortion Distortion

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    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.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  9. #9
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,073

    Re: Kagan's Abortion Distortion

    Quote Originally Posted by megapropman
    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.

  10. #10
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,073

    Re: Kagan's Abortion Distortion

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady
    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.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •