Oh my: Kagan urged Clinton to support late-term abortion ban in 1997

posted at 7:26 pm on May 10, 2010 by Allahpundit

Nothing too exciting here — as you’ll see, she did it for purely political reasons — but it’s bound to have some on the left breathing into paper bags, which is reason enough to push it out there. (Remember, Diane Wood, who was passed over for Kagan, is esteemed by liberals as an abortion warrior.) Since we’re looking for any scrap of insight into Kagan’s thinking, however trivial or unrepresentative, how about this as a sign that she’ll try to join the conservative majority on the Court occasionally if she thinks doing so will convince them to water down their opinion?

Documents reviewed Monday by The Associated Press show Kagan encouraging Clinton to support a bill that would have banned all abortions of viable fetuses except when the physical health of the mother was at risk. The documents from Clinton’s presidential library are among the first to surface in which Kagan weighs in the thorny issue of abortion.

The abortion proposal was a compromise by Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle. Clinton supported it, but the proposal failed and Clinton vetoed a stricter Republican ban.

In a May 13, 1997, memo from the White House domestic policy office, Kagan and her boss, Bruce Reed, told Clinton that abortion rights groups opposed Daschle’s compromise. But they urged the president to support it, saying he otherwise risked seeing a Republican-led Congress override his veto on the stricter bill…

The memo noted that another White House adviser, Rahm Emmanuel, also supported the idea.

She also advised Clinton to support a bill banning human cloning. (Why does Elena Kagan hate reproductive rights?) A tough question for Republican Senators who are on the fence about her: If the left’s criticisms gain traction with Democrats and it looks like the nomination might fail, should the GOP bite the bullet and push her through? The One’s game in touting Wood and Merrick Garland as other short-listers clearly was to frame Kagan as a moderate choice. Garland was the most centrist of the three and Wood the furthest left; the idea is that both liberals and conservatives should grudgingly accept Kagan since, if she’s Borked, no one knows whether Obama will move left or right on the next nominee. My question, essentially, is which way do we think he would go if Kagan was torpedoed? My guess is that he’d move left and nominate Wood: Although an abortion battle just before the midterms is risky, he could count on it to psych up his base. If he nominated Garland, he’d leave Senate Democrats in a bind. If they reject him on grounds that he’s too far towards the center, then Obama’s humiliated twice over and it looks like the Dems can’t govern; if they rubber stamp him, the base is outraged and suddenly they’ve got a turnout problem. All of which means for the GOP that Obama’s likely to tack further left with the next pick. Reason enough to give Kagan the benefit of the doubt unless some sort of bombshell drops?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Whenever Allah posts an “Oh my” headline I always hear the newer, gayer George Takei saying it. The mental image includes a head tilt and eyebrow action.

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 10, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Kagan urged Clinton to support late-term abortion ban in 1997

What a crazy world we live in when this could be considered a bad thing.

CWforFreedom on May 10, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Justice Blart.

Denverslim on May 10, 2010 at 7:31 PM

I know it probably has been already said and I am being superficial for mentioning it….but that is one ugly woman. I mean, crap, get your teeth fixed at least. geez….

jbh45 on May 10, 2010 at 7:31 PM

CWforFreedom on May 10, 2010 at 7:29 PM

You got that right.

This is a tough one. He’s likely to tack Left of Kagan falls through, and she could end up being his version of Souter. Or not. There’s just not enough to go on. I think she’ll end up being confirmed.

changer1701 on May 10, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Nothing too exciting here — as you’ll see, she did it for purely political reasons — but it’s bound to have some on the left breathing into paper bags, which is reason enough to push it out there.

No it isn’t…

Good god…

Documents reviewed Monday by The Associated Press

More like, documents leaked by Team Axelrod…

Are we going to get a post on her socialism paper and her plagiarism cover up? If not, don’t bother blogging anymore…

ninjapirate on May 10, 2010 at 7:34 PM

My guess is that he’d move left and nominate Wood

There’s a decent chance Wood would get filibustered…

AP is just phoning it in today…

ninjapirate on May 10, 2010 at 7:36 PM

She puts the U in ugly.

artist on May 10, 2010 at 7:36 PM

This is the best we will get as conservatives. Take her!

battleoflepanto1571 on May 10, 2010 at 7:37 PM

She is willing to compromise on abortion? Really. Interesting. Maybe she is human after all.

I still think our wise Latina would not be able to live with herself if she found herself directly responsible for the deaths of babies. Possible Ms. Kagan is a bit wavering on the morality of a government who sponsors the killing of innocent children.

It always surprises me that women are the ones who think abortion is a good thing. It just seems so counter to any kind of mothering instinct to kill your own children.

Like a cat or a gerbil. Simply an inhumane act.

petunia on May 10, 2010 at 7:39 PM

Good god; Born ugly and able to find the makeup to keep her that way!
She’s got skills!

Cybergeezer on May 10, 2010 at 7:40 PM

A reverse Souter?

rbj on May 10, 2010 at 7:41 PM

SPEAKING ABOUT ABORTIONS;
THIS ‘THING’, AND OBAMA, LOOK LIKE TWO ABORTIONS THAT FAILED!
NOTHING’S PERFECT!

Cybergeezer on May 10, 2010 at 7:42 PM

Why does Elena Kagan hate reproductive rights?

Now, if we can only find the gay gene she’ll be full out pro-life.

El_Terrible on May 10, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Whenever Allah posts an “Oh my” headline I always hear the newer, gayer George Takei saying it. The mental image includes a head tilt and eyebrow action.

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 10, 2010 at 7:29 PM

LMAO

This is the best we will get as conservatives. Take her!

battleoflepanto1571 on May 10, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Yep. Unless something major comes up during confirmation, which is very possible, we should embrace this woman. It’s pizz off the Left to no end as a bonus.

JetBoy on May 10, 2010 at 7:43 PM

She puts the U in ugly.

artist on May 10, 2010 at 7:36 PM

Yeah which pretty much guarantees that she doesn’t have an unhealthy stake in the abortion issue. It is probably not a decision she was ever in a position to make. No past mistake to continue to cover up.

And she may have a longing for a child that will forever be unfulfilled. How could you be responsible for killing a baby under that circumstance.

I think the left is losing this argument very fast these days.

petunia on May 10, 2010 at 7:44 PM

There’s a decent chance Wood would get filibustered…

AP is just phoning it in today…

ninjapirate on May 10, 2010 at 7:36 PM

They’d nuke the filibuster.

El_Terrible on May 10, 2010 at 7:44 PM

Are we going to get a post on her socialism paper

From 1980? I thought what people wrote decades ago as students didn’t matter (see also McDonnell, Bob)

and her plagiarism cover up?

You make it sound as though she was the alleged plagiarist. She wasn’t.

YYZ on May 10, 2010 at 7:45 PM

If Diane Wood supports late-term abortions I don’t want her in the Supreme Court. I still don’t like the fact that Kagan wanted to ban military recruitment at Harvard though. It’s like choosing between worse and worser.

terryannonline on May 10, 2010 at 7:46 PM

You make it sound as though she was the alleged plagiarist. She wasn’t.

No, I do not make it sound like she was the plagiarist, I make it sound like she covered it up… and the fact it was for Larry Tribe makes it a Big F’n Deal…

ninjapirate on May 10, 2010 at 7:47 PM

I don’t know about this lady, I think she’s been picking your toes in poughkeepsie.

portlandon on May 10, 2010 at 7:49 PM

From 1980? I thought what people wrote decades ago as students didn’t matter (see also McDonnell, Bob)

BTW, the Washington Post did make a huge deal out of his thesis… they hammered it over and over again…

ninjapirate on May 10, 2010 at 7:50 PM

Pragmatists? Aren’t they into bondage?

Mr. Joe on May 10, 2010 at 7:50 PM

To be a Top Level Female Democrat you must be no more attractive and appealing than the ass-end of a dead mule !

Copied and pasted from another thread, but I posted so it’s all good !

cableguy615 on May 10, 2010 at 7:50 PM

This is the best we will get as conservatives. Take her!

battleoflepanto1571 on May 10, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Are you smoking crack???

This is like Hope/Change and unicorns flying around in Constitutional hopscotch with everything we all hold dear.

upinak on May 10, 2010 at 7:52 PM

To be a Top Level Female Democrat you must be no more attractive and appealing than the ass-end of a dead mule !

Seriously do we need mean comments about her looks? Why is it important what she looks like?

terryannonline on May 10, 2010 at 7:54 PM

Upinak

name me someone better?

battleoflepanto1571 on May 10, 2010 at 7:54 PM

Looks like Kagan might be Obama’s “Harriet Myers”.

GarandFan on May 10, 2010 at 7:55 PM

There are consequences to elections and a SCOTUS appointment is one of them.

I think we need to look at who she’s replacing and understand that we’re not going to be worse off. That’s better than changing the national subject to a wedge issue like gay marriage. Unless we find issues where we can come at her from the fiscal standpoint then in my mind we need to choose not to fight this battle and pick one that furthers our goals in the long term.

FireDrake on May 10, 2010 at 7:55 PM

Upinak

name me someone better?

battleoflepanto1571 on May 10, 2010 at 7:54 PM

Yes. But would it matter since our S.I.C. isn’t going to go for anything less then someone with a socialist agenda?

upinak on May 10, 2010 at 7:56 PM

Oh I’m so sorry Terry how mean of me ! How about she is horribly unqualified, inexperienced and useless as bosoms on a fish?

cableguy615 on May 10, 2010 at 7:57 PM

Looks like Kagan might be Obama’s “Harriet Myers”.

GarandFan on May 10, 2010 at 7:55 PM

The only difference is she is far-left socialist and thus a shoo-in!

cableguy615 on May 10, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Looks like Kagan might be Obama’s “Harriet Myers”.

GarandFan on May 10, 2010 at 7:55 PM

Nah I don’t think so (at least not yet). I think conservatives might be smart to figure out that if we sink this nomination we might end up with someone else that is worse.

terryannonline on May 10, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Nah I don’t think so (at least not yet). I think conservatives might be smart to figure out that if we sink this nomination we might end up with someone else that is worse.
terryannonline on May 10, 2010 at 7:58 PM

I’m getting REALLY tired of that line.

Bishop on May 10, 2010 at 8:00 PM

I’m getting REALLY tired of that line.

Bishop on May 10, 2010 at 8:00 PM

Well the fact is that Obama will never nominate a centrist. He’s not a centrist.

I don’t much about Kagan but from what I know I’m not impressed at all.

terryannonline on May 10, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Too bad zer0bama doesn’t know how to use media devices. He could’ve looked it up on an iPad or Blackberry.

SouthernGent on May 10, 2010 at 8:02 PM

This is the best we will get as conservatives. Take her!

battleoflepanto1571 on May 10, 2010 at 7:37 PM

I smell a set-up here. Dribbling out hints that she may be more conservative-thinking on a few issues may be a head fake. We know zilch about her real judicial philosophy and probably never will until she is securely on the bench for the next forty years.

Beware what you wish for.

lonesomecharlie on May 10, 2010 at 8:02 PM

terryannonline on May 10, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Then fight them all, every single one. Conservatives have been stuck with noodles, squishes, and useless demorat-lites precisely because we always yap that things could be worse instead of saying things could be better.

Bishop on May 10, 2010 at 8:04 PM

Dribbling out hints that she may be more conservative-thinking on a few issues may be a head fake

I’m not under any illusions that Kagan has a conservative streak.

terryannonline on May 10, 2010 at 8:05 PM

Then fight them all, every single one. Conservatives have been stuck with noodles, squishes, and useless demorat-lites precisely because we always yap that things could be worse instead of saying things could be better.

Bishop on May 10, 2010 at 8:04 PM

The truth is Obama would NEVER nominate a conservative or moderate….so what’s the point of fighting a losing battle?

terryannonline on May 10, 2010 at 8:07 PM

How far gone is the Left that we’re amazed one of them wanted to stop killing babies. Good lord.

SouthernGent on May 10, 2010 at 8:08 PM

How far gone is the Left that we’re amazed one of them wanted to stop killing babies. Good lord.

SouthernGent on May 10, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Or the woman that wanted to ban recruitment at Harvard is the better option.

My goodness!

terryannonline on May 10, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Elections have consequences. That’s how it works. Kagan’s resume is adequate. So, if Kagan can demonstrate a good understanding the Constitution and the legal process, and is of good character, then you almost have to confirm her. Otherwise, you have no basis to demand the same standard when the roles get reversed, and they will get reversed.

RBMN on May 10, 2010 at 8:10 PM

Breaking….

more KAGAN posts at Hot Air!!

katy on May 10, 2010 at 8:10 PM

She’s a wise lesbina.

Akzed on May 10, 2010 at 8:13 PM

Wow, Obama is taking the term “bagger” to new limits. Something weird about Obama’s obsession of surrounding himself with really unsightly people; both men and woman.

Keemo on May 10, 2010 at 8:13 PM

The truth is Obama would NEVER nominate a conservative or moderate….so what’s the point of fighting a losing battle?
terryannonline on May 10, 2010 at 8:07 PM

The point is the fight itself, instead of saying the battle is already lost so time to throw down the guns and yank out the white flag.

Who knows what could happen if the GOP were serious, not the least point of which is that this is an election year and the ‘rats are running scared. I’m sick of these pukes running away because they believe the battle is already lost, they are ALWAYS saying that.

Bishop on May 10, 2010 at 8:14 PM

Something weird about Obama’s obsession of surrounding himself with really unsightly people; both men and woman.

Because your friends should all look gorgeous!

/sarc

terryannonline on May 10, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Who knows what could happen if the GOP were serious

I hope the GOP makes an issue of the military recruitment ban but other than that I don’t what else to do.

terryannonline on May 10, 2010 at 8:17 PM

And she may have a longing for a child that will forever be unfulfilled. How could you be responsible for killing a baby under that circumstance.

I think the left is losing this argument very fast these days.
petunia on May 10, 2010 at 7:44 PM

Well said Pet. Yet, could we still say the left never met a fetus they didn’t want to abort?

Rovin on May 10, 2010 at 8:22 PM

I hope the GOP makes an issue of the military recruitment ban but other than that I don’t what else to do.

terryannonline on May 10, 2010 at 8:17 PM

There is a very important dynamic to politics commonly referred to as the vetting process. This is how we all learn about people who are about to be put in a very high position of power; a position that can and will have an influence on our lives as well as future generations. The network media does not engage in this process in the era, therefore it is up to other institutions and forms of media to perform this most important task.

Keemo on May 10, 2010 at 8:26 PM

HAS HE/SHE/IT EVER ‘PLAYED’ WITH TIGER WOODS?

Cybergeezer on May 10, 2010 at 8:40 PM

HAS HE/SHE/IT EVER ‘PLAYED’ WITH TIGER WOODS?

Cybergeezer on May 10, 2010 at 8:40 PM

LOL. But not Tiger Woods type.

El_Terrible on May 10, 2010 at 8:50 PM

I know it’s not right to comment on her looks, but she reminds me of Michael Myers in drag…

RedSoxNation on May 10, 2010 at 8:53 PM

Michael myers from SNL – not Halloween…

RedSoxNation on May 10, 2010 at 8:54 PM

There is a very important dynamic to politics commonly referred to as the vetting process. This is how we all learn about people who are about to be put in a very high position of power; a position that can and will have an influence on our lives as well as future generations. The network media does not engage in this process in the era, therefore it is up to other institutions and forms of media to perform this most important task.

Keemo on May 10, 2010 at 8:26 PM

Isn’t it too bad my good friend that this process wasn’t used more proficiently in the last presidential election?

Rovin on May 10, 2010 at 8:58 PM

This does prove she can at least acknowledge there is another side to the argument. She doesn’t have that knee jerk… abortion is the best thing that ever happened to womankind attitude that so many on the left have.

I think is shows some kind of conscience. And a conscience in a lefty is a rare and precious thing. Something to be encouraged.

petunia on May 10, 2010 at 9:09 PM

Is it my imagination, or does she really look like Oliver Hardy, of Laural and Hardy?

MikeA on May 10, 2010 at 9:11 PM

Rovin on May 10, 2010 at 8:58 PM

America will pay the price for that stupid move for at least a generation, as will the Democrat Party. The world is laughing their collectives a**es off at us. Stupid is as stupid does, to quote Forest Gore…

I might add: the world won’t be laughing about this much longer, as their own pain settles in. The world will also learn how important the American vetting process is and should be. The world will also learn how important America is to their own success or failure.

Keemo on May 10, 2010 at 9:11 PM

More like, documents leaked by Team Axelrod…
Are we going to get a post on her socialism paper and her plagiarism cover up? If not, don’t bother blogging anymore…
ninjapirate on May 10, 2010 at 7:34 PM

Good point

As the tedious blitz begins, the MSM will be seeded with selected shorts to make Kagan appear ‘surprisingly’ moderate

This plant is a useful diversion from the thesis on socialism. Since Kagan has almost zero track record, stuff like the thesis must be used to evaluate her judicial possibilities

She is one of a long line of Clintonistas, who do not chase men, sound gay, may have a batch of lady ‘mates’ and stand ready to continue the pantomime in the name of power

Her Goldman Sachs appointment is simply typical Beltway wealth and power sharing. Something for everyone who one day might be able to give back a few strokes.

Makes me dream for a judge who is simply a good judge who loves the law

entagor on May 10, 2010 at 9:12 PM

The point is the fight itself, instead of saying the battle is already lost so time to throw down the guns and yank out the white flag.

Who knows what could happen if the GOP were serious, not the least point of which is that this is an election year and the ‘rats are running scared. I’m sick of these pukes running away because they believe the battle is already lost, they are ALWAYS saying that.

Bishop on May 10, 2010 at 8:14 PM

Actually the point is to win the war not fight a battle. If you’re too focused on the wrong battle your enemy will win the war. The best generals make sure they’re the ones that choose the battlefield, instead of letting the enemy choose it for you. This battle is tailor made to peel off moderates that we need to take back power, and what would we win for fighting this battle? Nothing. You don’t fight a losing battle unless it serves your larger strategic goals.

Walking away from a fight that doesn’t advance your overall interests is the smart move. Staying to fight a losing battle just to say you didn’t run doesn’t help win the war. It only moves you closer to defeat.

FireDrake on May 10, 2010 at 9:27 PM

I say we don’t get fancy and try to out fox Obama. We need to play this straight.

We should question Kagan’s fitness to serve based on her very limited experience and spare writings, but with an openness to her proving herself. If she comes across as intelligent in the hearing and it looks like the Democrats are going support her then we don’t make a federal case about it if half the Republicans vote for her.

If however she fumbles, or if the Democrats look like they are about to eat there own we most certainly do not rescue her. We take her out. We take the safe path, and bunt our runner into scoring position- looking to score 1 run instead of 2. Then we wait to see what Obama does. You never know, he might crack under the pressure and let us trample him. But even if he doesn’t we’ll be better off then trying to play head games and so pass up on a chance to score a point.

Sackett on May 10, 2010 at 9:35 PM

I thought Kagan did not want the military recruiters on campus because of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” thing. If this is correct, at least she has principles. As far as the abortion thing, it sounds more like a votes for fetus type thing. So maybe she doesn’t really have principles. Although, as someone said earlier, most gay pro-abortion types will convert to pro-life, the second a gay gene is identified. Abortion is such a slippery slope.

bloggless on May 10, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Whenever Allah posts an “Oh my” headline I always hear the newer, gayer George Takei saying it. The mental image includes a head tilt and eyebrow action.

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 10, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Exactly!!! Followed by “WHOOAH” with arms outstretched to the screen.

AH_C on May 10, 2010 at 10:35 PM

OH MY:

Nothing too exciting here

Allahpundit

Yet again. This is so predictable.

fossten on May 10, 2010 at 10:56 PM

I think conservatives might be smart to figure out that if we sink this nomination we might end up with someone else that is worse.

terryannonline on May 10, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Wrong. Conservatives can and will sink Kagan if they do their jobs well in the Senate in the coming weeks/months.

Then, we shall and will sink another Leftist activist when nominated by Obama, especially since November 2010 is right around the corner.

Lourdes on May 11, 2010 at 8:24 AM

OH MY:

Nothing too exciting here

Allahpundit

I can’t figure out some people here.

When I read such from AP, I *get* the sarcasm involved.

It’s like, “nothing to see here, move along” to people trying to save a sinking Titanic or similar.

At least that’s my take on the AP nomenclature.

Lourdes on May 11, 2010 at 8:25 AM

Is it my imagination, or does she really look like Oliver Hardy, of Laural and Hardy?

MikeA on May 10, 2010 at 9:11 PM

Hardy looked better. But though her looks be bad, that’s the least of my concerns about who she is. She’s certainly NOT ready for primetime — having had to leave the broadcast immediately yesterday when she began speaking, couldn’t stand to look at her — but she’s absolutely not ready for the Supreme Court and our Supreme Court should never be ready for her, not in any accommodating sense.

Reading more about who this person is — Kagan — and I am horrified at her “values” or rather, to use some of her language, in some of her “feelings”.

Watching the Obama Crew continue to unfold is like watching a Monster Show. I don’t mean that in a good way, either.

Lourdes on May 11, 2010 at 8:28 AM