Press Releases

 

Entries in Abortion (331)

Monday
Jun212010

AUL - Bork on Kagan Press Call Wednesday 

JUDGE BORK TO WEIGH IN ON KAGAN NOMINATION
IN EXCLUSIVE RSVP-ONLY NEWS EVENT

WASHINGTON, D.C. - 6/21/2010 –  Americans United for Life (AUL) will host an insider’s look at Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan in a unique opportunity for reporters and editors covering the process when, on Wednesday, June 23, Judge Robert Bork joins an exclusive selection of legal experts to discuss the nomination.

What: Call-in news conference on Elena Kagan

When: Wednesday, June 23rd @10:30am EDT

Who:  Judge Robert Bork, Professor Gerard Bradley, Attorney William Saunders – presented by Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life

Details:  contact NHInsider@myway.com for details. 

Background

AUL has been leading the opposition to Kagan under the direction of Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO, who will host the interactive, call-in news conference, set for 10:30 a.m. EDT. With a Ph.D. in Politics from the University of Virginia and a lifetime of political experience – she took a leading role last year in opposition to then-nominee Sonia Sotomayor – Yoest will lay out what is at stake in this nomination and reveal that there is more to Kagan than has been reported to date. 

To get the call-in code as well as the procedure for asking questions of Bork and the panel, contact AUL using the information above.

  • Judge Robert Bork’s experience as a Supreme Court nominee is legendary, and the former Solicitor General, acting Attorney General and Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals will bring to the media event all the wit and wisdom that led to two New York Times best-sellers.

  • Professor Gerard Bradley of the Notre Dame School of Law. Bradley is a noted scholar in the field of constitutional law and a former assistant district attorney from New York County. He is also well-known for his instruction in Notre Dame’s exceptional trial advocacy program, in the top 10 in the nation.

  • William Saunders, Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs and Senior Counsel of Americans United for Life, an expert on Constitutional law, who holds a J.D. from Harvard University. A former law school professor, he has twice been featured in Harvard’s Guide to Conservative Public Interest Law, and as a member of the Supreme Court bar, has authored numerous legal briefs in state, federal, foreign and international courts.   

AUL’s “Kagan File” – a comprehensive body of legal analysis on Kagan’s record – can be accessed at www.aul.org. It has been used and distributed nationwide as part of efforts to block a nominee with a pro-abortion, agenda-driven judicial philosophy.

Monday
Jun212010

AUL - Kagan File: The "Week Six" Memo

 

Backgrounder:

Today’s file document is a summary of our memos from last week (June 15th through June 18th).   Our full analyses, including citations, for each of these documents are linked below.

1.     The “No Impartial Justice” Memo – Kagan was one of President Clinton’s primary advisors on the formulation of the President’s policy in response to Congressional attempts to regulate the use of partial-birth abortion, and she also advised President Clinton on other legislative proposals that implicated abortion rights.

First, Kagan thought the President was “too lenient” on what he would accept in a partial-birth abortion ban, even though the ban he was willing to accept would not necessarily prevent any woman from having an abortion.

She also argues that “the [pro-abortion] groups will go crazy” if Clinton does not do what they want… In other words, she did not want to disappoint the pro-abortion groups.  Instead, she recommends that the President’s ban have an even broader “health” exception, which would have the effect of limiting even fewer abortions.

Second, Kagan was undeterred in her opposition to meaningful limitations on partial-birth abortion even after discovering that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) could not find a legitimate need for it.  She opposed the release of a truthful proposed statement by ACOG that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary, stating that “the release of the statement, of course, would be [a] disaster — not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation.”

Third, Kagan was in tune with Capitol Hill politics and clearly sided with pro-abortion lawmakers over pro-life lawmakers.  In a series of memos in 1997 and 1998, Kagan addressed the progress of other abortion-related proposals on Capitol Hill, and described how the White House was concerned about or was trying to block pro-life legislation. 

2.     The “Comparative Law” Memo Kagan’s emphasis on international and comparative law presents yet another similarity to her “judicial hero,” Judge Aharon Barak.  While dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan viewed comparative law as important enough to support requiring law students to study it (Note:  Kagan did not require law students to take U.S. Constitutional Law).  Would Kagan include comparative law in her “interpretive field of vision” (as Barak suggests it be used) as a Supreme Court Justice?  Further, would she follow her judicial hero’s advice to consider how other legal systems treat questions that come before the Court?

Importantly, Barak argues that judges should look to foreign countries’ constitutions to determine how to rule on important issues, like abortion, under their own constitutions.  Would Kagan rely on foreign constitutions to “inspire” her judicial opinions on issues like abortion under the U.S. Constitution?

Barak regrets that judges in the United States have made little use of comparative law.  He urges them to do so.  If confirmed, would Kagan follow Barak’s advice?

3.     The “Oxford Thesis” MemoIn her graduate thesis, Elena Kagan spends considerable time analyzing the Warren Court (1953-1969). 

Kagan describes the Warren Court as “a court with a mission… to correct the social injustices and inequalities of American life … [and] to transform the nation.”  Kagan states that “the Warren Court justices set themselves a goal…and they steered by this goal when resolving individual cases.”  

Kagan states: “U.S. Supreme Court justices live in the knowledge that they have the authority to command or to block great social, political and economic change.  At times, the temptation to wield this power becomes irresistible. The justices, at such times, will attempt to steer the law in order to achieve certain ends and advance certain values.”

This raises the question of whether Kagan believes “steering the law” to achieve specific ends is legitimate.  She should be questioned on her views regarding the Warren Court’s actions and the role of the judiciary. Would she “engineer significant domestic reform” as a Justice?

Kagan says: “Judges are judges, but they are also men…As men and as participants in American life, judges will have opinions, prejudices, values.  Perhaps, most important, judges will have goals.  And because this is so, judges will often try to mold and steer the law in order to promote certain ethical values and achieve certain social ends. Such activity is not necessarily wrong or invalid.” 

The Committee should ask Kagan what her “goals” would be if confirmed to the Supreme Court.  What “ethical values” would she “promote” if confirmed?  And what “social ends” would she seek to achieve?

4.     Kagan, Marshall, and Harris v. McRaeThirty years ago, on June 30, 1980, in Harris v. McRae (a case argued by Americans United for Life), the Supreme Court upheld the Hyde Amendment which is a federal restriction on the use of Medicaid funds for abortion.

In Harris, the Court held that Congress’ distinction between abortion and other medical procedures was valid because “[a]bortion is inherently different from other medical procedures, because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.”

Justice Thurgood Marshall dissented, arguing “denial of a Medicaid-funded abortion is equivalent to denial of a legal abortion altogether.”  Marshall would have had the tax-payer funding abortions through Medicaid. 

Justice Marshall viewed abortion as a vital part of health care for women, and rejected the Court’s holding that abortion was “inherently different from other medical procedures.”  He held this view through the end of his term on the Court. 

Elena Kagan described Justice Thurgood Marshall’s constitutional interpretation as “a thing of glory.” However, the reality of Justice Marshall’s decisions concerning abortion are quite extreme.

# # #

Americans United for Life (AUL) is a nonprofit, public-interest law and policy organization whose vision is a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law. The first national pro-life organization in America, AUL has been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts at both the federal and state levels since 1971.

AUL's legal team has been involved in every pro-life case before the U.S. Supreme Court including the successful defense of the Hyde Amendment. AUL also publishes Defending Life, the most comprehensive state-by-state legal guide of its kind, which is distributed annually to legislators across the nation.

Recently, Americans United for Life detailed the facts on taxpayer-funding of abortion during the debate over federal health care legislation, provided legal assistance to states working to opt out of abortion provisions created by federal health care law, and has played a major role in educating policymakers on the record of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.



Friday
Jun182010

AUL - Kagan File: The "Harris v. McRae" Memo

RE: Kagan, Marshall, and Harris v. McRae

Backgrounder

Thirty years ago, on June 30, 1980, in Harris v. McRae[1] (a case argued by Americans United for Life), the Supreme Court upheld the Hyde Amendment which is a federal restriction on the use of Medicaid funds for abortion.

In Harris, the Court held “Congress has established incentives that make childbirth a more attractive alternative than abortion”.[2]  Congress’ distinction between abortion and other medical procedures was valid because “[a]bortion is inherently different from other medical procedures, because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.”[3]

Justice Marshall dissented, arguing “denial of a Medicaid-funded abortion is equivalent to denial of a legal abortion altogether.”[4]  Marshall wanted the Hyde Amendment’s exception (which allowed Medicaid funds only to be used for abortions where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term) to be as broad[5] as the health exception found in Doe v. Bolton.[6]  In Doe, the Court broadly defined Roe’s health exception essentially to give women abortion on demand.[7]  Marshall would have had the taxpayer funding abortions through Medicaid. 

Justice Marshall viewed abortion as a vital part of health care for women, and rejected the Court’s holding that abortion was “inherently different from other medical procedures.”[8]  He held this view through the end of his term on the Court. 

For instance, ten years later, in Hodgson v. Minnesota,[9] Marshall ignored the Court’s ruling in Harris that said abortion could be treated differently than other medical procedures.[10]  Marshall would have lumped abortion in with other medical treatments such as “pregnancy, venereal disease, or alcohol and other drug abuse.”[11]  Marshall’s novel theory trivializes the decision to have an abortion as just another medical procedure. 

Elena Kagan described Justice Thurgood Marshall’s constitutional interpretation as “a thing of glory.”[12] However, the reality of Justice Marshall’s decisions concerning abortion are quite extreme.

Conclusion

The thirtieth anniversary of Harris v. McRae should serve as a reminder that abortion is not an unlimited right nor is it a human good.  The Court was adamant that abortion is a different kind of “medical procedure”, and the people need not fund it with their tax dollars. 

Kagan’s praise for Marshall’s constitutional interpretation as “a thing of glory”[13] indicates she may interpret the Constitution in a similar manner.  Elena Kagan must answer questions about whether she agrees with her mentor’s view that American taxpayers are Constitutionally required to pay for abortions. 


[1] Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980). 

[2] Harris, 448 U.S. at 325. 

[3] Id.

[4] Id. at 338. 

[5] Id. at 339. 

[6] Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). 

[7] Id. at 192 (“We agree with the District Court, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors-physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age-relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”). 

[8] Harris, 448 U.S. at  325. 

[9] Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990). 

[10] Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 325 (1980). 

[11] Id.

[12] Elena Kagan, For Justice Marshall, 71Tex L. Rev. 1125, 1130 (1993).   

[13] Id. at 1130. 

Friday
Jun182010

AUL - YOEST APPLAUDS REP. PENCE ON EFFORTS TO STOP TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABORTION

 

“I want to applaud Congressman Pence for his tireless leadership in the fight to stop Planned Parenthood from misusing taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. The GAO’s stunning revelation that nearly $660 million in taxpayer dollars have recently been appropriated to the nation’s largest abortion provider is cause for alarm. Congress needs to listen to the people, not the abortion lobby, and pass The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act immediately.”   

     - Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life Action

BACKGROUND:

The General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report on June 16, 2010 entitled “Federal Funds: Fiscal Years 2002-2009 Obligations, Disbursements, and Expenditures for Selected Organizations Involved in Health-Related Activities.”

In April of 2009, 30 Members requested that the GAO report the amount of federal funding that six organizations received from Fiscal Year 2002 to Fiscal Year 2009.  These organizations were: Advocates for Youth, the Guttmacher Institute, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Population Council, and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.



Thursday
Jun172010

AUL - Breaking News for the Cause of Life. 

It has been a challenging week for the cause of life. We are making significant progress, but the enemies of life still control the levers of power and are working to advance their pro-abortion agenda.Time Contribute 2

Over the past week, a pro-abortion governor vetoed legislation that would have allowed his state to opt-out of taxpayer-funded abortion, radicals in Congress proposed the use of military bases for abortion, and we learned that President Obama's Supreme Court nominee believes that partial-birth abortion "may be the best or most appropriate" option for women.

Governor Charlie Crist of Florida has just vetoed legislation that would have opted Florida out of taxpayer-funded abortion and would have given women the option of having an ultrasound prior to an abortion. This is a major setback in our battle to stop the radical growth of the abortion industry (using our tax dollars), but with your support we will keep up the fight!

We are working to save unborn children in all 50 states, and despite the setback in Florida, we still have opportunities to save lives now. With your immediate help, we will have the funds necessary to work with legislatures and governors in Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, and South Carolina who are currently considering "opt-out" legislation. But time is short, and the pro-abortion lobby will stop at nothing in trying to sway state elected officials.

Will you support AUL's efforts to stop taxpayer-funded abortion in these states by making an urgent, tax-deductible contribution of $50, $100, $250, or more?

With the support of an anti-life President and Congress, taxpayer-funded abortion is becoming the law of the land in many states. It is a fact: we are witnessing the greatest expansion of abortion in America since Roe v. Wade.

And using our tax-dollars to fund abortions across the country is not enough for those advancing the pro-abortion agenda. Last week a committee in the U.S. Senate voted in favor of using taxpayer-funded hospitals on military bases around the world to perform abortions. The fight to maintain existing law preventing military hospitals from performing abortions now goes to the rest of the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. We urgently need your support to keep up the fight against the expansion of abortion using our tax dollars - at home, and on our military bases overseas.

Your support has been vital to our efforts over the past several months, and I hope you will continue to partner with us now. As you know, AUL is working to raise a total of $360,000 by June 30th to continue our life-saving momentum and to stand firm against this onslaught of pro-abortion law.

Please follow this link now to make an urgent, tax-deductible contribution of $50, $100, $250, or more!

If we meet our fundraising goal, we will also be able to alert the Senate to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's radical, pro-abortion stance before her confirmation hearings. Make no mistake about it: Ms. Kagan is the most virulent, pro-abortion Supreme Court nominee in over a decade. Our recent investigation has unearthed alarming information about Ms. Kagan's anti-life positions. In a December 14, 1996 memo, Ms. Kagan discloses her true feelings in support of partial-birth abortion. Her own handwritten notes state that the Clinton Administration should take the position that partial-birth abortion "may be the best or most appropriate" option for women! This is an outrageous judgment for any Supreme Court nominee. And it's yet another reason why we must redouble our efforts for the cause of life.

Please follow this link now to make an urgent, tax-deductible contribution of $50, $100, $250, or more to AUL! Together we can restore a culture of life in America.

Charmaine Email Image Yours for Life,
Charmaine Yoest
Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO
Americans United for Life



P.S. There's no limit to what you can give, and every dollar you contribute can be written-off as a charitable contribution for federal tax purposes. Please follow this link now to make an urgent, tax-deductible contribution of $50, $100, $250 or more to help us meet our goal. Thank you for your continued support of AUL - Charmaine.