Press Releases

 

Entries in Abortion (332)

Tuesday
Jun222010

AUL - Kagan File:The "Campaign Contributions" Memo 

 

Kagan Puts Her Money Where Her Political Ideology Is

Backgrounder: 

Whom a person supports with hard-earned money speaks volumes about the values she holds.  One gives financially to political candidates whom one respects, and whose political values, policies, and positions on important issues one would like to see advanced.  Today, we examine which political candidates Elena Kagan has supported financially and their positions on abortion.

Elena Kagan has given campaign contributions to staunchly pro-abortion candidates, including:

  • Her boss, President Barack Obama.  Kagan has contributed money to his various campaigns, giving $4600 in contributions in June of 2008, as well as an additional $2000 to support Obama when he ran for the U.S. Senate.[1]  President Obama holds the most radical views on abortion of any president in U.S. history.[2]  While a U.S. Senator, Obama opposed the partial birth abortion ban and opposed legislation that would protect infants who survive abortions.[3]  During Obama’s presidential campaign, he promised Planned Parenthood that the first thing he would do when elected president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law, which would constitute the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.[4]
  • Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, one of the most outspoken advocates of abortion in our nation’s history, has also benefited from Kagan’s checkbook.[5]  Clinton not only works to expand access to abortion for American women, but also works to legalize abortion for women around the world.[6]  Clinton recently stated that “an important part of women's health and reproductive health includes access to abortion,” and "[W]e are now an administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care."[7]  A long-time recipient of NARAL support, Clinton received Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger[8] Award in 2009, which Clinton described as a “great privilege.”[9]
  • Kagan also supported Senator John Kerry’s campaign, contributing a total of $1500 in 2000 and 2001.[10]  Senator Kerry firmly supports Roe v. Wade and the alleged “right to abortion.”  As a Senator, he opposed a criminal penalty for harming an unborn child during the commission of another crime, the partial birth abortion ban, and legislation to maintain a ban of abortion on military facilities.[11]  An advocate for embryonic stem cell research, which necessarily takes the life of an embryonic human being, Kerry also signed a letter asking President Bush to expand embryonic stem cell research.[12]  Since Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Kerry has endorsed the woman who supported his campaign.[13]
  • Kagan contributed to Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign.[14]  Al Gore is an advocate of abortion as part of international family planning.[15]  In 1997, Gore asserted that “Third World nations are producing too many children too fast…[I]t is time to ignore the controversy over family planning and out-of-control population growth. . .[and recognize abortion as part of the solution to this problem].”[16]  During the 2000 election campaign, he stated, “I will defend a woman's right to choose, regardless of her economic circumstances.  I will not allow Roe v. Wade to be overturned."
  • Kagan gave money to Judy Feder, a candidate endorsed by the pro-abortion Emily’s List, in her race for Congress in 2006.  According to the National Organization of Women’s website, Feder “understands the importance of maintaining women's reproductive rights…[and] fully supports women's right to choose abortion and birth control, as well as access to family planning services that include emergency contraception.”[17] 

Conclusion:

Kagan has contributed thousands of dollars to some of the most pro-abortion politicians and candidates in American history. While political contributions do not speak directly to how Kagan would judge on the Supreme Court, her political contributions reveal she actively supports pro-abortion political candidates for public office. Americans have every reason to believe Kagan will bring this same radically pro-abortion commitment and worldview to the Supreme Court. Senators should ask Kagan if her pro-abortion political ideology will influence her ability to render impartial justice when abortion cases come before the Supreme Court.         


[1] See http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Elena_Kagan.php

[2] Within three days of President Obama taking office, he overturned the Mexico City Policy, which forbade federal funding of groups that provide or promote abortion.  For other instances, see http://www.aul.org/2008/06/what-did-barack-obama-promise-planned-parenthood

[3] See http://www.ontheissues.org/social/barack_obama_abortion.htm.

[4] See http://www.fightfoca.com/.

[5] See http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Elena_Kagan.php.

[6] See http://www.opposingviews.com/i/hillary-clinton-supports-abortion-as-reproductive-health

[7] See http://www.opposingviews.com/i/hillary-clinton-supports-abortion-as-reproductive-health

[8] Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger with the genocidal, eugenic intention of wiping out black children and other minority or low-income people.  See http://www.aul.org/2008/04/planned-parenthood-doesn%e2%80%99t-deny-its-racist-principles/.

[9] See http://www.opposingviews.com/i/hillary-clinton-supports-abortion-as-reproductive-health.

[10] See http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Elena_Kagan.php.

[11] See http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm.

[12] See http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm.

[13] See http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1700426273/Kerry-praises-Kagan-Brown-keeping-an-open-mind.

[14] See http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Elena_Kagan.php.

[15] See http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07101206.html.

[16] See http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07101206.html (emphasis added).

[17] See http://www.nowpacs.org/2008/feder.html.



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.