Elena Kagan, under questioning from Sen. Orrin Hatch, admitted
that while serving as an adviser to President Clinton, she wrote
a memo that has generated controversy because it suggests she
lead an effort to politicize the science that was at the center
of the partial-birth abortion debate.
Yesterday, National Review ran an
article by Bush administration lawyer Shannen Coffin,
disclosing documents which show that Kagan intervened to make
sure that a supposedly non-partisan scientific statement on
partial-birth abortion by the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists (ACOG) was more favorable to the Clinton
administration’s point of view.
An earlier draft of the ACOG statement, Kagan warned at the time,
would be a “disaster” – but the final draft adopted language that
she suggested, and went on to play a crucial role in legal
battles over the procedure.
Under questioning from Hatch, Kagan owned up to writing the memo,
but denied that she intervened to pressure ACOG into changing its
medical conclusions. She argued that in talks with ACOG, the
group expressed two opinions on the procedure.
“What ACOG thought was that on the one hand, they couldn’t think
of a circumstance in which this procedure was the absolutely only
procedure that could be used in a given case,” Kagan explained.
“But second, on the other hand, that they could think of
circumstances in which it was the medically best, or medically
most appropriate, procedure.”
She insisted that all she wanted to do was make sure that the
ACOG’s views were, “accurately conveyed to the American public.”
And responding to what she meant by calling the initial statement
a “disaster,” she claimed, “the disaster would be if the
statement did not accurately reflect all of what ACOG thought.”
Hatch told her that the matter “bothers me a lot.”
A transcript of today’s exchange, which picks up after Hatch asks
her if she authored the memo, after the jump.
—————————
KAGAN: Well, I’ve seen the document, and the document and the
document is…
HATCH: But did you write it? Is that your memo?
KAGAN: The document is certainly in my handwriting. I don’t know
whether the document is a product of a conversation I had with
them. If I could just go back Sen. Hatch, this was an incredibly
difficult issue for everybody who was associated with it, for
obvious reasons. President Clinton had strong views on this
issue, and what he thought was that this procedure should be
banned in all cases except where the procedure was necessary to
save the life or to prevent serious health consequences to the
woman. And those were always his principles. And we tried over
course of the period of time when this statute was being
considered actually twice, to get him absolutely the best medical
evidence on this subject possible. And it was not easy, because
as everybody in Congress knows, different people said different
things about this. There was conflicting evidence, and we tried
to do our best to bring all the evidence, all the conflicting
views, to his attention. In the course of that, we did indeed
speak with ACOG. ACOG had an interest in this statute, and ACOG
had views about this statute. What ACOG thought, and always
conveyed to us, was two things. What ACOG thought was that on the
one hand, they couldn’t think of a circumstance in which this
procedure was the absolutely only procedure that could be used in
a given case. But second, on the other hand, that they could
think of circumstances in which it was the medically best, or
medically most appropriate, procedure. That it was the procedure
with the least risk attached to it in terms of preventing harm to
the women’s health. And so, we knew that ACOG thought both of
these things. We informed the president, President Clinton, of
that fact. There did come a time when we saw a draft statement
that stated the first of these things which we knew ACOG to
believe, but not the second, which we also knew ACOG to believe.
And I had some discussions with ACOG about that graph.
HATCH: Let me just ask that question again. Did you write, “this
of course would be a disaster”? It’s in your handwriting. You
didn’t get that from the…
KAGAN: No, no, no, you’re exactly right, I didn’t realize that
you were referring …No, yes, that’s exactly right. And the
disaster would be if the statement did not accurately reflect all
of what ACOG thought. Both, that there were two parts to what
ACOG thought. And I recall generally, not with any great
specificity, but recall generally, talking to ACOG about that
statement, and about whether that statement was consistent with
the views we knew it had because they had stated them. That it
was both not the only procedure, but also that it was in some
circumstances the medically best procedure. And in their final
statement, that sentence, that it was not the only procedure, of
course remained. Because that is what they thought. But we did
have some discussions about clarifying the second aspect of what
they also thought, which was that it was in some circumstances
the medically most appropriate procedure. And so I think this was
all done in order to present both to the President, and to
Congress, the most accurate understanding of what this important
organization of doctors believed with respect to this issue.
HATCH: Mr. Chairman, I just have one or two sentences I’d like to
say. I tell you, this bothers me a lot, because I know there were
plenty of doctors in ACOG who did not believe that partial birth
abortion was an essential procedure, who believed that it was
really a brutal procedure. And it was a constant conflict there.
And as you know, many in Congress came to the conclusion that it
was a brutal procedure too. It really was unjustified. That
bothers me that you intervened in that particular area in that
way. That’s all I’ll say about it, but I just want you to be
aware that that bothers me.
KAGAN: Sen. Hatch, there was no way in which I would have or
could have intervened with ACOG, which is a respected body of
physicians to get it to change its medical views on the question.
The only question we were talking about was whether this
statement that they were going to issue accurately reflected the
views that they had expressed to the president, to the
president’s staff, to Congress and to the American public. I do
agree with you, this was an enormously hard issue. And President
Clinton found it so, and thought that the procedure should not be
used except in cases where it was necessary for life or health
purposes. And we tried to get him the best information we could
about the medical need for this procedure, something that was not
always easy. And tried in all the statements that he made to make
sure and in any other statements we were aware of to make sure
that that information was accurately conveyed to the American
public.
MAJ Mike| 6.30.10 @ 4:05PM
Sadly, since the Democrats fought tooth and nail to prevent the ban on partial birth abortion becoming law, it's likely that they will ignore this issue, the falsification of scientific reporting in support of legislation, and confirm Kagan.
Mark MacInnis| 6.30.10 @ 5:26PM
Have we sunk so far in our cognitive skills as a country that a candidate for the supreme court, and her handlers who prepped her for the hearings, actually think there is a substantive difference between the two answers to the question "Did you write this memo?"...to wit, Kagan replies "It is in my handwriting." repeatedly, rather than simply saying. "Yes, I wrote that memo."
Traveshamockery....
Yosemeti Sam| 7.1.10 @ 12:07AM
" ... KAGAN: ... this was an incredibly difficult issue for everybody who was associated with it, for obvious reasons...."
But - What the Hell!
Let her fly!
Let's just 'facilitate' the raw butchery of innocent human beings - aborning.
Let's edit some group of words so's we can edit out a human being from existence more comfortably.
Ladies and gents - of conscience - mark well the votes from the Republicans!
Um, BTW - speaking of torture!
What if them slaughtered aborning were subjected to waterboarding!
Make any difference in - hue and cry?
What another baby ass-kicker as Kagans' patron nominator - BHO.
To wit: something horridly - in common.
Yo, Republicans - exercise the filibuster on this unempathetic/soulless? Leftoid!
Mimi| 7.1.10 @ 9:31AM
Well , Well ....Elena's on her way to SCOTUS so they say. Is that good for our country? With politics aside...Something just don't seem right here. She appears to love " Gravitas " but lacks it.....She appears to be forth coming.... but is not. She appears to want to have integrety but shows cracks in her character (ie Harvard smoothing over plagerism of "Top-Dogs".. mis using sources) See Sarah Rimer's article in N.Y.Times Nov.24, 2004, also one by Jack Cashill, recently from American Thinker, and one article last month in Washington Times. I did not hear her questioned on that!!! in the halls of Congress. A Supreme Court Justice is so ..so ..Important to this nation, we must look for a stealth candidate..And there are many out there. Human, Personable..yes but those things are not that crucial. Character, love of truth evident, faithfulness to our Laws. I and probably many citizens expect the BEST not just O.K.