By Susan Brinkmann, OCDS
Staff Journalist
Legal experts, taking the advice of Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan to use her “whole life” rather than her non-existent judicial record to determine where she stands on issues, are finding that her radical pro-abortion position becomes abundantly clear under those standards.
Americans United for Life (AUL), the nation’s premier pro-life legal think tank, is reporting that during yesterday’s hearings on the Hill, Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) asked Kagan: “Since we don’t have a judicial record for you, what should we use to evaluate you to see what kind of justice you’ll be, what you’re judicial philosophy will be?”
Kagan responded: “Look to my whole life – my tenure as Solicitor General, as Dean of Harvard Law, my time in the White House…”
Using those standards, AUL attorneys say Kagan’s radical pro-abortion stance becomes abundantly clear because she spent the majority of her career working for pro-abortion politicians and judges as well as working as a pro-abortion political operative.
AUL reports the following pro-abortion history on Elena Kagan:
Kagan’s career as a pro-abortion zealot started early. In her first year after graduating from law school, she clerked for federal Judge Abner Mikva, who, during an interview, stated: “ . . . I support the result of Roe v. Wade. . .”
In 1987, Kagan clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, whom she called “the greatest lawyer of the 20th century.” Marshall was an extreme abortion supporter while on the Bench. In Beal v. Doe, which involved the disbursement of federal funding to abortion clinics, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Social Security Act did not require the funding of nontherapeutic abortions as a condition of participation in the Medicaid program. Justice Marshall disagreed with the majority’s holding: “The right of every woman to choose whether to bear a child is, as Roe v. Wade held, of fundamental importance. An unwanted child may be disruptive and destructive of the life of any woman…” Justice Marshall stated that without federal funding of abortion, “a vital constitutional right,” any “chance to control the direction of [a woman’s] own life will have been lost.”
In 1988, Kagan worked as a Researcher for Michael Dukakis’ presidential campaign. Dukakis was one of the most outspoken pro-abortion politicians of his time. Three years before Roe v. Wade, he introduced a bill in the Massachusetts House to repeal that state`s then strongly pro-life laws.
In the summer of 1993, Kagan worked as special counsel to then-Senator Joe Biden on the Senate Judiciary Committee . . . . Biden believes the Constitution offers an “inherent right to privacy” and “strongly supports Roe v. Wade.”
From 1995-1999, Kagan worked for President Bill Clinton as Associate Counsel to the President, and then Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council. . . . Kagan advised Clinton on abortion issues, and in 1997 argued against any restrictions on abortion – even in the case of partial birth abortion – by claiming that such restrictions were “unconstitutional.” She also told Clinton that accepting abortion “limitations” was ill-advised because “the [pro-abortion] groups will go crazy” if he didn’t do what they wanted.
In addition, Kagan has contributed to the pro-abortion group National Partnership for Women and Families, which has strong ties to Emily’s List and NARAL.
She also campaigned for, worked for or contributed to candidates and public officials who were supporters of abortion rights, including Elizabeth Holtzman, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama.
AUL’s William Saunders adds that Kagan has also been openly hostile to anti-abortion candidates and officials, saying she “found it hard to conceive of the victories of these anonymous but Moral Majority-backed [candidates in the 1980 general election] . . . these avengers of ‘innocent life’.”
In one legal memo to Marshall, Kagan argued that federal funding for anti-abortion programs that serve those in need of pregnancy-related care should be “off limits” to religious organizations, Saunders writes.
“What type of Justice would Kagan be?” AUL asks. “She would be an agenda-driven Justice who would strongly oppose even the most widely-accepted protections for the unborn. There’s still time to ask Kagan more questions – she should fully disclose, before the American people, how extreme her views really are.”
© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace® http://www.womenofgrace.com
