President Obama has just nominated Elena Kagan to be the next justice on the U.S. Supreme Court and the proverbial poop is already hitting the fan. Aside from the usual Republican “just say no” mantra, it seems that some pro-choice groups are a little nervous about her. That’s because in 1997, she co-authored a memo to President Clinton that recommended he sign legislation that would have banned the “partial birth abortion” procedure. If it were me, I would have advised the same thing.
As originally drafted, the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act” would have outlawed that procedure in all cases except when the woman’s life was endangered. From the beginning, however, there were a number of pro-choice Senators who were very concerned about the political impact of this bill and they knew that the longer the discussion went on about this procedure, the more support they would lose amongst the general public. After all, who the hell could defend this gruesome procedure?
So, looking for a way out, Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota floated a “compromise.” He suggested that the Congress not only ban that particular procedure but ban ALL third trimester abortions. The catch was he left an exception for when the woman’s life and health was endangered. That “health” exception, however, always raises a red flag for the anti-abortion crowd because they allege that that exception can be stretched in many ways. Indeed, one late term abortion doctor was quoted during this time as saying he would certify the “health” exception in every case presented to him. Yeah, that one really helped!
Still, Daschle and others floated this idea, arguing that their proposal would not just ban the notorious partial birth abortion but any other late term abortion procedures. And that’s when Kagan chimed in and suggested that President Clinton support that approach.
In retrospect, that was good advice. The fact is that when the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act” was introduced, the pro-choice groups were caught with their pants down. They found it difficult to defend the procedure so they came up with a lame defense that it wasn’t used very often, a defense that ultimately blew up in their face. Meanwhile, the polls showed that the vast majority of Americans opposed any late term abortions. Recognizing the great place they were in, anti-abortion legislators gave speech after speech every day describing the lurid details of the procedure. I was in the middle of that debate and I swear that the antis orchestrated the speeches to begin at 5:30 p.m. every day so channel surfers waiting for dinner could see the gross pictures depicting the procedure.
It was a brilliant strategy from a public relations point of view. And the irony was that the anti-abortion movement knew that if the bill ultimately became law, it would not have stopped one abortion. Even certain anti-abortion leaders publicly acknowledged the same. What was important to them was that the issue not go away. If the bill were signed into law, the issue would be gone.
During that time, a one pro-choice voice argued that the movement should let this legislation pass without a fight. Let everyone vote for it, don’t fight it, let it become law, no doctor would be affected and the issue would have disappeared. Instead, the pro-choice movement fought the bill with disastrous consequences.
Ultimately, the anti-abortion movement would not accept the Daschle compromise because, well, they just did not want to compromise. And the pro-choice movement opposed him. But Kagan was smart enough to realize what was going on and gave him some good political advice. The pro-choice groups should not hold that against her.

May 12, 2010 at 7:28 am
Is there a well established consensus opinion from ACOG, the Classic Obstrecical Textbooks (including Williams), ABOG, and the standard medical dictionary (Steadmans) on what a Partial Birth Abortion is specifically?
If there is not how does any one know what they are even talking about in regards to the procedure.
LikeLike
May 12, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Way to go!
LikeLike
May 12, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Now it will become a mess… all lost!
LikeLike
May 13, 2010 at 8:42 am
Seriously
Betha had a good question about abortion.
can anyone answer it?
I know I can’t about that abortion quandary.
Is there an Abortion professional out there or OBGyn please, that seems really important if we are voting on this stuff.
LikeLike
May 13, 2010 at 8:50 am
“Partial Birth Abortion” is a term coined by the anti-abortion movement, a very clever term at that. The pro-choice movement did at some point argue that they didn’t know whap procedure they were talking about. However, generally speaking it was known that this was the procedure, performed on a live fetus, that was developed by a doctor in Ohio. The legislation would have banned the procedure as it was performed on a live fetus. The irony was that except for that one doctor, all the other doctors who performed this procedure performed it on a dead fetus. I.e., they injected the fetus with a drug that killed it in utero, then they performed the procedure. So, they never were affected by this law.
LikeLike
May 13, 2010 at 9:07 am
I love Pat, but the fact that she can write the above without cringing shows you how much work I have cut out for me.
LikeLike
May 13, 2010 at 10:53 am
Kagan was given a wildly enthusiastic round of applause by the Federalist Society when she spoke; Obama has chosen yet another Roberts-Alito-Scalia type for the Supreme Court. The very fact that most Republicans aren’t being fed a line by Frank Luntz bodes ill for America’s women.
LikeLike
May 13, 2010 at 11:31 am
Who says I’m not cringing when I write this stuff, John?
LikeLike
May 13, 2010 at 11:32 am
Kagan is another “Roberts -Alito-Scalia” type? Please explain, CG. Why would Obama nominate a right wing conservative?
LikeLike
May 13, 2010 at 6:35 pm
If you were cringing, Pat, I apologize, but the tone seemed so disinterested.
LikeLike
May 13, 2010 at 8:13 pm
John, I realize that abortion is totally gross. I know people say surgery in general is gross but when the surgery involves something that at some point looks like a baby, that is very very sensitive. I’ve seen the results of an abortion. It is very sad, but I can only keep going back to the woman who felt the need to do it.
LikeLike
May 14, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Here’s the tip of the iceberg, Pat:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/14
LikeLike
May 14, 2010 at 3:55 pm
I understand some women feel the need to have and abortion. They feel it is useless to go through nine months of pregnancy just to bring a new life from God that they would later give up for adoption. Some women are ashamed of their pregnancy and their sexuality. Yet they are sexual. So of course their only choice is murder. Of course they do not care who that person they are killing could be in the future, what things they could do and change, what that person could make better for the world. Who would?!? Just because it’s a baby that isn’t born yet but is still alive with a heart beat doesn’t mean they should feel any remorse in what they are doing. They could be killing the next president of the United States, the next Madonna, or the next Tom Cruise. Why would it matter? They would never have a chance anyway. They’re dead. They can’t feel their spines being snapped and neither can the mother. This is all normal. People get abortions all the time. I have no idea why these pro-life people think abortion is so wrong.
LikeLike
May 14, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Nice snark, Michelle. How many kids have you adopted?
LikeLike
May 14, 2010 at 6:54 pm
And, Michelle, they could be giving birth to the next Adolph Hitler. Not every kid who is born is Mozart. Gimme a break…
LikeLike
May 14, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Michelle, when I was a kid in Dover, NJ, we knew the George Comeaux family. Unusual name, any connection?
LikeLike
May 15, 2010 at 7:42 am
I thought Dover was in Deleware? There’s one in NJ?
LikeLike
May 15, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Yeah, near Morristown where I sowed my wild oats.
LikeLike
May 16, 2010 at 7:35 am
Why is the feturs always going to be the next Mozart?
It is necessary for the aborticentrist to portray the fetus in the most glowing terms possible, because the fetus represents herself. In her allegorical struggle against the oblivion Death will impose on her, the aborticentrist plays the role of God and by “rescuing” the fetus, rescues herself. The whole point of the allegory is to provide herself with tangible proof that God loves her enough to grant her eternal life.
Most people who are religious have a strong enough religious faith that they do not need to act out a “rescue” allegory, but those who are trapped in the toils of aborticentrism lack sufficient religious faith to avoid playing it out.
LikeLike
May 16, 2010 at 8:39 am
This is a disjointed thread.
The answer to initial question is
No.
Among professionals there is not a common standardized definition of PBA.
That being said, a law cannot ( or should not be passed on something without a definition).
The last fellow is quite accurate, and articulate, the “Allegory.”
Pro lifers rarely do more than vote away peoples rights.
That don’t adopt, they don’t go to places in their own town and bring starving children food, or even travel a little south, or Africa where babies die by the million from lack of water or cheap antibiotics.
Armchair complaining is a lot easier.
If they cared, they could save lives immediately by actually helping out a little.
The good hard work is done by the people that do adopt, the many doctors that never turn a patient away for lack of funds, or the peron that travels just as Jesus would have done, and do good.
This Dunkle (is that a real name?, no offense intended), what good work, like bringing a dehydrated baby water, or giving 50 cents for tetracycline , honestly do you do? Are you just another armchair philosopher?
LikeLike