Skip to comments.Kagan supported cloning of human embryos for research
Posted on 06/10/2010 9:33:48 AM PDT by jeffq73
TO: [Undisclosed Parties]
FROM: Americans United for Life Legal Team
DATE: June 9, 2010
RE: Elena Kagan File: Advocated Cloning Humans for Research
During the time that Elena Kagan served as a top domestic policy advisor for President Bill Clinton (1997-1999), she played a key role in shaping and executing the Presidents response to the development of new cloning technology. Memoranda and emails released by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library on Friday document Kagans involvement in crafting an anti-life position and legislative proposal.
In a May 29, 1997 memo to the President, Kagan and Jack Gibbons (Assistant to the President for Science and Technology) recommended: (1) that [the President] support domestic legislation banning human cloning, and . . . announce specific legislation at the top of your June 10th press conference; and (2) that the U.S. support the gist of France's proposed cloning paragraph [in the G-8 Communiqué] while insisting on critical modifications. However, as the memo explains, Kagans ban on cloning only banned the use of cloning aimed at the live-birth of a baby, not at cloning that takes human life.
A June 3, 1997 memo to the President from Todd Stern (Staff Secretary) and Phil Caplan (Assistant to the President), which was submitted along with Kagans memo, clarified that the proposed ban should allow the cloning of human embryos for experimentation. With a check mark, President Clinton indicated his approval of the recommendation by Jack/Elena . . . that you announce your support for NBAC-type legislation and that you propose specific legislative language.
In a follow-up June 8, 1997 memo to the President, Kagan and Gibbons further clarified that NBAC's proposed legislation --and, as currently drafted, your bill --would not ban the creation of cloned embryos for research purposes. On the same day, Stern drove that home once again in bold-face type, writing: [t]he attached Kagan/Gibbons memo recommends that you follow NBAC in not banning the cloning of embryos for research.
The cloning of human embryos creates living human beings in the earliest stage of development. Using them for research means they will be disaggregated and killed as part of the research. By endorsing such practices, Kagan demonstrated her disrespect for unborn human life.
Kagans involvement in cloning policy was not limited to writing memos. Over the course of several months, she was in frequent dialogue with other administration officials about the content of Clintons legislative language, which Congressional proposals they should support or oppose, and how much they could work with Senate Republicans. While most of the emails in the file are written to Kagan, it is clear that she led an administration cloning meeting in March 1998 and was asked to provide specific advice about the Presidents legislation and Statements of Administration Policy (SAP).
The Administrations position, which Kagan was deeply involved in constructing, is unethical and would be more accurately characterized as pseudo-science. While Kagan and the Clinton administration tried to create a distinction between cloning humans to be used in research and cloning humans for live-birth, there are not two distinct forms of human cloning. These are simply two rationales for the same scientific procedure, known as somatic cell nuclear transfer.
Kagan and Gibbons stated in a memo that they saw no moral rationale for treating embryos created through cloning differently from embryos developed through other means (e.g. in vitro fertilization) when embryos are used solely for research. While the life-affirming response to this would be to ban the destruction of all human embryos for research, they worry instead that halting such destruction might inhibit research. In other words, they put pragmatism over ethics, willing to sacrifice human life in the pursuit of other goals.
Kagans disregard for the value of human life at its most vulnerable stage creates concerns about how she will consider common sense abortion regulations and other cases that will come before the Court. First, it shows she is deeply hostile to protecting the unborn, even when abortion is not an issue. Second, when combined with other statements and writings that reveal her judicial philosophy and her views on the constitutionality of regulations that protect unborn life, her views raise concerns about whether she believes federal restrictions on funding for embryonic stem cell research or cloning, or bans on these procedures, at the state or national level, are constitutional.
 Kagan and Gibbons cloning policy and legislative recommendations were based in part on the recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Committee (NBAC), which was established by President Clinton.
 Id. at 45.
 Id. at 51.
 Id. at 49.
 Supra note 1, at 51.
Those with no respect for life would probably support doing research on live babies.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the republicans have to fight everything that this congress is involved in.
Nothing is too small to fight against. The more the fight the slower the progress that the dems can make doing anything.
I do care about Kagan, but even if I didn’t they should fight her nomination. We all know Obama would never select anyone who was moderate.
Fight on Republicans.
hey Elana Kagan does United Nations international Human Rights Laws supercedes America constitution laws ?
BLOCK THE B!TCH!
From David Horowitz's
PROFILE: ELENA KAGAN
When it was announced in 2008 that Cass Sunstein would be joining the Harvard Law School faculty, Kagan said:
"Cass Sunstein is the preeminent legal scholar of our time -- the most wide-ranging, the most prolific, the most cited, and the most influential. His work in any one of the fields he pursues -- administrative law and policy, constitutional law and theory, behavioral economics and law, environmental law, to name a non-exhaustive few -- would put him in the very front ranks of legal scholars; the combination is singular and breathtaking."
From David Horowitz's
PROFILE: CASS SUNSTEIN
[Cass Sunstein on Socialism and "wealth redistribution"]:
Sunstein has argued in favor of bringing socialism (in the form of expanded wefare benefits and wealth redistribution) to the United States, but contends that the country's "white majority" opposes such a development because of deep-seated racism:
"The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics)."
Sunstein depicts socialist nations as being more committed than their capitalist counterparts to the welfare of their own citizens:
"During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care, and a social minimum."In 2007 Sunstein co-authored (with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner) a 39-page University of Chicago Law School paper titled "Climate Change Justice," which held that it was "desirable" for America to pay "justice" to poorer nations by entering into a compensation agreement that would result in a financial loss for the United States. The paper refers several times to "distributive justice."
[Cass Sunstein on "Climate Change" and "distributive justice"]:
Sunstein and Posner further speculate about the possibility of achieving this redistribution by means other than direct payments:
[Cass Sunstein on the "Fairness Doctrine" (restricting opposing political views)]:
Also in The Partial Constitution, Sunstein promotes the notion of a "First Amendment New Deal" in the form of a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would authorize a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure that a "diversity of view[s]" is presented on the airwaves.
[Cass Sunstein on federally-funded abortions]:
With regard to citizens who object to having their tax dollars finance abortions, Sunstein writes:
"There would be no tension with the establishment clause if people with religious or other objections were forced to pay for that procedure (abortion). Indeed, taxpayers are often forced to pay for things - national defense, welfare, certain forms of art, and others - to which they have powerful moral and even religious objections."
Lots more on Cass Sunstein here:
More on him can be found here or at http://scotus.aul.org.
Folks, she’s goin’ on the court. Name a lefty cause and she’s probably supported it, but she will be confirmed and it really will not be that close.
If she supported the cloning of humans...this is HORRENDOUS!!!
Alas, it doesn’t matter what is uncovered, for she has the support of SC’s “Lovable Lindsey,” who Jim DeMint says is mostly “on the team.”
“Cass Sunstein is the preeminent legal scholar of our time — the most wide-ranging, the most prolific, the most cited, and the most influential. His work in any one of the fields he pursues — administrative law and policy, constitutional law and theory, behavioral economics and law, environmental law, to name a non-exhaustive few — would put him in the very front ranks of legal scholars; the combination is singular and breathtaking.”—Elena Kagan
Right, and a recent US Supreme Court decision would also allow them to patent whatever creature they develop from this cloning. I think this was the Monsanto case that said they pretty much own all farming seeds now.
The Dems are missing their big opportunity:
human cloning for Obama’s personal civilian army.
It’s time for the Republicans to fillibuster all radical nominees until Obama picks someone who is “in the mainstream”. This was the big standard that the Democrats applied to all of Bush’s nominees. Besides, we still haven’t gotten even for what they did to Robert Bork; we owe them one. Why not start now?
Is there any hope of stopping her?