Charmaine Yoest, the president of pro-life legal think tank Americans United for Life (AUL), will testify before the Senate tomorrow afternoon. Her written testimony has already been released. The highlights:
I am here to express AUL’s opposition to the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court. Based on our research, we believe that Solicitor General Kagan will be an agenda-driven judge on the Court, and that she will strongly oppose even the most widely-accepted protections for unborn human life.
On the doctrine of stare decisis:
Supreme Court Justices must have a respect for prior Supreme Court decisions, but also recognize that following precedent is “not an inexorable command.” . . . In fact, the Court enhances its legitimacy when it reverses a decision after overstepping its bounds into policymaking. Furthermore, the Supreme Court should never affirm a decision at odds with the Constitution. Under the principles of stare decisis, Roe is a prime example of precedent on shaky ground.
On motive analysis:
Kagan has written favorably about the application of the “government motive” doctrine in the context of First Amendment law. . . . Looking for governmental motive invariably involves looking for bad motives, i.e. reasons to strike down an enactment by legislatures. Pro-abortion academics and judges have long sought to impose an “antiabortion motive” analysis to invalidate state abortion regulations. For example, Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun applied a motive analysis to strike down abortion health regulations in 1986 in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. A slight tilt in the Court could again lead to the application of this doctrine to state abortion regulations.
On Kagan’s overall record:
The pieces that make up Kagan’s abortion record create the picture of a stanchly pro-abortion ideologue who has devoted her life to serving pro-abortion political candidates, judges, and office-holders. Further, on multiple occasions she has used her positions to voice opposition to the most widely accepted regulations of abortion. Her position is so clear, that Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), a staunch abortion advocate, voiced support for Kagan: “I have no reason to think anything else except that [Kagan] would be a very strong supporter of privacy rights because everyone she worked for held that view.” (“Privacy rights” is the euphemism under which Justice Blackmun imposed a right to abortion on America in Roe v. Wade.)
AUL has a wealth of information for those who are interested in learning more about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.