Thanks for the post ? Why the excerpt? I didn't see it on THIS list.Anyway, here is the unexcerpted report from The Dallas Morning News so folks can actually read about the story here on FR without having to go off site.
Roe vs. Wade hearing set in MarchAppeals court to rule on Dallas woman's request to revisit abortion case
08:57 PM CST on Thursday, February 19, 2004
A federal appeals court in New Orleans will hear arguments next month on whether to grant a Dallas woman's request to have the landmark Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion reconsidered.
The appeal came after U.S. District Judge David Godbey in June rejected an attempt by Norma McCorvey, "Jane Roe" in the 1973 decision, to have her case re-examined.
Ms. McCorvey, 56, now opposes abortion and argues that new evidence shows that the procedure is harmful to women. But the judge ruled that three decades later was too long for a plaintiff to wait before asking for relief from the original judgment – a decision applauded by some legal experts.
After it hears arguments March 2, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could ask Judge Godbey to consider rehearing the case.
"There's always time for justice to be re-examined by the courts," said Ms. McCorvey's attorney, Allen Parker of San Antonio. Mr. Parker heads the Texas Justice Foundation, an anti-abortion legal group.
Dallas County District Attorney Bill Hill now presides over the office once held by Henry Wade, who defended the old Texas statute outlawing abortion.
Mr. Hill has not responded to Ms. McCorvey's appeal, even though his name is on the docket, because he has decided that, unlike Mr. Wade in the 1970s, his office has no criminal statute to defend because abortion is legal.
"He's not the proper legal party," said Dolena Westergard, a Dallas County assistant district attorney. "It's a strange legal event that he's even named as a party."
On Wednesday, a group of 20 Texas law professors asked the New Orleans appeals court for the chance to argue that Judge Godbey's decision was the correct one. They are likely to hear a reply next week, said David Schenck, a partner at the Hughes & Luce law firm in Dallas who represents the professors.
Mr. Schenck, who once was a law clerk for a 5th Circuit judge, said his group's decision to oppose Ms. McCorvey's effort is based on a concern over judicial process – not over political or moral beliefs regarding abortion.
He said it simply would be improper to start the case over.
"The case to me and the professor is not al all about the merits of this issue. Reasonable people on both sides have different opinions on it," he said. "The issue now, in this case, is whether a litigant who decides that they disagree with the Supreme Court can reverse the decision."
From her Dallas home Thursday, Ms. McCorvey said she is pleased the court will hear her appeal.
Her attorney in the original case 30 years ago, Sarah Weddington, said Thursday that she feels there's no reason to reopen the case. She said the Supreme Court has passed on several opportunities since the 1973 case to reverse itself.
"It's such a mystery that the 5th Circuit would agree to hear it," she said. "This is so out of character. Who knows what they will do?"
E-mail mstiles@dallasnews.com
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/022004dnmetroevshill.58b3e.html
