Judge Admits "facts no longer matter" in Abortion Decisions. MUST READ!

LifeSite Daily News ^ | Friday September 17, 2004

[cpforlife.org]

Home | Previous Page | Source URL: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/sep/04091703.html LifeSite Daily News Friday September 17, 2004 Judge Admits "facts no longer matter" in Abortion Decisions McCorvey motion to overturn Roe v. Wade moves toward Supreme Court SAN ANTONIO, September 17, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Circuit Court judge has dismissed the motion brought forward by Norma McCorvey, known to legal history as "Roe" in Roe v. Wade, to overturn the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion in the US. However the judge, Edith Jones of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has made some surprising statements in her ruling that gives hope that Roe v. Wade is itself on its way to being history. McCorvey provided the Court with over 5000 pages of evidence, inlcuding over 1000 affidavits from women hurt by abortion. "The ruling is not a surprising development," said Allan Parker, President of The Justice Foundation, the organization that is helping to fight the case. "It moves us one step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will ultimately decide this case," he said. Judge Jones said that the knowledge and social conditions that now exist have effectively changed the landscape on abortion. She implied that had the facts been known at the time, the decision might have been different. "If the Courts were to delve into the facts underlying Roe's balancing scheme with present-day knowledge, they might conclude that the woman's "choice" is far more risky and less beneficial, and the child's sentience far more advanced, than the Roe Court knew." However, she warns that because laws have become entrenched, no 'live controversy" will arise that would allow the Supreme Court to re-criminalize abortion. She admits that the Courts over the years have taken the issue of abortion out of the hands of representative, democratic legislative bodies. "The perverse result of the Court's having determined through constitutional adjudication this fundamental social policy, which affects over a million women and unborn babies each year, is that the facts no longer matter." She wrote. Judge Jones concludes, One may fervently hope that the Court will someday acknowledge (scientific) developments and re-evaluate Roe and Casey accordingly. That the Court's constitutional decision making leaves our nation in a position of willful blindness to evolving knowledge should trouble any dispassionate observer…about the abortion decisions…" To read Judge Jones ruling: http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/abortio n/mccrvhill91404opn.pdf

[Mach9]

If anything, the 14th Amendment (as you mention) could have been the basis for denyiing the state's right to decriminalize abortion; but it couldn't have been the basis for affirming decriminalization (and indeed it wasn't). And of course there was no explicit power of the Supreme Court to act on a right reserved to the States in the first place!

[Mach9]

Very, VERY good. Wonder if we'll EVER see/read anything like that in ANY schools--public, private, Christian, Catholic. Thank you for posting.

[MHGinTN]

Fact is, abortionists are serial killers for court-protected hire to slaughter selected alive unborn children while still at least partially in their mother's body. The democrat party has gained millions of votes by protecting this evil, making that party the servant of evil. But facts don't matter to the godless and those actively rebelling against God's sovereignty ... sadly, it is the unborn or partially born little ones who are drenching this evil behavior with their innocent blood. Sounds a whole lot like the worship of Molech to me!... And we can read what God did to the Israelites practicing such evil. But then, democrat politicians don't believe God anyway, so their service to evil continues to spread the rot across America. But make no mistake, we the people will get what we deserve for not stopping this tide of evil ...

[Theodore R.]

What was your take on the report this week that 42 percent of "prolife" people are not registered to vote?

[tuckrdout]

CP, thanks for the ping. Unusual! But, a step in the right direction, albeit a very small step, still a step!

I wonder what kind of end all those 1973 Justices came to? How many voted for and how many against?

[tuckrdout]

Well, I see you answered my question here.

I wonder how many mothers, (like mine) who wanted to have an abortion, but could not, look at their children and say, "I wish I could have aborted them"?

I know many who live in sadness and guilt, who often say, "I wish I wouldn't have had that abortion".

[tuckrdout]

So, cliff, while 1,000 of our troops died in Iraq, how many helpless, innocent babies died in their mother's wombs?

Seems Iraq is a safer place than an American mother's womb!

[Aetius]

I agree with you that an abortion is the destruction of innocent human life. It is the 'innocent' part that makes comparisons to the death penalty out of place.

But I do think that they should be allowed if the mother's health is truly in danger if she carries the baby to term and gives birth to it.

Practically speaking, I think that the best that could happen on a policy level is for Roe to be overturned and for the matter to return to the states. If that happens you would have a polygot of laws. Some states in the Northeast would probably only restrict late-term abortions, but the restrictions would likely be so weak so as to have a defacto policy of abortion on demand. Some states would probably be very restrictive and allow for abortions only in those threat-to-the-mother cases, while othres would probably extend exceptions to include rape, incest, etc.

It wouldn't be perfect, but at least policy wouldn't result from judicial fiat.


And Mach9: you are right about lack of respect for States' rights. The Tenth Amendment might as well not even exist considering how it is ignored.

[Theodore R.]

"Roe v. Wade" was 7-2, with the dissenters being then Associate Justice Rehnquist, R-AZ, appointed by Nixon, and former (and late) Justice Byron White, D-CO, appointed by JFK. The "Wade" in the case was the late Dallas Co. District Attorney Henry Wade, a Democrat.

Its predecessor "Griswold v. Connecticut," which forbade a state from outlawing the sale of birth control devices, was also 7-2, with Justice White (replaced by ultraliberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, D-NY) in the opposition. White said the issue should be decided in the legislature in Hartford, not in D.C. Griswold established the concept of "privacy," which was expanded by "Roe."

Actually, it was "Doe v. Bolton," also 1973, which permitted abortion on demand by adding psychological reasons as a basis for an elective abortion. I don't know the vote on "Doe." The "Bolton" in the case was the late GA attorney general Arthur Bolton, a Democrat.

Ironically both Norma McCorvey in TX ("Roe") and Sandra Cano in GA ("Doe") have tried to get both decisions overturned.

[Calpernia]

Bump!

[tuckrdout]

Have you had a child with Hydrocephally?

I have personally known 2 women who did. They both had their children. One had her son for 6 months. She keeps his photo on the wall. She and her husband loved him. They cared for him and were so happy to have had the chance to know him, even if it was a short time. My friend is now a counselor, who helps other people deal with grief. She knows what grief is. She knows what disappointment and loss of hope are. She has been through it, and come out the other side! She went on to have 6 other children!

My other friend had a doctor who told her that she needed to let the baby starve to death, so that she didn't prolong her "misery". She loved her baby. She didn't care what the child was like. She refused. She kept feeding and loving the child for weeks--under constant pressure from her doctor and family to let her baby die. Her husband gave her a very hard time about feeding the child. He hid the bottles and made it very hard for her. Unfortuately, the baby died after a few instances of her arguing with her husband. My friend has felt guilt for 15 years over this. It ruined her relationship with her husband and they divorced.

Death is a part of life. A part that we must face and not avoid. God gives us many lessons and blessings in the midst of that struggle, that we miss if we try to avoid it. To give birth to a child, and while it is still in the birth canal, to crush it's head and kill it, because it was deformed, will leave a person with guilt and sorrow for the rest of their lives.

Whether a person is "wanted" is not a reason to decide the value of their lives. Their lives have value because they are created by our Creator.

[Calpernia]

Reminder of MHGinTN ebook: http://www.goexcelglobal.com/WeNeedToTalk/index1.html

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[tuckrdout]

I knew a woman once who had a brain tumor. She was pregnant, and had other children. She could not get cancer treatment while she was pregnant. So, she had an abortion, and got treatment. The rationale is that she could not live and take care of her other children, so best to kill one child to save the mother's life.

She died 2 months after the child would have been born. Her children are motherless anyway.

How about if she had liver cancer, and was going to die, if she didn't get a transplant? What if her 3 year old was a perfect match? Should the three year old be killed and the liver given to the mother, so that the other children would not live without a mother? What about sacrificing a three year old to save the mother's life? Are you for that? If not, why not? To me, it is the same thing. I would GIVE my life to save my children, no matter how old they are!

[tuckrdout]

Thanks TR. I knew about Norma and the other lady being against the decisions. I saw Mrs. Cano in an interview once, where she said that she merely wanted a divorce, when she went to the lawyers. And did not find out until years later that she was the "Doe" in the abortion case!

All built on a lie...just the way the enemy does all things.

I wonder what has happened to all the judges who voted for this historic tragedy?

[Marie]

I honestly don't think we're talking about the same thing. In the extreme cases I'm talking about, the baby's head can be 30-40 inches in diameter and impossible to deliver. The only option to the PBA technique is a C-section. PBA is safer for the mother in those cases. I was tired when I posted and I may have gotten the name of the disorder wrong.

I am not saying that all babies born with hydrocephally should be PBA. I am saying that this option should be available for those extreme situations when the baby's head is way too large for birth and there is no hope for the child to live outside the mother.

Death is a part of life. A part that we must face and not avoid. God gives us many lessons and blessings in the midst of that struggle, that we miss if we try to avoid it.

I couldn't agree more.

Whether a person is "wanted" is not a reason to decide the value of their lives. Their lives have value because they are created by our Creator.

Again, I couldn't agree more. I'm not talking about "wanted" or "unwanted" children. I'm talking about an extreme medical tragedy with which us poor humans can only deal with the best we can.

[cpforlife.org]

"Wonder if we'll EVER see/read anything like that in ANY schools...."

Since you brought it up, I must tell you this.

My group is working on developing 10 Pro-Life lesson plans for each grade, from K - 12th. I will put it on our website, where each grade will be a single download. It will be free and we expect to have it done by years end.

Years ago I wrote THE MISSING KEY OF THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT, which explains the absolute necessity of comprehensive sanctity of life education for K -12 if the holocaust is to be ended and the Culture is to be saved.

Connected to that is the PRO-LIFE EDUCATION PROGRAM , which is an overview of ideas for each grade.

Once it is all on-line we will try to spread the word as best possible. Have a visit and let me know what you think.

[cpforlife.org]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/14/roe.v.wade/index.html

Court rejects motion to overturn Roe v. Wade
Tuesday, September 14, 2004 Posted: 1:53 PM EDT (1753 GMT)


CNN) -- A three-judge panel of a federal appeals court dismissed a motion Tuesday from the original plaintiff in Roe v. Wade to have the landmark 1973 abortion case overturned, a court clerk said.

Norma McCorvey's motion asserted she had new information that would affect the case, but the panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Louisiana, rejected her claim, said Rhonda Flowers of the clerk's office.

"The case has been dismissed," Flowers said.

In her motion, McCorvey had argued that abortions cause women long-term emotional harm.

McCorvey is "Jane Roe," the pseudonym she assumed to remain anonymous as the lead plaintiff in the case that legalized abortion in the United States.

Once an abortion-rights supporter, McCorvey has switched sides: She's now a vocal anti-abortion activist.

She began her association with one of the most contentious and volatile sociopolitical issues in 1970, when she became the lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit challenging the strict anti-abortion laws in Texas.

The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Its January 1973 decision legalized the right to an abortion in all 50 states and sparked a political debate that remains charged to this day.

Many challenges to Roe v. Wade have sought to limit when abortions can be performed.

Last week, a third federal judge ruled a ban on late-term abortions was unconstitutional, citing a lack of an exception when a woman's health is in danger. (Full story)

McCorvey's life
McCorvey, who was 21 when the case was filed and was on her third pregnancy, never had an abortion and gave birth to a girl, who was given up for adoption.

McCorvey went public with her identity in the 1980s and wrote a book about her life called "I Am Roe: My Life, Roe v. Wade, and Freedom of Choice."

In the book, McCorvey, a ninth-grade dropout, describes a tough life, explaining that she suffered physical and emotional abuse as a child, spent some time in reform school and was raped as a teenager. She also tells of her alcohol and drug abuse, and experiences with lovers of both sexes.

Her first child, Melissa, was raised by her mother; her second child was raised by the father, and the couple agreed that McCorvey would never contact her.

She drifted through a series of dead-end jobs, including work as a bartender and a carnival barker. Once she went public with her story, she worked in several clinics where abortions were performed and did some public speaking, garnering publicity and a little bit of celebrity.

In 1995, McCorvey was working at a Dallas women's clinic when the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue moved its offices next door.

She and the Rev. Phillip Benham of Operation Rescue struck up a relationship across the protest lines when she would go outside to smoke.

Benham, an evangelical preacher, began discussing Christianity with McCorvey. She became friendly with some of Operation Rescue's office staff, and then she accepted an invitation from the daughter of the group's office manager to attend church. That night, she converted to Christianity.

McCorvey co-wrote a book about her religious conversion titled "Won By Love."

[tuckrdout]

Which is exactly what I was talking about. You had the name correct. As I said, my friends each had their babies in this condition. The heads were quite large. There was no hope that these children would survive for very long. They only had a brain stem, and the heads were full of water.

They were born by C-Section. One friend had 6 more children and the other had one more.

So, I don't know where you think that this causes infertility!

There is no case what so ever that Partial Birth murder would be "safer" for a mother! That is just lingo meant to excuse the murder.

[Bittersweetmd]

"All of what you have written is gospel: and that's why it's rejected by the leadership and the people of the USA. Leadership calls this "pushing your religion down our throats." I wonder if the leaders or the people will ever, in the famous liberal words, "get it."

" No I don't believe the leaders or the "people" in general will ever get it. But, if the believers would learn to discern spiritual with spiritual and seek the Lord I really do believe there is hope for our country. I have been a Christian for 25 years and to make a confession only in the last 5 or 6 years have I made my walk with the Lord a priority. Exercising the heart muscle is much harder to do than any other form of exercise. Prayer is not immediately tangible. That is why Jesus said "would he find faith" when he returned. Anyways, it is up to Christians to push back the gates of hell. May God in his infinite mercy grant a true revival in our country. Than abortion may no longer be sanctioned by our courts. Satan is the father of lies and murder. Man is more often than not just dubbed. Still no excuse before a holy and perfect God.