Posted on 02/18/2005 3:24:52 PM PST by Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Members of the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday will hold a private discussion on whether to take the case of Norma McCorvey, the former Roe of Roe v. Wade, who wants the nation's top court to overturn the decision that legalized abortion.
The Justice Foundation, a pro-life law firm, has been handling the case for McCorvey.
She wants the court to overturn the Roe case because she says new information has been brought to light that shows abortion hurts women. McCorvey's petition includes affidavits from hundreds of women who say that their abortion hurt them and they regret their decisions.
Last year, a three judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected McCorvey's so-called Rule 60 motion that allows original plaintiffs in a case to ask a court to overturn a previous decision if significant facts in the case have changed.
"Over one thousand affidavits from post-abortive women telling the truth about what abortion does to women and the child are now filed with the Court," the pro-life law firm indicated. The group hopes they will "convince them that abortion is murder, that it is destroying women, and Roe should be overturned."
The Justice Foundation indicated that the members of the court will discuss hearing the case on Friday and will release their decision on Monday.
The legal group described the process the Supreme Court judges go through in deciding to take a case.
"They are free to discuss it with other members of the Court," the Justice Foundation explained. "It is permissible for a justice to attempt to influence the other justices. This is supposed to be a group decision."
During the process, judges may go back on forth on whether to accept a lawsuit.
"An individual judge may decide one way one day and then change his mind if someone persuades him/her otherwise, or if they see something in the media, or perhaps a dream that changes their minds," the pro-life firm wrote.
The Justice Foundation is also working to help Sandra Cano overturn the Doe v. Bolton decision. That companion decision to Roe allowed abortions in any situation deemed necessary to protect a woman's health, which has been defined as including all abortions.
Cano's case is still at the trial court level.
Related web sites: Justice Foundation - http://www.operationoutcry.org
Momentum is certainly on our side. The number of abortions preformed annually is 1.3 million per year, trending down from a peak in 1990. Public opinion is shifting to the extent that it generally gives a large advantage pro-life candidates. State pro-life legislation is saving lives. Nationally, pro-life leaders hold strong majorities in congress and positions of great influence over life issues. And Norma McCorvey, the former Roe of Roe v. Wade, is asking the Supreme Court to overturn their decision.
None of this has happened by chance. It has been the result of a steady awakening of human empathy, hard word by dedicated people like yourselves, and lots of prayer. A decades long debate on the issue of abortion has lead to a growing national understanding that we all share that fragile state of pre-born development, and each of us owes our existence to the protection we received through that stage of life.
With so much momentum on our side, why should we take time out of our lives to fight? We all must continue to fight because today, in the United States of America, 3600 innocent lives will be sacrificed for the so called "right to choose." The casualties of choice will continue mount at this rate each and every day, unless good people act. Imagine, if you will, a person born and living though all of life's wonders . . .because of the your efforts. You may never know of the lives saved through your efforts, but your maker will know your heart.
Why do the lessons of history seem inadequate to direct our modern society? Much of modern society lacks the humility and honesty to admit that history's lessons have something to teach us. Human history knows many examples of man's corrupt desire to rid society of so called "unwanted" human beings. In practice such depravity is commonly referred to as genocide or a holocaust. I know of very few people that are willing to call abortions a holocaust, but have no doubt, . . history will. I have often tried to understand the mindset of the German people during the Nazi Holocaust. How could such civilized people be capable of such self delusions and complicity? Many were probably too paralyzed by fear for their own lives to act in defense of their fellow citizens. We can not credibly claim such an excuse for our inaction.
We can not wait to act. If we really believe that abortions kill people, then we should act as if there is some urgency to prevent the next murder.
How can we change the hearts of those who buy into the lie of abortion? Bear with me as a step you though a simple exercise in empathy. Imagine yourself back in your very early youth, . . before birth. You feel sensations, dream while sleeping, and move autonomously. Without warning your life is destroyed over a period of minutes in a way that I will not describe. What have you lost? What did you feel? What purpose was served by your loss and suffering?
Collectively, as a nation, we have a fatally underdeveloped sense of human empathy and we are commonly too selfish to allow empathy to direct our choices. We need to teach empathy at every opportunity to everyone.
How can we capitalize on the pro-life shift in public opinion? We should work in any area where an opportunity exists to save lives. We need to encourage our pro-life majority to vote with great care and let you voice be heard by our elected legislators.
Nationally there are incredible opportunities to reduce or eliminate the 93% of abortions that have nothing to do with the health of the baby, the health of the mother, rape, or incest. We could prevent 1,221,081 abortions per year if we eliminate abortion as birth control. That would not necessarily mean that 1.2 million more people would be born in a given year. Society would quickly adapt to the new paradigm and exercise far more care where procreation originates.
There are state examples of how to reduce abortions inside of today's corrupt interpretation of the constitutional. South Carolina has reduced their abortions by 53%! through pro-life legislation such as parental consent for teens', Right to Know laws, a partial-birth abortion ban, a law protecting newborns who are born alive, and a law allowing the sale of Choose Life license plates.
Pro-life Speaker of the House Karen Minnis of Wood Village and State Representative Gordon Anderson of Grants Pass are working on an Unborn Victims of Violence bill that would recognize and penalize the death of unborn babies killed in acts of violence against their mothers. Each such pro-life step saves lives and helps to emulate a culture resembling a civilized people. As an average pro-life citizen, the state legislative effort is one that we can probably have the most direct impact. For example, letters and phone calls of support for legislation can tip the balance toward common sense change and save lives!
No one person can move mountains in this effort, but each of us can pray for God's direction. I am confident that there is a role for each of us that is willing to extend empathy to those new in creation, just like us.
Don't just discuss it, do it, kill this devil's decision and end our half centuary of shame.
The problem is that until at least one pro-life judge is added, nothing good can come out of the SC reviewing R v W.
We're doomed. Doomed I tell you...Doomed!
:) Denote sarcasm.
Seriously though. I hope it happens.
What ever happened to that case that the SC rejected, citing a connection between abortions and increased rate of breast cancer?
I think there's a 99.99% chance that the court won't hear it. Sorry.
I find it interesting that the case is brought stating that abortion hurts women. While true in many cases, it is the unborn who have been hurt. They are no longer living, the mothers are.
Exactly. They are reviewing it now that they know it will lose to prevent it from being heard later with W's new justices. A very clever strategem, and villainous at the same time.
It's a foregone conclusion that they will refuse to hear it. Everything depends on the justices, and there's still a pro-death majority.
But two or three years from now, it may be a new ball game. If Bush makes some good appointments and pushes them through, we could see the end of Roe v. Wade.
The truth or justice of the particular case, like the truth and justice of the cause, mean nothing, as long as SCOTUS is dominated by unjust judges who have no respect for the Constitution. That's what we need to change--the judges.
I'm wondering if the court can do it at the present time. Right now we have 3 conservatives, 3 moderates, and 3 liberals. If we can get the moderates to swing toward us, then we can overturn it.
Hopefully Bush can appoint more conservatives to the court. Assuming the RINO Arlen Specter will cooperate.
Don't underestimate the importance of arguing that abortion hurts women. Obviously it hurts the babies most. But the abortionists are lying, too, when they say that they're helping women. They are not doing that, either.
If it helps persuade more people that abortion is wrong, then it's a useful argument. "A woman's right to choose" has been their most persuasive argument, and this helps to show the falsity of the phrase.
"An abortionist's right to make money" or "a liberal's right to have sex without consequences" are closer to the truth of what they stand for any supposed benefit for women.
Right On! If they do this it will only cause more of us to become more vocal.
Good point. Hadn't thought of it that way.
It unquestionably hurts women, if not physically, emotionally.
Exactly, and a lot more is known about the status and state of the fetus (a technical term meaning an immature baby) at early stages of development.
You'll recall that the Roe V. Wade decision allowed no regulation/prohibition of abortion during the first trimester, some regulation/restrictions in the second trimesters, and allowed bans in the the third trimester. The extension of this to allowing partial birth and other late term abortions is a classic example of the slippery slope of judicial activism.
While I sympathize with the tone of your post, simply overturning Roe v. Wade will not end abortions. It will simply removed the practice out of federal purview and return the issue to the states. Many states (CA and WA for example) still have their own laws on the books that would still permit the procedure.
They may have felt that they had to claim harm to a group that the SC currently recognizes as human beings. Mothers may be the only group that the court can not deny standing on the issue.
We've lived with this bit constitutional treason for 32 years. I suppose everyone has cause to be pesimistic. A solution, however, may rely on the optimism of people like us.
You know, if abortions are deemed illegal once again, we are going to be innundated with more Democrat voters 18 years down the road, since the people most likely to have abortions are liberal Democrats. ;)
Don't you think they'll feel some pressure to at least hear it, although they probably would just reaffirm Roe v. Wade anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.