'Roe' files to overturn high-court ruling

WorldNetDaily ^ | June 17, 2003 | Art Moore

[scripter]

The woman known as "Roe" in the historic Supreme Court case that legalized abortion is filing a motion in federal court today to overturn the 1973 decision.

The Roe v. Wade ruling should be set aside because of changes in law and new research that make the prior decision "no longer just," argues Allan E. Parker, Jr., lead attorney for the San Antonio, Texas-based Justice Foundation.

Norma McCorvey

Parker is representing the former "Jane Roe," Norma McCorvey, who has the right to petition for reopening the case because she was party to the original litigation.

McCorvey announced in 1995 she had become a Christian and now has a pro-life ministry called Roe No More.

"I long for the day that justice will be done and the burden from all of these deaths will be removed from my shoulders," McCorvey said in a statement. "I want to do everything in my power to help women and their children. The issue is justice for women, justice for the unborn, and justice for what is right."

McCorvey will ask for a reversal of the judgment today at the Dallas federal court.

In an interview with WorldNetDaily two years ago, McCorvey said she was "used" by pro-abortion attorneys in their quest to legalize the procedure.

Seeking an abortion at the age of 21, McCorvey made up a story that she had been raped. She was put in touch with two attorneys who aimed to challenge the Texas abortion statute.

"Plain and simple, I was used," she said. "I was a nobody to them. They only needed a pregnant woman to use for their case, and that is it. They cared, not about me, but only about legalizing abortion. Even after the case, I was never respected – probably because I was not an Ivy League-educated, liberal feminist like they were."

New evidence

Parker notes the Supreme Court has overturned its own precedents, citing the 1997 Agostini v. Felton decision in which the high court used a post-judgment motion by a party to overturn two 12-year-old precedents.

The legal question in the case, he said, is, "Is it just to continue giving Roe v. Wade future application?"

He asserts three major arguments for reopening and overturning the case:

• The Roe v. Wade decision deprived women of protection from dangerous abortions and exposed them to a much greater risk of being pressured into unwanted abortions. Studies, he says, indicate between 30 and 60 percent of abortions result from the pregnant woman submitting to pressure from her male partner, parents, physicians or others.

  Parker will present affidavits from more than 1,000 women who testify having an abortion has had devastating emotional, physical and psychological effects. This is 1,000 times more evidence than presented in the original case, he says. Also, new scientific evidence indicates abortion is associated with more physical and psychological complications for women than were known about in 1973. In contrast, there have been no scientific studies measuring any significant benefits abortion has produced in women's lives.

• While the question, "When does life begin?" was treated as an unanswered philosophical question in 1973, "an explosion of scientific evidence on human life" since then "conclusively answers the question that life begins at conception," Parker argues.

• Under a 1999 law, Texas provides for any woman's unwanted child from birth to 18 years of age with no questions asked, which means women should no longer be forced to dispose of "unwanted" children by ending a human life, insists Parker. Forty states have similar "Baby Moses" laws.

"The result of granting the motion would be to set aside and annul Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, its companion case," Parker explained. "This would return the issue of protecting women and children to the people with Baby Moses laws serving as a safety net."

Parker and McCorvey will appear at a press conference in Dallas today along with women who will testify of abortion's harmful effects in their lives.

Ominous warning

Meanwhile, a leading abortion-rights group, NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, has launched a $3 million ad campaign to warn of a day when the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade.

The group says the campaign coincides with recent passage of the partial-birth abortion ban by Congress and potential retirements by Supreme Court justices.

"Together these spots serve as a stark reminder of what could happen if we don't stop this tidal wave of anti-choice activity that is emanating right out of our own White House," said NARAL Pro-Choice America President Kate Michelman in a statement.

NARAL television ad

One 15-second television commercial opens with ominous music and a woman who looks in horror at a newspaper headline that reads: "Abortion outlawed, Court overturns right to choose."

The ads have begun airing on cable channels but will be shown on broadcast stations in three key states in two weeks. Iowa, Wisconsin and Oregon were chosen because they were narrowly decided in the 2000 presidential election.

During the 2000 presidential election campaign, then-President Bill Clinton said he expected Roe v. Wade to be overturned if George W. Bush won.

"If Gov. Bush gets elected, he'll appoint judges more like the ones appointed by the ... Reagan and Bush administrations," Clinton said in a National Public Radio interview. "And if they get two to four appointments on the Supreme Court, I think Roe v. Wade will be repealed."

Speculation has arisen in the last several years about departures by Rehnquist, 78, Sandra Day O'Connor, 73, and John Paul Stevens, 83.

Rehnquist has been the focus of most of the attention. But his recent decisions to hire staff for the court's next annual term, beginning in the fall, and to schedule an important hearing Sept. 8 suggest he will not be leaving soon.

[mvpel]

California will be another of the states with legal abortions if this case is overturned.

The most dangerous thing about Roe V wade is that the SC created a concept (privacy) that did not exist in the orginal constitution in order to base its ruiling on.

If one has the right to be secure in their person, papers, and effects from government intrusion and investigation except under certain circumstances, why do you think the concept of privacy does not exist in the Constitution? And why do you think that if something doesn't exist in the Constitution, we don't have it?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

As is usually the case, science has out-paced law.

Most six-month-old unborn babies are viable human beings, fully able to live outside the womb. That means aborting this child is murder.

Even rabid feminists should be able to comprehend the truth.

They just choose not to.

[Coleus]

Where is the RTL link for county statistics?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/826139/posts?page=18#18

Each “D” represents 10,000 deaths (or fraction thereof)

Revolutionary War 6,188
D

War of 1812 4,505
D

Mexican War 4,152
D

Civil War (both sides) 498,332
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Spanish-American War 2,446
D

World War I 116,516
DDDDDDDDDDDD

World War II 405,399
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Korea 54,246
DDDDDD

Vietnam 58,167
DDDDDD

Desert Storm 293
D

Total all U.S. Wars 1,150,244
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Abortions (Since 1973) 42,000,000
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDD

[Coleus]

Ex-abortionists Expose America's Greatest Scandal
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/816008/posts

McCorvey

http://priestsforlife.org/testimony/normamaster.htm

http://priestsforlife.org/clippings/99-07-99mccorveyriograndecatholic.htm

http://priestsforlife.org/testimony/normahomily.htm

http://priestsforlife.org/columns/conversionofnorma.html

http://priestsforlife.org/clippings/95,08-24mccorveymoves.html

[Matchett-PI]

Follow the money. Those too naive to know what the real score is -- actually think these people give a hoot whether they have a "right to choose". The rest know exactly what they're doing.

BTTT for what you wrote. Allow me to boldly repeat it. These are the sort of low-lifes and their supporters that constitute the BASE, ignoble mentalities that make up the BASE of the DemocRAT Party:

"-- The Roe decision was a finacial windfall for the morally bankrupt greedy leftists:

-- The ACLU has reaped billions in court-ordered legal fees for it's lawyers.

-- Physicians discovered a quick and dirty way to perform abortions production line style and bill the U.S. taxpayer for their Mercedes, mansions, and extragant lifestyles.

-- Democrat politicians collected billions in "excess" election campaign "contributions" and were allowed to keep the "excess" for "personal use"; now, of course, the HRCs and others distribute their campaign funds into various payolas for other lib pols and much more for "future political uses and campaigns".

-- How sweet it is, the blood of unborn babies, changed from blood into dollars...

42 posted on 06/17/2003 6:28 AM EDT by autoresponder (SOME CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH

[alancarp]

What the court really invented in 1973 -- and nobody talks about -- was a Right to Privacy specifically for the mother-wannabe that was superior to the in-utero baby's Right to LIVE. The primary things that would have to change (i.e., be overruled) for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, are these:

(1) A declaration that life begins at conception (or at least implantation... I prefer the former).
(2) Right to Privacy is not superior to the Right of Life.

Essentially, it must be declared and affirmed that once a conception happens, a Legal Responsibility is entered into by the parents-to-be... in fact, the couple are, by all realities, already parents and must legally act in that way to support the life of the baby.

You can still have your Right to Privacy... right up until you undertake the actions that lead to the creation of another life. Then Privacy MUST yield to Responsibility.

Gee, that requires quite a change in thinking, eh? Can this SCOTUS go that far?

[Solson]

Overturning Roe v. Wade does NOT outlaw abortion!!!! This MUST be clear. It simply returns it to a state issue rather than a federal "right."

[alancarp]

A Big D bump for perspective. And I don't mean Dallas.

[Coleus]

We have no Grass surrounding our church.

[alancarp]

You're right: relative to my post, I should say that those things would be required to BAN abortion -- overturning Roe v. Wade would not be sufficient to band the procedure.

Because of the length that the court would have to extend in order to band the murder, I would expect your scenario to prevail at best.

But it's a start -- and we need a start for the sake of the baies.

[alancarp]

oops: "band" ==> BAN

[Saundra Duffy]

Another reason to overturn Roe v. Wade: Abortion causes breast cancer. www.AbortionBreastCancer.com

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[alancarp]

man, I can't type! "baies" ==> BABIES

[eastsider]

The most dangerous thing about Roe V wade is that the SC created a concept (privacy) that did not exist in the orginal constitution in order to base its ruiling on.

The "penumbral" right to privacy was created in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which was a contraception case.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks for posting this. Dallas Morning News story:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dallas/nation/stories/061703dnnataborttion.1665eba.html

Request filed to overturn abortion ruling

June 17, 2003 11:19 AM CDT

From Staff Reports

A request to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized abortion, was filed Tuesday by Norma McCorvey, the former "Roe" in the case.

"I long for the day that justice will be done and the burden from all of these deaths will be removed from my shoulders," McCorvey said. "I want to do everything in my power to help women and their children. The issue is justice for women, justice for the unborn and justice for what is right."

Ms. McCorvey petitioned the court to re-open the case based on changes in factual conditions and changes in law that make the prior decisions "no longer just," said Allan E. Parker, Jr., lead attorney for the Texas-based Justice Foundation.

Those changes include affidavits from women who say abortions have given them emotional, physical and psychological trauma. The affidavits also include scientific evidence on when human life begins.

[mvpel]

Should all fertile women should be subjected to monthly pregnancy tests in order to insure that they are upholding their legal responsibility to support the life of the baby? Should smoking and imbibing be criminal offenses for pregnant women?

[colorado tanker]

Roe has generally been interpreted as building on the "penumbral" right of privacy to establish a general substantive due process right to "liberty." Since "liberty" is a term not defined in the Constitution in practice it means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. It's a indefensible opinion in terms of Constitutional law, because abortion is clearly one of those subjects the Constitution leaves to the legislatures. In recent years the Supreme Court has made relatively clear that Roe's (and Griswold's) theory will be limited to reproduction issues and will not be extended to other subjects, such as assisted suicide.

NARAL is lying when they say overturning Roe would make abortion illegal. Overturning Roe would just return the subject to the legislative process where the Constitution put it in the first place.

[colorado tanker]

It seems in some ways that there is more momentum on the side of life.

I think there is MUCH more momentum on the side of life.

[Delphinium]

Meanwhile, a leading abortion-rights group, NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, has launched a $3 million ad campaign to warn of a day when the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade.

And he answered, Fear not: for they that [be] with us [are] more than they that [be] with them. 2 Kings 6.16