'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.

[M. Peach]

My understanding is that if it does get overturned - abortions will become illegal - I thought that was the whole issue - please explain why not.

[cherry_bomb88]

Seeking an abortion at the age of 21, McCorvey made up a story that she had been raped.

Gee whiz, liberal lefty lawyers wouldn't support her committing purgery to argue for an abortion would they???? {sarcasm}

yeah, we ought to leave exceptions in when we get it overturned.....NOT!!!!!

[jgrubbs]

Parker will present affidavits from more than 1,000 women who testify having an abortion has had devastating emotional, physical and psychological effects.

Let your voice be heard!

Women who have had an abortion (post-abortive women) can help by speaking out against the harmful effects of abortion and saving lives by filling out an affidavit form.

http://www.operationoutcry.org/Forms.html

[ibheath]

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

[Connservative]

The face of NOW the day after it's overturned

Errm, that's the Face of NOW even today.

[Carry_Okie]

What to do with in vitro fetuses in the freezer? As much as I abhor abortion, the argument that there is psychological and physical harm due to discarding them is missing because the child is already out of the mother. There is no abortion to perform.

Then there are abortive reduction procedures subsequent to augmented egg release and artificial insemination. Sometimes they remove as many as six fetuses that are far too undeveloped for our ability to carry them to term. Will it become illegal to use that procedure to help such women become pregnant? They certainly cannot safely carry all those kids to term.

Questions such as these will continue to pop up because our legal and ethical means of dealing with them so severely lag behind the speed of technical development. Look how long it has taken us to address simple abortions. When gene therapy versus genetic augmentation become more common, we'll have a raft of new procedures that will likely confound our ethical and certainly our legal institutions.

It seems to me that the legal issues surrounding abortion are more symptomatic of a larger ethical problem than they are an end in themselves. Even if Roe is overturned, we are way behind the curve when it comes to dealing with everything from artificial life extension to designer babies.

[Kryptonite]

I watched the ad. The image of the woman bringing her hands to her mouth in "horror" is much more likely to be a genuine reaction to news of a family member having an abortion, than it would be to overturning Roe v. Wade. I think you are exactly right. The ad isn't going to work as NARAL thinks.

[Lady Eileen]

I just sent an e-mail to Miss Norma McCorvey...if you want to do the same click here.

[Kryptonite]

Probably one of the best things that could happen is to have this thing overturned in the next session. It would immediately stun the dems. What would they use as a litmus test if Roe v Wade has already been overturned?

The faster Roe gets overturned, the better.

As far as litmus tests go, the dims are getting away with filibustering appointments for no reason at all right now. Sad that conservatives haven't fought hard enough for people like Estrada and Owens and the constitutional principles enabling their appointment by the President.

[Salvation]

**“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke 1770**

Amen!

[VRWC_minion]

Wonder why she isn't bringing the case to the 9th circuit ?

[Salvation]

May God bless you and keep you in the palm of his hand.

[B Knotts]

The souless ghouls at NARAL actually opposed the "Born Alive Protection Act."

Yep. It demonstrates just how evil they really are. I mean actually evil, as one has to be truly evil to support infanticide, which is clearly what was prohibited by that law.

[Salvation]

Amazing map.

I tried to copy it all, but it wouldn't copy!

[conservababeJen]

This topic is my PASSION. At 19 (I was a screaming Liberal then), I had an abortion too. Not a day of my life passes that I don't think about that dreadful decision I made. It's changed who I am. I've since suffered depression, nightmares and indescribable grief.

AbortionDebate.org is a website/forum that was created for fair & balanced debate on this topic. ALS and I are the founders. We'll be spending some time (the next few days)doing some maintenance on it. Due to time constraints on my part, I've let the board falter. Our intent is to provide an atmosphere that welcomes debate/resources from pro-lifers and pro-choicers, so that INFORMED decisions could be made. We sought pro-choice management to insure fairness. That quest proved to be fruitless. It seemed the very people who are so hellbent on "choice" were extremely intolerant of the LIFE choice.

It's my hope that we can jumpstart this project again, particularly with Norma's new court challenge in the headlines.

I humbly ask for your help/support....and ask that you please register/post/spread the link around. We will also be in need (once again) of pro-choicers on the management team so that they may list and post their opinions/resources un-biasedly. If you are a PCer or know someone who might be interested, please email Webmaster@abortiondebate.org or FReepmail me.

Please note that any broken links on the board are in the process of being repaired.

Thank you,
CBJ

[VRWC_minion]

My understanding is that if it does get overturned - abortions will become illegal - I thought that was the whole issue - please explain why not

Before Roe vs Wade, there were at least two states that allowed abortions-NY and TX. Women had to travel to these states for abortions. In addition, other states allowed abortions under stricter rules for physical health reasons or severe mental problems. So, before Roe vs. Wade legal abortions were occuring but they were up to the states to decide under what circumstances.

If Roe vs. Wade were overturned the states would still be able to make laws regarding abortion. 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. Besides the result being legal abortions, the creation of a new constitutional doctrine will have ramifications on future unrelated issues.

[Charlie OK]

If Roe gets overturned, PRAISE THE LORD, then what happens is it returns the issue to the states, where it always was supposed to be. But perhaps someone can help me out. Does each state just have a vote on whether they want it to be illegal or does the governor decide or how does that work?

[VRWC_minion]

Our intent is to provide an atmosphere that welcomes debate/resources from pro-lifers and pro-choicers

Never happen. Pro-choicers dont' want informed debate because they only have fallacies to support their view. At some point the pro-lifers will lose their tempers with the constant lies and fallacies the proc-choicers use and the debates will end in vicious name calling.

[VRWC_minion]

Does each state just have a vote on whether they want it to be illegal or does the governor decide or how does that work?

Laws are not made by the governor. Whatever laws the state has on the books at the time would be what controls. Assuming any laws restricting abortions have been deleted from the various statutes of each state then new laws would need to be passed before a state could ban them.