Norma McCorvey
Posted on 06/16/2003 10:33:40 PM PDT by 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:
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.
"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.
Still, I try....in hopes of proving to even ONE undecided woman, that a "pregnancy", "fetus", "embryo"...is HUMAN LIFE.
Let the PCers have their say. We provide and open forum, free bandswith and the honest request that they try as hard as possible to state their case. They have the same space provided to prolifers. They had the same "power" as prolife management. STILL they ran.
I want to try again.
Praise God!
Good for you for your intellectual honesty. 85+% of abortion-minded women who see ultrasound images of their unborn children change their minds. That's why the monitors at Planned Infanticide are turned away from the mothers.
Many crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) now offer free ultrasound examinations to abortion-minded women. This is one of the best methods to stop abortion presently. Women deserve the chance to see what they're about to kill.
The issue would revert to the state legislatures.
Amen...and most of His work on earth is done through His people.
Proverbs 29:18 Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law.
Here is A Declaration of Life prepared by Doug Phillips of Vision Forum Ministries
ProLife Ping! If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
I think their exact quote was something like this: "it is disgusting and offensive that this act be named the Laci and Connor act..."
Wow.
Correct. The court itself does not have standing to do any such thing--and Thank God for that, because otherwise appellate courts would simply issue rulings on whatever wild hair got up their collective posteriors. Gay marriage could become mandatory.
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.