PDA

View Full Version : "Jane Roe" wants Supreme Court to end abortion



WVRed
01-19-2005, 11:14 AM
If this is locked, I understand.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144752,00.html

'Jane Roe' Wants High Court to End Abortion
Tuesday, January 18, 2005

WASHINGTON Norma McCorvey (search), the woman whose lawsuit challenging the state of Texas' abortion ban led to the landmark Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion nationwide, now wants the court to change its mind.

McCorvey told FOX News' "Hannity & Colmes" that she would ask the high court Tuesday to vacate its 1973 Roe v. Wade (search) ruling, which remains a lightning rod for debate. It often takes several days for court officials to account for what gets filed so it was unclear Tuesday if McCorvey's appeal was made.

The court allows parties to its judgments to ask the court to vacate or overturn rulings, according to McCorvey's legal team.

McCorvey, now a born-again Christian, challenged Texas' abortion ban under the pseudonym Jane Roe.

In recent years, she has become a outspoken opponent of abortion, arguing that the procedure may harm women and goes against Christian teachings.

"I would like to see children stop being killed and women maimed and dead themselves," McCorvey said Monday on FOX News' "Hannity & Colmes."

Asked by show host Sean Hannity if she felt she bore a special burden as the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, McCorvey said she did experience guilt for a long time, but no longer.


"I've been saved by the blood of the lamb through Jesus Christ, and so I'm just here," she replied.

McCorvey has tried to get lower courts to revisit the case, but has failed to get the original ruling thrown out.

Last year, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (search) in New Orleans dismissed her lawsuit against the Dallas County, Texas, district attorney.

The court said the complaint was moot because Texas had not had a state abortion law for more than 30 years.

Johnny Footstool
01-19-2005, 11:23 AM
I'm curious about the circumstances surrounding her original desire to get an abortion. Was she raped, or was it just an unwanted pregnancy?

Rojo
01-19-2005, 10:04 PM
Do as I say....

tom browning
01-20-2005, 12:02 AM
Old news. Like by 5 years or more.

This just shows how FOX is just out to stir up crap. She went public a LONG time ago about this.

RedFanAlways1966
01-20-2005, 09:00 AM
Old news. Like by 5 years or more.

This just shows how FOX is just out to stir up crap. She went public a LONG time ago about this.

Hmmmmm. When I read the WHOLE article, I noticed that she was about to appear in front of The Supreme Court (the topic of the story). That, in the minds of most people, makes it a current story. But please tell us about her and her story from the last 5 years. I am curious to hear how that is more of a story than the fact that she is about to ask The Supreme Court to change it's mind on her case from 1973. Those lower court stories are probably more interesting than a story about her and The Supreme Court.

I am also curious to hear your opinion on how CBS and Michael Moore are all about stirring up crap. Please share.

RedsFan75
01-20-2005, 11:46 AM
I'm curious about the circumstances surrounding her original desire to get an abortion. Was she raped, or was it just an unwanted pregnancy?

I think the original circumstances involved a bitter divorce. I think she was pregnant at the time and the husband wanted the baby. She wanted an abortion.

I'm going on memory here, so I could be wrong on that one.

westofyou
01-20-2005, 11:59 AM
I am also curious to hear your opinion on how CBS and Michael Moore are all about stirring up crap. Please share.

Then you can tell us about the Swift Boat Vets.

I love storytime!!!

westofyou
01-20-2005, 12:04 PM
I think the original circumstances involved a bitter divorce. I think she was pregnant at the time and the husband wanted the baby. She wanted an abortion.

I'm going on memory here, so I could be wrong on that one.

http://womenshistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.galegroup.com/free%5Fresources/whm/trials/roe.htm

McCorvey wrote that she had "wanted to terminate my pregnancy because of the economic hardship which my pregnancy entailed and because of the social stigma attached to the bearing of illegitimate children in our society." Since she could not afford to travel to another state for a legal abortion, she said: "I fear that my very life would be endangered if I submitted to an abortion which I could afford."

RedFanAlways1966
01-20-2005, 12:10 PM
Then you can tell us about the Swift Boat Vets.

I love storytime!!!

I didn't start with a comment like, "This just shows how FOX is just out to stir up crap." But of course... you knew that. If the shoe fits, wear it!

westofyou
01-20-2005, 12:20 PM
I didn't start with a comment like, "This just shows how FOX is just out to stir up crap." But of course... you knew that. If the shoe fits, wear it!

FOX News, credible source?

or Crap Stirrer?

I know what I think...... those shoes fit just right.

But you knew that.

RedFanAlways1966
01-20-2005, 12:38 PM
FOX News, credible source?

or Crap Stirrer?

I know what I think...... those shoes fit just right.

But you knew that.

I think I know who the crap stirrer is... but you do too (that is why you are "attempting" to call me out). Nice try.

BTW... I think FOX is credible. I think CNN is credible. Seems as though you don't think FOX is credible. That is your right... as it is mine. To each is own. You have your views and I have mine.

I am sorry if I rained on your little "I am smarter than you parade" today. We tend to have these little problems. Usually started by a two-bit comment from you. Usually nothing of substance or anything relative to the topic at hand... just a smart comment. I'd love to talk these issues with you... but you don't discuss. You just belittle. But some are allowed a bit more leeway with their two-bit comments. I am used to it.

Have a great day, friend. :)

westofyou
01-20-2005, 12:43 PM
You crack me up.

I wasn't "calling you out."

But continue to assume what you must.

Redsfaithful
01-20-2005, 12:45 PM
I think FOX is credible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOX_News#Allegations_of_bias


Further accusations followed a 1997 case in which FOX News fired two reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who had refused instructions from superiors to revise a story on bovine growth hormone in ways that the reporters saw as being in conflict with the facts, and had threatened to report FOX to the FCC. The reporters sued under a Florida whistleblower law. A jury ruled that FOX had indeed ordered the reporters to distort the facts. FOX successfully appealed against judgement on the grounds that their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press protected them from such litigation, and that the FCC's policy against distortion of news was not a sufficiently significant rule for its breach to invoke the whistleblower law ([2] (http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html), [3] (http://www.foxbghsuit.com)).

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html


In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Roy Tucker
01-20-2005, 01:13 PM
To try to keep this discussion on topic, it does appear to be current news and bear some rational discussion.

Judge Edith Jones (mentioned below) has been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee.

I guess the next question is whether or not the Supreme Court will hear the case. If so, it will be a big deal.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scotus-Abortion.html?oref=login

High Court Asked to Overturn Roe V. Wade
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: January 20, 2005

Filed at 10:05 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The woman once known as ``Jane Roe'' has asked the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion 32 years ago.

Norma McCorvey, whose protest of Texas' abortion ban led to the 1973 ruling, contends in a petition received at the court Tuesday that the case should be heard again in light of evidence that the procedure may harm women.

``Now we know so much more, and I plead with the court to listen for witnesses and re-evaluate Roe v. Wade,'' said McCorvey, who says she now regrets her role in the case.

The politically charged issue comes before the court as both sides gird for a possible bitter nomination fight over Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's replacement should the ailing justice retire this term. At least three justices, including Rehnquist, have said Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned.

Two lower courts last year threw out McCorvey's request to have the ruling reconsidered.

But in a strongly worded concurrence, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge Edith H. Jones criticized the abortion ruling and said new medical evidence may well show undue harm to a mother and her fetus.

The last major abortion decision by the Supreme Court came in 2000, when the court ruled 5-4 to strike down Nebraska's ban on so-called ``partial-birth'' abortion because it failed to provide an exception to protect the mother's health.

Justices since then have shown little interest in wading back to the emotional issue.

^------

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

Johnny Footstool
01-20-2005, 01:20 PM
But in a strongly worded concurrence, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge Edith H. Jones criticized the abortion ruling and said new medical evidence may well show undue harm to a mother and her fetus

"New" medical evidence shows abortion does harm to a fetus???

Now, I'm no doctor, but...

RedsBaron
01-20-2005, 01:47 PM
I believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and the majority opinion was not well grounded in Constitutional law, but I also fail to see how McCorvey's change of heart has any relevance to the reconsideration of the issue.
I would also respectfully ask posters here to comment on the issue rather than the tiresome replay of FOX/CNN/Crap stirrer, et al. IMO such comments are part of the reason political discussions here may be banned.

Chip R
01-20-2005, 01:50 PM
"New" medical evidence shows abortion does harm to a fetus???You think?

RedFanAlways1966
01-20-2005, 01:52 PM
I would also respectfully ask posters here to comment on the issue rather than the tiresome replay of FOX/CNN/Crap stirrer, et al. IMO such comments are part of the reason political discussions here may be banned.

Well said. The lady is appearing before The Supreme Court. That is newsworthy. And b/c it is Jane Roe, that is very newsworthy. If other news agencies decide not to discuss it at all... then there is your lack of credibility. Whether you are for, against or indifferent about abortion. Jane Roe before the Court... is news. Like it or not.

RosieRed
01-20-2005, 02:16 PM
I'm not sure what she means in this quote:


"I would like to see children stop being killed and women maimed and dead themselves," McCorvey said Monday on FOX News' "Hannity & Colmes."

I mean, I get the children part. But I haven't heard anything lately about women being maimed and/or dying from abortions? There's always going to be some risk involved in any medical procedure. Is she talking about something specific?

My initial thoughts are that claiming there is risk involved to the mother isn't enough to overturn the law. But I guess it could be enough to get the subject before the high court again. (Though I hope not.)

tom browning
01-20-2005, 02:21 PM
Hmmmmm. When I read the WHOLE article, I noticed that she was about to appear in front of The Supreme Court (the topic of the story). That, in the minds of most people, makes it a current story. But please tell us about her and her story from the last 5 years. I am curious to hear how that is more of a story than the fact that she is about to ask The Supreme Court to change it's mind on her case from 1973. Those lower court stories are probably more interesting than a story about her and The Supreme Court.

I am also curious to hear your opinion on how CBS and Michael Moore are all about stirring up crap. Please share.

Who cares. Shes been suing trying to get it overturned and protesting for about the last 5 years. This is NOTHING new.

RosieRed
01-20-2005, 02:51 PM
Who cares. Shes been suing trying to get it overturned and protesting for about the last 5 years. This is NOTHING new.

I didn't see her on "Hannity & Colmes," but I'd venture a guess that people are talking to her because the anniversary of the case is coming up. (In addtion to her trying to get the decision reversed, which you're right ... that's nothing new.) The decision was handed down on Jan. 22, 1973.