"Jane Roe" wants Supreme Court to end abortion

[WVRed]

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]

I'm curious about the circumstances surrounding her original desire to get an abortion. Was she raped, or was it just an unwanted pregnancy?

[RedsFan75]

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]

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/dy...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."

[Rojo]

Do as I say....

[tom browning]

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]

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.

[tom browning]

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]

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.

[westofyou]

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!!!

[RedFanAlways1966]

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]

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]

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.

[Redsfaithful]

I think FOX is credible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOX_New...ations_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/publi...s/2005/11.html), [3] (http://www.foxbghsuit.com)).

http://www.projectcensored.org/publi...s/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.

[westofyou]

You crack me up.

I wasn't "calling you out."

But continue to assume what you must.