Posted on 11/29/2016 8:48:14 PM PST by Morgana
Sarah Weddington, the Texas lawyer and abortion activist who argued for abortion in Roe v. Wade, says she is frightened by President-elect Donald Trump’s promises to make pro-life decisions.
In an interview with New York Magazine, Weddington said she fears that, although Trump’s actions would not overturn Roe v. Wade immediately, they could have a huge impact on the future of abortion in the U.S.
“For a lot of us who have been pro-choice through the years and have been involved in trying to keep it so that women have that choice, I think it’s really frightening, because it’s not immediate. Right now, nothing has changed. The president is opposed to abortion, but the law has not changed yet. And so once Trump is president, and once Pence does occupy the [president of the Senate’s] chair, then you’ve got the possibility for dramatic change,” Weddington said.
Trump promised to appoint “pro-life” justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, opening up the possibility of the court reconsidering the infamous abortion case in the future.
Weddington, 71, said she will not stop fighting for abortion on demand and Roe v. Wade.
“I am so determined that when we talk about women having the right to make decisions about their own lives, that abortion and reproductive issues are one of the things that most determines a woman’s future and options in many ways. I am so determined that Roe v. Wade be upheld,” Weddington told the magazine.
Weddington related a story about what happened on Jan. 22, 1973, the day the court handed down its decision on Roe:
Though it took months for the case to be decided, the law was instantly changed — “like a lightning strike” — as soon as the opinion was released. “Here in Austin, there was a doctor who had gotten the equipment to do abortions and he hadn’t done any because of the Texas law,” Weddington said. “But once Roe v. Wade was decided, he had one of his patients who happened to be a professor in the nursing school here at UT who was leaving that afternoon to go to California to get an abortion. He called her and said, ‘Wait, you don’t have to go to California. I can do it for you here in my office.’ So she came in that afternoon and he did her procedure. That’s how quick the change was.”
The liberal news outlet credited Weddington as an instrumental voice in the appointment of liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the high court, and called her a “champion of women’s rights.”
But Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe), Weddington’s client in Roe v. Wade, paints a very different picture of her former abortion activist lawyer. In her autobiography, McCorvey, who later became pro-life, said she felt like Weddington used her.
McCorvey said she met with Weddington and another attorney several times, but they never contacted her after she signed the affidavit that resulted in Roe v. Wade. Later, McCorvey said she read about the case outcome in the newspaper.
“Back in 1973, I was a very confused twenty-one year old with one child and facing an unplanned pregnancy,” she said in 2013. “At the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had an abortion.”
McCorvey was “pro-choice” on abortion at the time of the case, but she never actually had the abortion. Instead, she made an adoption plan for her baby. She said Weddington used her case to push her own abortion crusade, which was not something McCorvey wanted to pursue in court.
After becoming pro-life, McCorvey began working to reverse the infamous abortion case. In 2005, she petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, arguing that she had standing to do so as one of the original litigants and that there was new evidence that the procedure harms women. A court denied her petition.
I think it is good if she is worried
Given the Court completely ignored the law and wholesale INVENTED this “right”, and allowed the legal sanctioning of INFANTICIDE... I don’t really care what you think, you sick sick woman.
The constitution does not allow ex-post facto prosecutions.
I don't think anyone would deny women should have the right to make decisions about their own lives, but once she is pregnant, there is another life in the picture. The real question should be does a woman have the right to end that innocent life? Very rarely is a woman pregnant because of rape - and even then the child should not pay the penalty for the act of her/his father. The majority of abortions are for "unplanned" pregnancy - meaning usually unprotected sexual activity. The sacrifice of a living human being is a steep price for careless sex.
I wish women's rights advocates cared more about this than they do about unfettered abortion access. I would love to see the day where abortion won't have to be made illegal because it will be UNTHINKABLE.
Sarah Weddington exploited McCorvey in order to get abortion legalized. It was first presented as a rape case even though both knew McCorvey was not raped. I think it is wonderful how God touched McCorvey’s heart and she has now become such a voice for the prolife movement.
“I am so determined that when we talk about women having the right to make decisions about their own lives,...<<<
The BEST time to think about making decisions about their own lives is BEFORE the pants come off!!
Granted, it’s not what we WANT to be thinking about whilst in the throws of passion, so think about that before you get into a compromising situation.
How freaking complicated is that???
The states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the so-called “right” to have an abortion like they did with the rights expressly protected by the Bill of Rights and the voting rights amendments for example.
In fact, the Constitution’s silence about abortion means that the feds don’t have the constitutional authority to regulate, tax and spend in the name of abortion.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Corrupt Democratic lawmakers later followed in the footsteps of pro-abortion justices by doing the following. Democratic lawmakers have been exploiting low-information women for many decades by using the 19th Amendment, in conjunction with the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, to win votes from such women with the promise of federal funding for abortions.
But the major constitutional problem with federal funding for abortion that such women evidently do not understand is the feds have no constitutional authority to tax and spend for abortion purposes.
After all, one of the few things that their right to vote actually won for women where federal domestic policy is concerned is a voice in deciding how the US Mail Service (1.8.7) is run.
So Democrats must fight tooth-and-nail to maintain a pro-abortion activist justice majority in order to keep the so-called “right” to have an abortion alive to insure the voting support of women.
The only reason information about pregnancy prevention methods are not followed is because the abortion industry needs customers to feed their bank accounts.
There's that. Plus abortion is still at its core about exterminating blacks - just as its earliest advocates described.
Can you imagine being this person who is alarmed that the ghoulish practice of murdering babies might stop. Think about that, folks. I shudder to think how far these people will go when they do not blink in the face of the mass murder of children, our very most vulnerable.
If only her mother had that option available.
That's the line I use on rabid supporters of baby killing. Occasionally a light bulb switches on.
“If only her mother had that option available.”
I say that about obama’s mother all the time.
When evil folks worry, it says something about the source of their worry.....
“If only her mother had that option available.”
I say that about obama’s mother all the time.
LOL!! Me too!
It is frightening to them that their actions might actually have consequences.
It’s all about population control, money and promotion of promiscuity.
But the laws have remained on the books. The only reason they have gone unenforced has been that unconstitutional ruling by the Supreme Court. Once the court corrects its error, states will be free to enforce their laws against abortion and will be able to prosecute everyone who violated them during the Roe Valley. Wade era.
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.