Posted on 01/17/2005 12:53:02 PM PST by davidosborne
C E N T E R F O R R E C L A I M I N G A M E R I C A From the Desk of Dr. Gary Cass, Executive Director + + PRO-LIFE ALERT,
1/17/2005 Supreme Court receives case to overturn Roe v. Wade (Forward to your pro-life friends)
On January 18, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin a process that could overturn Roe v. Wade! Because you have stood with the Center for Reclaiming America on pro-life issues, I wanted to alert you to this news. On January 18, Norma McCorvey (the original "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade) will file a legal appeal with the Supreme Court to have Roe v. Wade reversed. I will be in Washington, D.C., on that day to stand with our friends at The Justice Foundation in support of this case. The Justice Foundation has invested thousands upon thousands of hours in this case. They have gathered an enormous body of evidence to support Norma's case. Chris, this is a powerful opportunity to refute Roe v. Wade! Here is how you can help. First, notify your friends. Forward this message to everyone you know. We simply must get the word out. Second, please pray for Norma and the team at The Justice Foundation. Set aside time on January 18, specifically, to pray. Third, find out more about this case and how you can impact The Justice Foundation’s efforts here: http://www.operationoutcry.org Thank you! Dr. Gary Cass Executive Director Center for Reclaiming America + + For CENTER coverage of this issue: http://www.reclaimamerica.org/pages/operation/operationout.asp + + The Center for Reclaiming America, established by Dr. D. James Kennedy, is an outreach of Coral Ridge Ministries to inform the American public and motivate Christians to defend and implement the biblical principles on which our country was founded. The Center, led by Executive Director Dr. Gary Cass, provides non-partisan, non-denominational information, training, and support to all those interested in impacting the culture and renewing the vision set forth by our Founding Fathers. Questions? cfra@coralridge.org
PASS IT ON !!!..
Doesn't seem likely with THIS court. SDO thinks we should factor international law in her decisions.
This one will go nowhere.
The problem here is that she is filing 32 years after the case closed.
There is a reasonable time for new evidence to be considered. 32 years is a little (well, a lot) longer than that reasonable time. At some point, the case closes.
The point of this is for the COURT to revisit the ORIGINAL QUESTION... 32 years of history since the matter was first decided is relevent to the question.
The revisitation is being prompted by Ms. McCorvey's statement that she misled the court.
The court will not reverse based on a 32-year-late admission. About the best Ms. McCorvey can hope for is that she doesn't get racked up for perjury.
BTTT!!!!!!
On January 18, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin a process....
On January 18, Norma McCorvey .... will file a legal appeal with the Supreme Court ...
You never know. Even the liberal judges believe the opinion in Roe V Wade showed a certain lack of comprehension of historical facts by the judge who wrote it. It is regarded as very poorly worded and very poorly tought out. O'Connor or one of the other justices may change their mind. The conservatives have enough votes to hear the case, but probably not enough to overturn it so they may be even more reluctant to accept the case than the liberals.
I respectfully disagree.. the question is RELEVENT.. and given the 32 years of history the COURT has an obligation to decided if the issue was as an original matter WRONGLY decided 32yrs of evidence to prove that it WAS wrongly decided 32yrs ago period
Norma McCorvey was used for a great evil back in 1973 and it would be a great mercy to her to be a part of restoring the law to the way it was before the pro-aborts won this victory. It's a start. God bless her. I debated her once on a radio program many years ago before her conversion. You could sense the guilt in her voice even back then. I know she has found Christ and forgiveness in Him.
So, conservative judicial activism that overturns long-standing precedence on closing cases in a timely manner is a good thing?
Hoo boy. Better get ready for a BUNCH of lawyers to shout "MULLIGAN!" and re-litigate a bunch of moldy cases.
WTF does "relevent" mean?
and given the 32 years of history the COURT has an obligation to decided if the issue was as an original matter WRONGLY decided 32yrs of evidence to prove that it WAS wrongly decided 32yrs ago period
The court has ZERO obligation to do anything.
Ms. McCorvey was under an obligation to (a) not perjure herself and (b) request reopening the case in a timely manner...neither of which she did.
So it's better to stick with judicial activism once it's a long-standing precedent than to overturn it?
I'm not waiting until the 18th to pray about this one. I'm starting right now, long and hard. If we pray what Almighty God puts on our hearts, we release His action if it truly be in His will. RoevWade is a desecration so how could it not be in His will to overturn it? So be it!
Give me a proverbial break!!
Are you suggesting that when a matter of this nature is reconsidered in light of 32 years of history, and it is determined that the matter was originally WRONGLY decided, that we should not make the correction because we don't want to upset a "long-standing precedence"?
As will I...
The most used woman in American History.
The most used woman in American History.
But I think there is plenty else out there to give us hope of seeing Roe overturned in our lifetimes.
Here's one hopeful sign: On Chris Matthew's show 'Hardball' a few days ago, Matthews quoted Donna Brazile as saying that when she went home to her folks in Louisiana, they asked her why the Democratic party was the party of killing babies.
Brazile seemed to be implying that the Dim party is doomed, if it does not change its bloody pro-abort image.
The Dims, thanks to this last election, are waking up to the fact that much of the American public knows that abortion is a ghastly crime.
The Supreme Court is not immune to public opinion. I expect that Justices Kennedy and O'Connor, both susceptible to swaying in the fickle breezes of public opinion, might actually sway in the right direction for a change -- when the right case comes before the Court.
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.