Court to hear 'Roe's' challenge to '73 ruling

World Net Daily ^ | Feb 15, 2004 | WND

[Jeremiahs Call]

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com In a move hailed as a breakthrough by abortion opponents, a federal appeals court agreed to hear oral arguments in an attempt by the original plaintiff in Roe vs. Wade to overturn the landmark decision.

Norma McCorvey

Norma McCorvey – "Jane Roe" in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case – wants to reopen the case that struck down all state laws restricting abortion, based on changes in law and new scientific research that make the prior decision "no longer just."

As WorldNet Daily reported, a district court ruled it was too late for McCorvey to reopen the case.

"Whether or not the Supreme Court was infallible, its Roe decision was certainly final in this litigation," Dallas Judge David Godbey wrote in the ruling. "It is simply too late now, thirty years after the fact, for McCorvey to revisit that judgment."

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has agreed to hear oral arguments March 2.

The Dallas-based Justice Foundation, which is assisting McCorvey, is asking organizations and individuals to participate in 21 days of prayer and fasting for the case, beginning this past Thursday.

The group said Sandra Cano, plaintiff in the Doe vs. Bolton companion case, has requested that case be overturned as well.

Allan Parker, CEO of the Justice Foundation, said the court's decision to hear oral arguments is "quite a breakthrough," since only about 10 percent of cases filed receive oral arguments and the state of Texas is not opposing the case.

McCorvey's attorneys will be the only attorneys arguing, since neither the state nor the district attorney have filed briefs in the case.

"There are several issues before the court," Parker said, "whether Roe versus Wade should be overturned; whether to grant the motion based on the evidence that was submitted with the motion; or send the case back to a trial court for a trial; and whether a single judge or a three-judge panel should have heard the case at the trial court level."

Last June, Parker contended Judge Godbey misunderstood the motion, arguing the case is about changes in the relevant factual conditions, not a submission of new evidence.

One of the most relevant changes in law, he says, is the 1999 "Baby Moses" statute which allows a mother to hand over her child to the care of the state, meaning she no longer is forced to disposed of "unwanted" children by ending a human life.

Texas is among 40 states with such legislation, which didn't exist in 1973, Parker notes.

Among McCorvey's 5,437 pages of evidence are affidavits from more than 1,000 women who testify having an abortion has had devastating emotional, physical and psychological effects.

"It's a shame that the courts are unwilling to listen to women's testimonies about what abortion does to women," he said.

Parker also contended Godbey made an error in his determination of what is a reasonable time within which to reopen a case.

Godbey said court opinions are measured in terms of weeks or months, not in decades.

But Parker points to 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.

McCorvey announced in 1995 she had become a Christian and later launched a pro-life ministry called Roe No More. She told WorldNetDaily two years ago she was "used" by abortion-rights attorneys in their quest to legalize the procedure.

One of her attorneys in the 1973 case, Sarah Weddington, expressed delight but not surprise at Godbey's decision last June.

"It never should have been filed," Weddington told the AP at the time. "Those who filed it got publicity but the publicity actually has been very helpful for those of us who believe the government should not be involved."

After announcement of the motion, she received about two dozen offers to help defend the Roe vs. Wade decision.

In his plea issued this week, Parker said, "Please continue to pray that the Lord's will be done, for a spirit of justice for the judges, for God's perfect timing, the demonstration of God's mighty power, and that the covenant with death be annulled, the agreement with the grave will not stand."

[Jeremiahs Call]

The last paragraph really sums up my prayers ... "the covenant of death be annulled, the agreement with the grave will not stand."

[hocndoc]

Here's a prayerful bump.

[lady lawyer]

They make this sound like a big deal. But the Courts of Appeal hear all appeals. This isn't like the Supreme Court, where if the Court agrees to hear it, you've got a good chance of getting the case overturned. The only thing of any note here is that the Fifth Circuit agreed to hear oral argument. But, again, if it's like most circuits, they'll grant oral argument to almost anybody who really wants it.

[Bud Krieger]

This court is stacked with Republican Pres. appointments, so I would gather they are a fairly conservative court. If you are going to have a court hear this case, this court may be your best shot ( to get it to the next level at least).

[Jeremiahs Call]

But to hear the oral argument after 30 years is significant, Courts of Appeal don't do that all the time.

[COEXERJ145]

It won't do any good. Only the Supreme Court can over turn Roe v. Wade. (Or Amend the Constitution) The 5th Circuit could rule against Roe v. Wade and they'd quickly be slapped down 6-3 by the Supreme Court.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Thank god for LARGE MIRACLES too BTTT!

[Bud Krieger]

I agree. It is significant that it is being revisited. Unfortunately, I do not believe the US Supreme Court will overturn its previous ruling ( if this in fact does get back to the SCOTUS ).

I think Scalia , Thomas , and Rehnquist would go the Pro-Life way. The other so called conservative Justices are a huge question marks. I don`t think it would happen.

I would love to be proven wrong though, that is for sure.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Salvation]

Roe No More -- Crossing Over Ministry

[Jeremiahs Call]

I just love the timeing though. With the partial birth abortion case in front of the SCOTUS and the DOJ demanding abortion medical records for that case - this could interesting!

[longtermmemmory]

Perhaps, but I would not have bet the 5th would even entertain the issue. Where are the amicus briefs? Even the left is not worried enough to file additional briefs and then argue them.

[GretchenEE]

marker / prayer bump

[Free_at_last_-2001]

good - steps in the right direction!

[wita]

Logic says, at least my kind does, any decision by ANY court anytime, that is found to be based on lies and deception of any of the parties involved including the court, will, at the earliest opportunity following the introduction of the "NEW" evidence see to it that the original decision will be vacated and any law or laws related thereto shall immediately be overturned.

The supreme court of the United States is incapable of overturning anything it has its hand on including the case of Roe v Wade which Norma McCorvey disproved when she recanted her lies in the first case, but we can dream that this states rights issue goes back to where it belongs.

[hoosierham]

How many years did it take the supreme court to reverse the slavery decision, Scott Dredd , ?

[wita]

Hey, thanks for the memory jog, never even considered that one.

[NYFriend]

They also can refuse to hear an appeal.

[Mother Mary]

How many years did it take the supreme court to reverse the slavery decision, Scott Dredd , ?

Did a quick search on your question. Found that the initial
Supreme Court ruling was in 1857. This was followed by a bloody Civil War to end slavery (1861-1865), which was followed by 3 Constituional Ammendments (13th, 14th, and 15th) which effectively ended slavery. Couldn't find a date that the Supremes reversed themselves, if they ever did.

[Hebrews 11:6]

I think Scalia , Thomas , and Rehnquist would go the Pro-Life way. The other so called conservative Justices are a huge question marks. I don`t think it would happen.

Bring back Whizzer White!