Judge Admits "facts no longer matter" in Abortion Decisions. MUST READ!

LifeSite Daily News ^ | Friday September 17, 2004

[cpforlife.org]

Home | Previous Page | Source URL: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/sep/04091703.html LifeSite Daily News Friday September 17, 2004 Judge Admits "facts no longer matter" in Abortion Decisions McCorvey motion to overturn Roe v. Wade moves toward Supreme Court SAN ANTONIO, September 17, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Circuit Court judge has dismissed the motion brought forward by Norma McCorvey, known to legal history as "Roe" in Roe v. Wade, to overturn the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion in the US. However the judge, Edith Jones of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has made some surprising statements in her ruling that gives hope that Roe v. Wade is itself on its way to being history. McCorvey provided the Court with over 5000 pages of evidence, inlcuding over 1000 affidavits from women hurt by abortion. "The ruling is not a surprising development," said Allan Parker, President of The Justice Foundation, the organization that is helping to fight the case. "It moves us one step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will ultimately decide this case," he said. Judge Jones said that the knowledge and social conditions that now exist have effectively changed the landscape on abortion. She implied that had the facts been known at the time, the decision might have been different. "If the Courts were to delve into the facts underlying Roe's balancing scheme with present-day knowledge, they might conclude that the woman's "choice" is far more risky and less beneficial, and the child's sentience far more advanced, than the Roe Court knew." However, she warns that because laws have become entrenched, no 'live controversy" will arise that would allow the Supreme Court to re-criminalize abortion. She admits that the Courts over the years have taken the issue of abortion out of the hands of representative, democratic legislative bodies. "The perverse result of the Court's having determined through constitutional adjudication this fundamental social policy, which affects over a million women and unborn babies each year, is that the facts no longer matter." She wrote. Judge Jones concludes, One may fervently hope that the Court will someday acknowledge (scientific) developments and re-evaluate Roe and Casey accordingly. That the Court's constitutional decision making leaves our nation in a position of willful blindness to evolving knowledge should trouble any dispassionate observer…about the abortion decisions…" To read Judge Jones ruling: http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/abortio n/mccrvhill91404opn.pdf

[Prov3456]

The irony of it all is that those same people who supported abortion becoming legal in 1973 will later object when younger generations support euthanasia when they're the ones being euthanized against their will.

They simply don't understand the connection: "getting rid" of the "inconvenient" in one's own self interest. It isn't so "inconvenient" when you're the one being gotten rid of.

[Prov3456]

I mean no disrespect, but "30-40 inches in diameter" would be wider than the diameter of the pregnant woman's body/abdomen.

Where did you get that statistic? It sounds like a "fear-factor" statistic from the pro-abortion side of the debate to me.

[Prov3456]

"Won By Love" also tells the portion of the abortion debate which this CNN story leaves out.

Among other things, Norma also states, I remember seeing all these young women in the waiting room and thinking, They have a right to know what's going to happen to their bodies. Abortion is a serious procedure. If the doctor goes within a quarter of an inch of the uterus, he could puncture it and a woman might bleed to death" (p.56). In that book, she also gives examples of the ways she was "used" by the pro-choice advocates and the ways they "used" the politics of the system to achieve their goals. (They knew their illegal tactics against their own clinic would be blamed on the pro-lifers.)

"Won By Love" is a great book and tells the rest of the story. I recommend it in preference to anything from CNN!

[chronic_loser]

actually, the court was not "pure evil". Several of the justices spoke eloquently and passionately against Roe, and White, in his dissent, called it an act of "raw judicial power."

Furether, the pro-abort justices were not monsters. Harry Blackmun had a daughter who got pregnant, dropped out, had the kid, and then the marriage fell apart. There was trememdous pressure from within his family on this issue.

I am not making allowances for the man. He has gone to meet his Creator and he (as I) will have to give an answer for the deeds committed in this life. It is just to say that the evil that spills innocent blood by the millions doesn't come from men in a vacuum. They are creatures who are made in God's image who have allowed that initial deformity of the image passed down from Adam to warp and twist to the point that the unspeakable becomes the speakable, then doable, then done. I guess I am just saying that Blackmun Marshall, etc etc are PART of the tragedy of Roe, and not just the cause.

Or maybe another way to say it is that I can understand a bit why it says "Jesus wept." It makes me long for a day when evil is vanquished.

[YOUGOTIT]

Again we see that unelected judges have violated the supreme law of the land, The Constitution, and are making and passing laws that the Constitution says they have NO POWER to do. Any judge that violates the basic laws of the Constitution should be impeached and sent home.

[Marie]

I mean no disrespect, but "30-40 inches in diameter" would be wider than the diameter of the pregnant woman's body/abdomen.

Where did you get that statistic? It sounds like a "fear-factor" statistic from the pro-abortion side of the debate to me.

No disrespect taken. For the last two days, I've been trying to find the original article (or any article, for that matter) supporting the situation I was describing. I can't find it. I know that I read it here on FR about three years ago and I remember the other posters were as horrified as I by the tragic conditions of such a pregnancy. The size of the baby's head was truly horrifying.

As I'm unable to cite my source, I'll concede the point for now. I'll not argue for such an exception to PBA again until I have the reference in hand. If it *does* turn out to be liberal garbage, I WILL be relieved. If there doesn't exist a situation where PBA would be the preferred solution, this world would certainly be a saner place.