Posted on 09/22/2004 7:39:33 PM PDT by miltonim
New Orleans, LA (LifeNews.com) -- Though a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court turned back a request by Norma McCorvey to reopen the Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion, one of the panel's judges blasted the nation's high court for its landmark 1973 decision.
Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones wrote the opinion for the court denying McCorvey's request. However, she also wrote a concurring opinion calling Roe an "exercise of raw judicial power," and citing evidence McCorvey presented showing abortions hurt women.
Jones, a Reagan nominee, wrote that the "[Supreme] Court's rulings have rendered basic abortion policy beyond the power of our 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," Jones added.
Jones chided the nation's high court for being "so committed to 'life' that it struggles with the particular facts of dozens of death penalty cases each year," but failing to grasp the fact that abortions destroys the lives of unborn children.
Judge Jones accused the Supreme Court of purposefully ignoring the evidence that legalized abortion has been harmful to society.
"Hard and social science will of course progress even though the Supreme Court averts its eyes," she wrote.
McCorvey's motion included over 5000 pages of evidence with affidavits from over 1000 woman who have been harmed by abortion.
"I deeply regret the damage my original case caused women," McCorvey said. "I want the Supreme Court to examine the evidence and have a spirit of justice for women and children."
Jones' opinion cites the affidavits and says women hurt by abortion should be taken seriously.
"It takes no expert prognosticator to know that research on women's mental and physical health following abortion will yield an eventual medical consensus," Jones said.
"One may fervently hope that the court will someday acknowledge such developments and re-evaluate Roe and Casey accordingly," Jones concluded.
"Judge Jones said a lot of good things," McCorvey told the Houston Chronicle in response to the opinion. "We're learning who our friends in the courts are."
McCorvey is receiving assistance in the case from the Justice Foundation, a pro-life law firm. Attorneys there are considering whether to ask the full appeals court to consider her case or to appeal the panel's decision to the Supreme Court.
In 1995, McCorvey announced that she had become a Christian and pro-life. Later, she formed a pro-life educational outreach called Roe No More.
Related web sites: Justice Foundation (Operation Outcry) -
http://www.operationoutcry.org
United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit -
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov
Roe No More -
http://www.roenomore.org
I wonder what it feels like to know that your efforts facilitated the dismemberment of 40 million unborn human fetuses, some just weeks or even hours from full-term delivery?
Roe seems to be bearing up rather well.
I salute her efforts today, but this woman has a hell of a lot to answer for.
Who is a God like you,
who pardons sin and forgives the transgression
of the remnant of his inheritance?
You do not stay angry forever
but delight to show mercy.
You will again have compassion on us;
you will tread our sins underfoot
and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea
(Micah 7 18-19)
I do believe in unpardonable sin. I am not convinced that Roe has committed it.
The level of human tragedy this woman contributed to, has seldom been surpassed.
I believe that, on the Day of Judgement, certain inherent traits of character will be judged, rather than actions. That is not to suggest that one shouldn't worry about being right in one's actions, since disregard for the rightness of one's actions is a fatal character flaw. But I believe that whether a sin is forgivable depends upon one's ability to be truly repentant. I believe that Ms. McCorvey is truly repentant for the attrocities to which she contributed. I believe that there are some people, however, who commit attrocities and will never repent of them.
To my mind, the most important story in the Bible is the parable of the Prodigal Son. Not to suggest that other stories like the crucifixion aren't important, but the parable of the Prodigal Son is the key to understanding the rest of the bible. In particular, note that the father:
Of course, even if heaven is based on character (and the humility to follow Christ) rather than actions, sinful actions can be very corrosive of character. Anyone who thinks that they can sin and it will be okay because of God's forgiveness will find that such attitudes make true repentance and attonement difficult. God will not be deceived, and fake apologies won't cut it. But those who truly repent and turn to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be saved.
From what I've read of her, I believe that Ms. McCorvey is truly repentent of her sins. I do not know if she has accepted Christ--only she and God can truly know that--but if she has I see no reason to believe her sins to be unforgiveable.
Yes I pretty much agree with your comments. I do want to say this though. The actions of a Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and other mass murderers of world history, are irreversable. The shere volume and scope of their attrocities is unfathomable.
When six million people are killed, the offspring they never had, the scientific discoveries they never discovered, the business development they never exectuted, the human contact they never experienced, the good or bad that they would have carried out, is something the human mind cannot evaluate.
Out of the 40 million infants that would have been born with out the Roe Vs Wade decision, how many diseases would have been cured? How many hungry could would have been fed? How many churches would have fluorished? How many new Christians could have been saved? How many key scientific discoveries would have been made?
I agree that it's nice for someone to say, 'Oops, I goofed. Forgive me.' I also recognize that many of the downside effects of sin are irreversable in this life. How God will sort all this out is beyond me.
40 million supressed sparks leaves a whole lot of darkness.
A hint of that line of reasoning is found in Renquist's dissenting opinion in Roe v. Wade.
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/Rehnquist.asp <--
Another case with well reasoned dissenting opinions is Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
My views on this matter are unchanged from those I set forth in my separate opinions in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 532 (1989) (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment), and Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. 502, 520 (1990) (Akron II) (concurring opinion). The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting. As the Court acknowledges, "where reasonable people disagree, the government can adopt one position or the other." Ante, at 851. The Court is correct in adding the qualification that this "assumes a state of affairs in which the choice does not intrude upon a protected liberty," ibid., - but the crucial part of that qualification [505 U.S. 833, 980] is the penultimate word. A State's choice between two positions on which reasonable people can disagree is constitutional even when (as is often the case) it intrudes upon a "liberty" in the absolute sense. Laws against bigamy, for example - with which entire societies of reasonable people disagree - intrude upon men and women's liberty to marry and live with one another. But bigamy happens not to be a liberty specially "protected" by the Constitution.That is, quite simply, the issue in this case: not whether the power of a woman to abort her unborn child is a "liberty" in the absolute sense; or even whether it is a liberty of great importance to many women. Of course it is both. The issue is whether it is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure it is not. I reach that conclusion not because of anything so exalted as my views concerning the "concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Ibid. Rather, I reach it for the same reason I reach the conclusion that bigamy is not constitutionally protected - because of two simple facts: (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE WHITE, and JUSTICE THOMAS join, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
From what I understand she was used by people who understood a lot more about what was going on than she ever did.
Fortunately for her, she won't have to answer for what she has done. Someone answered in her place. I'm sure the knowledge of what her name is attached to still hurts, though.
Shalom.
Almost. The son was not fully repentant. That's why he wanted to become a servant rather than return to his position as a member of the family. As a servant he had to do his master's will, but after hours he could do his own will. As a son he had to take full responsibility for who he was and what he did every hour of every day.
The father's love during his homecoming transformed his partial repentance into full repentance. His father would accept him as no less than son with all the love and responsibility the position held.
Shalom.
I too believe in unpardonable sin, but I have no reason to believe that this lady has committed it. In fact, I assume that Jesus has already paid for her crime. But you're right. The consequences are huge. I feel for this woman; her feminist lawyers used her badly.
Changing the scale doesn't change the fact that you have just made acceptance into heaven a matter of doing enough good to overcome the harm you have done.
G-d made it clear that acceptance into heaven required perfection, not a balance. And the only way to achieve that perfection is to exchange your sin for the spotlessness of the Lamb. Even Hitler could have done that. I doubt he did.
At some point your willingness to sin shows that you do not know the father. Perhaps that is what you are really trying to wrestle with. Could a man like Hitler or Pol Pot or Stalin ever concieve holiness sufficiently to ask forgiveness? Can one be so far gone one would actually prefer Hell to bowing the knee to Jesus Christ.
I think so.
Shalom.
I don't know about your Bible, but mine tells me that you have until your last breath to truly repent from your sins and be forgiven.
My Bible indicates that Jesus did NOT die and rise again for just Christians...He died and was raised again for ALL people, and that it is up to each of us to choose to accept Him and His forgiveness.
With that being said, if Saddam, Osama bin Laden (assuming OBL is still alive), Sadr, or the man who beheaded the two Americans were to truly repent of their sins, I believe that they, too, would be forgiven by God.
While I generally agree with your premise, I am somewhat concerned with the premise that I could wipe out all of humanity excluding myself, then have a tinge of concience.
Thanks for your comments folks. I appreciate it.
A "tinge of concience" isn't what's required. What's required is a transformation that goes much, much deeper. I don't know that the transformation will necessarily be visible to other people, but it will certainly be visible to God.
I would suggest that, in general, the more eggregious and prolonged a person's sins, the more difficult it will be for the person to fully repent and seek forgiveness. But if one does manage to do so, I believe God will forgive just about anything.
Actually, though, there is a solution. Congress can tell the courts that they have no jurisdiction in this matter.
BUMP
Hey Mr. Bush. Edith Jones for next Chief Justice.
One can not "manage" even a tenth of a millionth of a percent of such a thing. Equally likely can a dead man rise from the grave under his own power. We are spiritually DEAD unless the Father chooses to grant us the Holy Spirit. It's God who managed this, not man.
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.