[davidosborne]

PASS IT ON !!!..

[drc43]

Doesn't seem likely with THIS court. SDO thinks we should factor international law in her decisions.

[Poohbah]

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.

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.

[Ready4Freddy]

Errr, not the same thing. Not the same thing at all.

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 ...

[grassboots.org]

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.

[Paperdoll]

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!

[Hildy]

The most used woman in American History.

[Hildy]

The most used woman in American History.

[shhrubbery!]

If Norma's case is based on her assertion that the facts used to decide Roe were wrong (i.e., based on a lie that she was raped), I doubt the Court will overturn Roe based on that.

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.

[mware]

Norma McCorvey is going to be on Hannity and Colmes tonight. Sean mentioned that she will have breaking news.

[Taxman]

Pro-Life bump!

[SAR]

The Court won't hear this case. Norma McCorvey's stake in this case is moot as far as the court is concerned. Based on what I've read, I'd say that there is 0% chance of this Court, or any US Supreme Court, hearing the case. McCorvey has no personal stake in the outcome,no damages to recover, and there are no adverse parties. She's simply trying to overturn the decision that was in her favor. It doesn't work like that; she has no standing IMO.

[verity]

I have a better chance of winning the lottery!

[Danae]

Didn't Norma already file an appeal that the court refused to take up? Something like a year maybe 18 months ago? Hmmn, I don't think I am gonna bet on the Court taking up the issue again, at least not with the current sitting Justices anyway.

[Vaquero]

this court needs and enima........removing the likes of Ginsberg and Breyer....till then we can kiss cases like this goodbye.


....we need a bench full of Scalia's

[Grut]

I don't see the part where he asks for contributions; is "send money" assumed?

[Coleus]

Congress can use article III section 2 of the US Constitution to limit the power of the SCOTUS. Yet the republicans choose to do not.

The 5th and 14th amendments guarantee us to a right to life.

The 9th amendment in which the case was decided does not entitle a woman to kill her baby based on privacy.

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[cpforlife.org]

It is the accepted line that the Supreme Court as currently aligned stands 6 to 3 against overturning Roe v Wade.

Two of the Pro-Aborts will have to retire and be replaced with Pro-Lifers.

Chief Rehnquist will more than likely be the first to retire so we are hoping that President Bush will appoint, and the Senate will confirm 3 Pro-Life Justices in the next 4 years to replace Rehnquist and two Pro-Aborts.

Then after all that is done a case will have to be presented for the Court to hear and if all goes right they would overturn Roe. Currently 30 States' have laws on the books banning or restricting abortion.

Of course we don't know who will be the replacements by Bush let alone who the next president might appoint to reinstate Roe.

Or we could support current legislation that would overturn Roe, protect the sanctity of marraige, and restore full freedon of Religion to the country. It only requires a simple majority in both houses and Presidential signature to become law.

We the People Act (HR 3893)- Prohibits the Supreme Court and each Federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) State or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.

[Las Vegas Dave]

Pass it on! (PING!)