[DBeers]

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.

You assume perjury and you assume untimeliness -neither apply. New evidence has no such limits New evidence entails scientific and technological evidence not available at the time -among other things....

[Ready4Freddy]

The "newly discovered evidence" reason in subparagraph (2) is out by definition, given the 1 year limitation expressly delineated in 60(b).

New evidence has no such limits .

[Poohbah]

You assume perjury and you assume untimeliness -neither apply.

McCorvey said she was raped. Now she says she lied about being raped.

That's known as "perjury."

Second: 32 years is untimely. That's more than a lifetime for many.

New evidence has no such limits

In a civil case, it does.

New evidence entails scientific and technological evidence not available at the time -among other things....

And it's still irrelevant to Roe v.Wade which closed over three decades ago. It's done with. The court could not reopen Plessy v. Ferguson in the 1950s; they needed a new cause of action, which is why Brown v. Board of Education happened.

Consider this: if Roe v. Wade can be reopened now, what would stop a more abortion-friendly court later on from reopening it a third time, to reaffirm the original ruling?