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.
The point of this is for the COURT to revisit the ORIGINAL QUESTION... 32 years of history since the matter was first decided is relevent to the question.
You never know. Even the liberal judges believe the opinion in Roe V Wade showed a certain lack of comprehension of historical facts by the judge who wrote it. It is regarded as very poorly worded and very poorly tought out. O'Connor or one of the other justices may change their mind. The conservatives have enough votes to hear the case, but probably not enough to overturn it so they may be even more reluctant to accept the case than the liberals.
There is new evidence and knowledge.
Although the R. v W majority opinion was incredibly wrong about what Blackburn called a lack of knowledge about the beginning of life and about legal precidents, we have even more scientific evidence that each life begins at fertilization or at the time that DNA division begins (with the alignment of spindle fibers along the chromosomes).
Anyone who denies the origin of human life at the one-cell stage is lying or ignoring what we have learned by in vitro fertilization, ultrasound, and even cloning and other manipulation of living organisms at very early stages.
There is no statute of limitations for murder.
Her request rests on federal rules that allow an original party to request a ruling be vacated when factual and legal changes make the decision no longer just.McCorvey claims to have the testimony of over 1,000 women who claim to have been hurt by abortion, saying that the emotional, physical, and psychological effects of their abortions were devastating to them.
McCorvey said that if there had been the technology that we have now, such as sonograms, she believes that the Roe decision might have been differently decided. She also cited the increased knowledge of the damaging effects abortion has on women's physical and mental health. McCorvey noted new technology that dramatically increases the viablility of the unborn child. New laws that allow "safe haven" for women to leave their babies relieve them of the obligation of raising a child they cannot raise, McCorvey's motion notes.
Yeah, unless I'm mistaken she doesn't even have legal standing to bring a challenge (I imagine she'll try to show that she's suffering some sort of continuing harm...a non-starter).
"the problem is that she is filing 32 years after the case was closed . "
Compare this with the case of "Plessy vs. ferguson "
In that case, the Court stated that Segregation is O.K.
Then, in "Brown vs. the Board of Education " , the court reversed itself . what kind of "Stare Decisis" is that ?
Besides, over the years, since 1972, sonograms, etc. have been developed to show that Life does begin lots earlier than the warren Court thought .
I think the case should be considered .
that's my opinion too. We have to wait a SC reshaping.