The revisitation is being prompted by Ms. McCorvey's statement that she misled the court.
The court will not reverse based on a 32-year-late admission. About the best Ms. McCorvey can hope for is that she doesn't get racked up for perjury.
I respectfully disagree.. the question is RELEVENT.. and given the 32 years of history the COURT has an obligation to decided if the issue was as an original matter WRONGLY decided 32yrs of evidence to prove that it WAS wrongly decided 32yrs ago period
Statute of limitations is long expired. On top of that, if she was coerved to commit perjury, it would be a major mitigating factor, especially since she came forward.
They will probably send her to prison for perjury. </sarcasm>
About the best Ms. McCorvey can hope for is that she doesn't get racked up for perjury.
32 years...what is the statute of limitations on perjury?
I am sorry for the abuse you will take over your post, which is dead on.
Whoever considers this action as potentially fruitful is fooling themselves. It will be rejected or worse, reconsidered and abortion found to be an even MORE fundamental right, with partial-birth a-okay!
This court is simply not one that will reverse Roe. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy world. Ms. McCorvey is simply making herself a martyr for the right as she did for the left. She will now likely be a target for prosecution by the left, who know (as you and I do) that perjury has no statute of limitations.
No, it's not. 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. Both the legal and scientific environment have changed. Under Rule 60, that entitles her to revisit the question.
Here are some of the changes:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42422
She cites the sworn testimony of more than 1,000 women who say they were hurt by abortion.
McCorvey's lead attorney, Allan Parker, president of the Justice Foundation, believes a significant change in most state laws has solved the issue of women being burdened with the unwanted responsibility of raising a child. The new laws allow a woman to take her newborn to a "safe haven" anonymously, providing a safer alternative to abortion.
McCorvey said each aborted child represents another tragedy, the harm to the mother.
Among McCorvey's 5,437 pages of evidence are affidavits from more than 1,000 women who testify having an abortion has had devastating emotional, physical and psychological effects.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/17/221851.shtml
Norma McCorvvey, known as Jane Roe in court filings, told the Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" on Monday, "We're going to be fling a Motion 60 brief tomorrow with the Supreme Court and ask and plead and beg them to please overturn Roe vs. Wade."
her decision to actively challenge the landmark ruling was spurred, she explained, by new technology that dramatically increased chances for viability for the unborn. She also cited the increase in post-abortion depression among women.
McCorvey's lawyer, Allan Parker, explained the legal process, telling "Hannity & Colmes": "Under Rule 60, Norma, as a party [to the original case], can ask the court to vacate her judgment - set it aside as if it never was - on the grounds that it's no longer just."