You don't know much of what happened in the Roe case. Mrs. McCorvey was used and abused. I believe that the lawyers who supposedly represented her committed malpractice and fraud. By the time she figured out what happened, it was too late.
She had to wait until someone like Allan Parker and the Justice Foundation, as well as Operation Outcry and Silent No More could step up to help her.
Also, there is new legal standing, with some other case overturned in the last few years, opening the way to this filing.
Would you have let Justice Taney's ruling concerning Dred Scot stand because of "established law" and "relevence"?
Human beings, our children, are killed by abortion - nearly 4000 a day, 40 to 45 million in 32 years.
The claim of malpractice and fraud is not sustainable at this date, especially because McCorvey actually won her case.
She had to wait until someone like Allan Parker and the Justice Foundation, as well as Operation Outcry and Silent No More could step up to help her.
Here's the problem: it's 32 years after the fact. No amount of arm-waving is going to change that.
Also, there is new legal standing, with some other case overturned in the last few years, opening the way to this filing.
There isn't standing for a Rule 60(b) motion at this late a date, especially by the prevailing party.
Would you have let Justice Taney's ruling concerning Dred Scot stand because of "established law" and "relevence"?
You're the second person to raise the question. That case was rendered moot by the 13th Amendment.
Human beings, our children, are killed by abortion - nearly 4000 a day, 40 to 45 million in 32 years.
Fine. Do something effective about it. This isn't an effective maneuver.