Replies

Not quite true, doc.

From the 5th Circuit decision:

Under Texas law, statutes may be repealed expressly or by implication. See Gordon v. Lake, 356 S.W.2d 138, 139 (Tex. 1962). The Texas statutes that criminalized abortion (former Penal Code Articles 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194 and 1196) and were at issue in Roe have, at least, been repealed by implication. Currently, Texas regulates abortion in a number of ways.
...
These regulatory provisions cannot be harmonized with provisions that purport to criminalize abortion. There is no way to enforce both sets of laws; the current regulations are intended to form a comprehensive scheme — not an addendum to the criminal statutes struck down in Roe. As the court stated in Weeks, a strikingly similar case, “it is clearly inconsistent to provide in one statute that abortions are permissible if set guidelines are followed and in another provide that abortions are criminally prohibited.” 733 F. Supp. at 1038. Thus, because the statutes declared unconstitutional in Roe have been repealed, McCorvey’s 60(b) motion is moot.

BTW, the 5th Circuit's Opinion can be found here, in McCorvey v Hill, No. 03-10711, 9/17/2004. Odd that they took so long to appeal the 5th's decision - may have had to do some shopping to find an attorney who would take an appeal that already had 2 strikes against it.

This appeal isn't about abortion per se- it's about whether or not McCorvey has presented a justiciable case or controversy. Two Federal courts have already ruled that she has not, and a 3rd is about to deny her writ w/o comment (my prediction).

The laws are still on the books and have never been negated.

From a freind via email: FOUR are required to grant cert. I can see 3 wanting to overturn, but I can't see a fourth. Why would a fourth take the case, unless UPS just delievered a missing conscience. They can't do more damage than they already have. What else can the 3 with a conscience say in dissent? I wager cert denied. If otherwise, it may be interesting. I haven't followed the the case at all, so I can only speculate. WND supposed to have details later today. This is a publicity case, and catharsis for those women. I mean, why not? Absent divine intervention its a sure loser, but these women come clean in every way. And I think some of these women have been involved in pro-life for several years doing many different things. They probably just see this approach as another way to involve themselves, and are probably totally unaware of other Constitutional approaches. They do what the lawyers suggest, and the lawyers suggest federal law that dosen't effect Roe, along with long-shot court cases. That is what lawyers do, and since the citizens know that only the lawyers understand the Constitution, they never bother to look at it.