Posted on 01/18/2005 7:32:04 AM PST by ConservativeStLouisGuy
'Jane Roe' Appeals To Supreme Court: Plaintiff In Landmark Abortion Case Seeking To Overturn 1973 Decision
The woman known as "Roe" in the landmark case that struck down all state laws restricting abortion is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its 1973 decision.
As WorldNetDaily reported, Norma McCorvey began a quest in 2003 to reopen the case, based on changes in law and new scientific research that make the prior decision "no longer just." She cites the sworn testimony of more than 1,000 women who say they were hurt by abortion.
At a news conference at the Supreme Court tomorrow at 11 a.m. Eastern, McCorvey will announce she wants the high court to reverse Roe vs. Wade, or at least, order a trial on the merits.
"This is the day I've longed for," she said in a statement issued by her legal representation, the San Antonio-based Justice Foundation.
"Now we know so much more, and I plead with the court to listen to the witnesses and re-evaluate Roe vs. Wade," McCorvey said. "It was a dreadful day in America when the Supreme Court allowed a woman to kill her own child."
McCorvey's lead attorney, Allan Parker, president of the Justice Foundation, filed a petition for writ of certiorari Friday that will reach the high court tomorrow, asking it to hear the case.
It was first filed in a district court in Dallas in June 2003.
Parker's argument relies 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.
He 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.
"I've worked in abortion facilities, and I've seen firsthand the horrific nature of abortion and its devastation to women and girls," she said.
'Raw judicial power'
In September, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, saying the issue was moot because it did not present a "live case or controversy."
However, one of the three judges on the panel criticized the Supreme Court that handed down the original ruling, saying it was an "exercise of raw judicial power."
In her concurring opinion, Judge Edith Jones lamented the case was moot, which prevented McCorvey's evidence from being heard: "If courts were to delve into the facts underlying Roe's balancing scheme with present-day knowledge, they might conclude that the woman's 'choice' is far more risky and less beneficial, and the child's sentience far more advanced, than the Roe Court knew."
Jones wrote, "The perverse result of the Court's having determined through constitutional adjudication this fundamental social policy, which affects over a million women and unborn babies each year, is that the facts no longer matter. This is a peculiar outcome for a Court so committed to 'life' that it struggles with the particular facts of dozens of death penalty cases each year."
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.
McCorvey announced in 1995 she had become a Christian and later launched a pro-life ministry called Roe No More. She told WorldNetDaily four years ago she was "used" by abortion-rights attorneys in their quest to legalize the procedure.
'Nightmares, flashbacks'
Among the women who testify of the harm done by abortion is Joyce Zounis, director of women's outreach for Operation Outcry: Silent No More, a national movement that encourages women to speak out on the issue.
"The aftermath of abortion is horrendous," said Zounis, who had the first of seven abortions at age 15. "I was told it would be over 'real quick' – it lasted 27 years!"
Zounis said "not once in eleven years was I told of the emotional complications an abortion can bring – personality changes, numbness, rage, never-ending mental anguish, the exhaustive effort of balancing my fragile state of mind, the tormenting silence of guilt and shame, the constant dissatisfaction with life and the absolute need to grieve the loss of my children.
A witness for McCorvey's case, Caron Strong, who has had four abortions, said: "Nightmares and suicidal thoughts are common, especially around the anniversary of the abortion or the date when the baby would have been born. Everyday sounds or events can act as a trigger."
Other women providing sworn testimony stated:
- "It devastated me. I had nightmares, flashbacks, fits of rage, uncontrollable crying, trouble sleeping, and could not look at pregnant women or children without feeling hurt, anger and guilt." – Amy Marie
- "No one told me that I would hear cries in the middle of the night." – Brandy
- "Twenty-five years later, I still cannot talk about it without tears and pain in my heart. It all looks simple on paper and seems like an easy way out of a bad spot, but no one tells you that the easy way out will cost you later in emotional damage and physical problems." – Scherrie
As far as I know, you can't appeal a case that you won 30 years after the fact.
It's disgraceful that the pro-"choice" people don't fully explain its real meaning: Your choice is to kill your child.
Particularly these pro-death cultists prey on young adults who simply don't possess the maturity to understand all the implications. It's a disgrace that our kind of society allows this to continue.
Doesn't she know that it wasn't her case, it was the ACLU's?
You can ask that the verdict be set aside.
You would do better to put your faith in God instead of man, any man, including W.
This woman will probably die in a car "accident."
I hope and pray you're wrong as well and do believe this stronghold is coming down. Too many prayer warriors ain't letting go and you know what God says about united prayer.
The Rule 60(b) motion was first filed in the summer, 2003. Taking a long time for someone to set up a car "accident", isn't it?
Well, how long do they have before the "final solution" is the only one left?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.