Roe v. Wade lawyer finds rights in peril

Sarah Weddington, the lawyer who persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 to make abortion legal, speaks in Atlanta tonight at the ninth annual "Women in Law" event sponsored by the Atlanta Women's Foundation.

In Georgia and other states, 2003 is the low point for women who want to determine for themselves when and if to bear children.

"It's all part of a national pattern," said Weddington in a telephone interview last week. She was referring to the quiet undermining of the Roe v. Wade decision that she says begins at the top -- in the White House and in Congress. The U.S. House of Representatives is poised to pass a federal version of the state "partial-birth" abortion law that even the conservative U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. The bill's criminalization of certain procedures could restrict a woman's right to abortion by the safest method at any point in her pregnancy.

Weddington says that measure, like a new Louisiana law that would make abortion illegal except when the mother's life is at stake, simply anticipates the Republican Senate's approval of an anti-abortion U.S. Supreme Court justice. The Roe decision hangs now by one vote on the court. But other measures, such as the 24-hour waiting requirement before the Georgia Senate, already have the court's approval.

The youngest woman ever to win a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Weddington, 27 at the time, thought a woman's right to choose had been written in stone. But in less than 24 hours, hearings were set in Congress on a constitutional amendment to overturn it.

"It was only written in sandstone," she says now, though she rejoices that the amendment lost steam. It's no surprise to Weddington that the Georgia legislation (which mandates a women listen to a state-scripted lecture and be shown pictures of the developing fetus) has male sponsorship. "It's the only way men can yell at women and feel strangely blessed for doing it," she said. "Even if they win, they have no responsibility. Government doesn't make women pregnant."

Only Weddington can say such things without sounding shrill. Like many women who simply want government out of their personal lives, the soft-spoken Texan doesn't think of herself as "pro abortion."

One thing I've always admired about Weddington is that so much of her work is about helping women at the bottom of the economic ladder. At the Weddington Center for Leadership, she continues efforts to help poor women while also teaching courses on gender-based discrimination and leadership at the University of Texas in Austin.

Her young students, she says, can no more imagine a day when women had to risk their lives to get an abortion than they can imagine a time when contraception was illegal. That youthful complacency and the false assurance from Republican leaders that further restrictions on abortion aren't a top issue are twin dangers.

President Bush doesn't talk radically about abortion, but he acts radically. Few paid attention when the president withdrew support for Senate ratification of a women's rights treaty that requires removal of barriers to female health care -- or when his representatives opposed world health aid for children because of language promising "reproductive health services."

Few Georgians noticed when the state's new Republican governor pledged his support to outlawing abortion even in cases of rape or incest. Gov. Sonny Perdue speaks with compassion for children but has no qualms about signing a bill that will inevitably hit poor women and their children the hardest.

Like most Georgians, I don't support abortion on demand, but no one in America should be able to dictate to others, men or women, what their moral and religious beliefs should be. If women can give their lives for our nation in war and in space, surely they can decide child-bearing matters without insulting laws that assume they don't know what they are doing.

In Georgia and other states, 2003 is the low point for women who want to determine for themselves when and if to bear children.

Womyn with [maiden] names R through V may conceive on the third Monday of each month. Womyn with names W through Z may not procreate.

With a new Republican governor, they are doing everything they can to make him look bad. I don't think they will succeed. The bill mentioned does not stop anybody from obtaining an abortion. It is a one-day delay to examine the consequences of the "choice."

Funny, I didn't hear a similar debate when they considered a three-day wait for gun control. Abortion kills every time, guns just have the potential.

Sarah Weddington is a professional liar. As Norma McCorvey, the original Roe of Roe v. Wade has since admitted, the whole case was built on a lie, which Weddington persuaded her to consent to.

Needless to say, you won't find the liberal press admitting any of this.

And they'll never pinpoint the money behind the amicus briefs. Roe v. Wade was a dramatic step in keeping the minority population in check, but Weddington and the other chattering monkeys won't admit that their "victory" was handed to them. And, yes, she should be disbarred.

The Road to Abortion: How Eugenics and Population Control Led to Abortion [FR thread]

Sarah Weddington is a professional liar. As Norma McCorvey, the original Roe of Roe v. Wade has since admitted, the whole case was built on a lie, which Weddington persuaded her to consent to.

That is exactly right. From what I understand, the biggest lie of all was that McCorvey was raped or abused and just plainly never happened. Nevertheless, its that type of story which pull at the heartstrings of judges and the public.

I was incensed that Weddington that the local university at which I earned a degree invited this professional lair to speak. However, the university has invited a gaggle of other professional liars such as Michael Moore and Rogoberta Menchu (the high priestess of liberal lies) to speak as well.

"Gov. Sonny Perdue speaks with compassion for children but has no qualms about signing a bill that will inevitably hit poor women and their children the hardest."

I have a problem with that quote, in that if the writer means "poor women and their unborn children" are hit the hardest, she then must mean, those children that are aborted. Another way of saying, THANKGOODNESS THAT LITTLE UNPLEASANTNESS IS OVER WITH! If she means, their born children, then I don't know why the governor's aversion to abortion is seen as a negative impact, if the children are BORN. Although, she could be saying that it is better to be aborted, than be born to a poor woman? But, then again, that defies logic, too. Maybe the author is stating that she favors eugenics? Or, maybe she is one of the elites who thinks that poor people shouldn't have children because children are expensive and therefore only financially comfortable couples should have children? Oh, I see, it's from the AJC... it isn't supposed to be coherent, just PASSIONATE!

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.