'Roe' files to overturn high-court ruling

WorldNetDaily ^ | June 17, 2003 | Art Moore

[scripter]

The woman known as "Roe" in the historic Supreme Court case that legalized abortion is filing a motion in federal court today to overturn the 1973 decision.

The Roe v. Wade ruling should be set aside because of changes in law and new research that make the prior decision "no longer just," argues Allan E. Parker, Jr., lead attorney for the San Antonio, Texas-based Justice Foundation.

Norma McCorvey

Parker is representing the former "Jane Roe," Norma McCorvey, who has the right to petition for reopening the case because she was party to the original litigation.

McCorvey announced in 1995 she had become a Christian and now has a pro-life ministry called Roe No More.

"I long for the day that justice will be done and the burden from all of these deaths will be removed from my shoulders," McCorvey said in a statement. "I want to do everything in my power to help women and their children. The issue is justice for women, justice for the unborn, and justice for what is right."

McCorvey will ask for a reversal of the judgment today at the Dallas federal court.

In an interview with WorldNetDaily two years ago, McCorvey said she was "used" by pro-abortion attorneys in their quest to legalize the procedure.

Seeking an abortion at the age of 21, McCorvey made up a story that she had been raped. She was put in touch with two attorneys who aimed to challenge the Texas abortion statute.

"Plain and simple, I was used," she said. "I was a nobody to them. They only needed a pregnant woman to use for their case, and that is it. They cared, not about me, but only about legalizing abortion. Even after the case, I was never respected – probably because I was not an Ivy League-educated, liberal feminist like they were."

New evidence

Parker notes the Supreme Court has overturned its own precedents, citing the 1997 Agostini v. Felton decision in which the high court used a post-judgment motion by a party to overturn two 12-year-old precedents.

The legal question in the case, he said, is, "Is it just to continue giving Roe v. Wade future application?"

He asserts three major arguments for reopening and overturning the case:

• The Roe v. Wade decision deprived women of protection from dangerous abortions and exposed them to a much greater risk of being pressured into unwanted abortions. Studies, he says, indicate between 30 and 60 percent of abortions result from the pregnant woman submitting to pressure from her male partner, parents, physicians or others.

  Parker will present affidavits from more than 1,000 women who testify having an abortion has had devastating emotional, physical and psychological effects. This is 1,000 times more evidence than presented in the original case, he says. Also, new scientific evidence indicates abortion is associated with more physical and psychological complications for women than were known about in 1973. In contrast, there have been no scientific studies measuring any significant benefits abortion has produced in women's lives.

• While the question, "When does life begin?" was treated as an unanswered philosophical question in 1973, "an explosion of scientific evidence on human life" since then "conclusively answers the question that life begins at conception," Parker argues.

• Under a 1999 law, Texas provides for any woman's unwanted child from birth to 18 years of age with no questions asked, which means women should no longer be forced to dispose of "unwanted" children by ending a human life, insists Parker. Forty states have similar "Baby Moses" laws.

"The result of granting the motion would be to set aside and annul Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, its companion case," Parker explained. "This would return the issue of protecting women and children to the people with Baby Moses laws serving as a safety net."

Parker and McCorvey will appear at a press conference in Dallas today along with women who will testify of abortion's harmful effects in their lives.

Ominous warning

Meanwhile, a leading abortion-rights group, NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, has launched a $3 million ad campaign to warn of a day when the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade.

The group says the campaign coincides with recent passage of the partial-birth abortion ban by Congress and potential retirements by Supreme Court justices.

"Together these spots serve as a stark reminder of what could happen if we don't stop this tidal wave of anti-choice activity that is emanating right out of our own White House," said NARAL Pro-Choice America President Kate Michelman in a statement.

NARAL television ad

One 15-second television commercial opens with ominous music and a woman who looks in horror at a newspaper headline that reads: "Abortion outlawed, Court overturns right to choose."

The ads have begun airing on cable channels but will be shown on broadcast stations in three key states in two weeks. Iowa, Wisconsin and Oregon were chosen because they were narrowly decided in the 2000 presidential election.

During the 2000 presidential election campaign, then-President Bill Clinton said he expected Roe v. Wade to be overturned if George W. Bush won.

"If Gov. Bush gets elected, he'll appoint judges more like the ones appointed by the ... Reagan and Bush administrations," Clinton said in a National Public Radio interview. "And if they get two to four appointments on the Supreme Court, I think Roe v. Wade will be repealed."

Speculation has arisen in the last several years about departures by Rehnquist, 78, Sandra Day O'Connor, 73, and John Paul Stevens, 83.

Rehnquist has been the focus of most of the attention. But his recent decisions to hire staff for the court's next annual term, beginning in the fall, and to schedule an important hearing Sept. 8 suggest he will not be leaving soon.

[kayak]

fyi

[MHGinTN]

(((PING))))))

[exit82]

Let me return the favor.FYI.

[McGavin999]

Probably one of the best things that could happen is to have this thing overturned in the next session. It would immediately stun the dems. What would they use as a litmus test if Roe v Wade has already been overturned?

[scripter]

Thanks for the pings. I was looking through previous related threads to find folks to ping. Since many of those I found are already on your lists I don't have to worry about it. Thanks.

[goodseedhomeschool]

Norma,
some "pandora's boxes" are harder to close than to open.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

One 15-second television commercial opens with ominous music and a woman who looks in horror at a newspaper headline that reads: "Abortion outlawed, Court overturns right to choose."

If I saw that I wouldn't be horrified, I'd be thrilled. Me thinks NARAL's ad will not be received as they anticipate.

[MHGinTN]

It was my pleasure. Thank you for posting the article!

[nutmeg]

FYI

[MHGinTN]

Since first learning the truth of how Roe came to be decided, it has always shocked me that the court could make such a fiat ruling based on lies and false data and false witness to the court, yet when the truth is revealed to the nation the court refuses to take upon themselves to set the ruling aside as speciously argued!

[exit82]

You're welcome.
I've met Norma McCorvey==she is very sweet, and she is serious about righting her role in Roe vs Wade.

Roe is based on a lie. It was also used by an activist Supreme Court to overturn abortion laws in 50 states and replace it with a law of their own creation, a role they are not allowed under the Constitution.

If Roe vs Wade was overtunred, states could then fashion their own abortion laws, and the ridiculous law of trimesters could go to the dustbin of history.

[dagnabbit]

The souless ghouls at NARAL actually opposed the "Born Alive Protection Act."

[scripter]

FRC FYI ping.

[McGavin999]

I could be wrong on this Mike, but I don't believe the court can initiate any case. That would have to be done by the AG or one of the injured parties. It's good to see that Roe is taking it upon herself to get this going.

The dems have been using R v W to bash republican nominees over the head for the past decade and have really been using it lately. It would be truely funny if the court heard this on a fast-track basis and ruled immediately. It would completely take the wind out of the sails of the philibuster.

[Bogey78O]

The left has done a great job at getting people to believe that if RvW gets overturned abortions become illegal.

[scripter]

I'm not usually involved with abortion threads and just found this: Silent Scream. Back in the late 70s or early 80s I was pro-choice. Then I saw some films on abortion, one of which, I believe, was The Silent Scream. After that I started reading and realized the pro-life position was the only position I could hold.

[Mo1]

Since first learning the truth of how Roe came to be decided, it has always shocked me that the court could make such a fiat ruling based on lies and false data and false witness to the court, yet when the truth is revealed to the nation the court refuses to take upon themselves to set the ruling aside as speciously argued!

EXACTLY .. that whole case was one huge lie .. but yet it's made the law of the land

What ever happen to Truth and Justice?

[chance33_98]

The face of NOW the day after it's overturned

[cpforlife.org]

This thirtieth year of killing appears to be more than just an anniversary milestone of the holocaust. There are many related events/things happening. It seems in some ways that there is more momentum on the side of life.

"The path which moved us from civilization to savagery occurred on January 22, 1973"
John Powell S.J. Abortion: the Silent Holocaust