US Supreme Court to Consider Petition to Reverse Abortion Law Roe v Wade on February 18

LifeSite ^ | Februrary 15, 2005

[NYer]

WASHINGTON, February 15, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – On Friday, the US Supreme Court is currently docketed to have an internal, private discussion conference on how to handle a petition to reverse Roe v. Wade. Operation Outcry, the group which launched the petition, is comprised of Norma McCorvey, the former Roe of Roe v. Wade and Sandra Cano, the former Doe of Doe v. Bolton, and the staff of The Justice Foundation, the attorneys representing both of them and the post-abortive witnesses of Operation Outcry: Silent No More.

On January 14, the petition to reverse Roe v. Wade was filed with the United States Supreme Court. It was received by the United States Supreme Court on January 19. On January 17, Martin Luther King’s birthday, Norma McCorvey and Allan Parker appeared on Hannity & Colmes to announce the filing. On January 18, a press conference with Norma, Sandra, and the ladies of Operation Outcry: Silent No More, and the lawyers, was held on the steps of the United States Supreme Court.

Operation Outcry has called on pro-lifers to pray for a positive outcome from the court’s deliberations.

The petition to reverse Roe has been set for a Supreme Court discussion conference on February 18 with results to be public on February 22.

For more information on the case see:
http://www.operationoutcry.org

[LauraleeBraswell]

Many people have been lied to about abortion, It was not illegal before Roe versus Wade. That's my point.

[notigar]

Can only hope.

[TOUGH STOUGH]

"What some of you don't seem to have is a will to fight and win."

Frankly, I very much want to WIN. But sometimes, as with this particular matter, timing is crucial to victory.

There is NO way the above case can be won with the current court and thus it was not a good idea to pursue it at this time. Frequently, we cannot control the timing in a particular court matter. With the suit above, we had a good deal of control over the timing. Thus, in this instance, they should have been more patient and waited.

There are plenty of other cases that can be hammered out in the lower courts.

[WilliamWallace1999]

You are wrong about that one. In several states it was already legal, such as Nevada. Southwest Airlines had a flight out of Houston that had a horrible nickname because of the number of hemorrhaging post-abortion women on board returning from Vegas

[LauraleeBraswell]

I SAID THAT ABORTION WAS LEGAL BEFORE ROE V WADE.

[expatpat]

Yeah, but they did reverse Dred-Scott (after how many years?).

[wyattearp]

Most states will impose restrictions. Yours and mine may not, but most reasonable states will.

I live in Washington state. We had a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a "right" to have an abortion. If the Supreme Court does overturn this, at least the killing will stop in some states. Unfortunately, not in this one.

[OhioAttorney]

Yeah, but they did reverse Dred-Scott (after how many years?).

I'm not saying it's impossible for the Supreme Court to reverse an earlier decision. But I don't think this Court will reverse Roe. These nine have reaffirmed (parts of) Roe several times since 1973. (Nothing like that happened with Dred Scott.)

Basically, what I expect it to take to undo Roe is a Court that will reopen and address the question whether the state has an interest in protecting the life of an unborn child prior to 'viability', and then open the question (so far not really addressed) whether the 'right' to have an abortion still counts as a privacy right even with the child's interests taken into account.

[WilliamWallace1999]

There is no need to shout. Your use of a double negative sentence structure led to my inaccurate interpretation. I deeply apologize for any offense. You may now take your afternoon meds. Do you own any firearms?

[LauraleeBraswell]

MY KEYBOARD'S CAPS LOCK IS STUCk, oh there you go. It's back to normal.

[Antoninus]

When the petition is refused without comment, then you have no way to resubmit or appeal,(possibly EVER) because that court, on purpose, did not provide you with a basis to do so.

That's bunk, friend. Perhaps that's how it's supposed to work in principle. However, in practice, the situation is quite different. So this petition fails without comment this time. You simply attack the issue from another angle next time. If the pro-porn and pro-buggery groups have taught us one thing, it's that there's ALWAYS another angle, always another case, always another chance--and you only have to win once.

I've had enough of the supposedly pro-life groups telling us to "bide our time." We've bidden away 32 years already with no end in sight. Political pressure has got to be brought to bear in every possible arena and if they aren't willing to do it, they should step aside.

[bill1952]

That is bunk? LOL!

Shows your absolute and complete ignorance of legal procedures, and the legal system, and that you have no real (or unreal) connection to it.

On the other hand, my involvement is only since 1973.

And your trash talk is nothing more than the swill that any common ham & egger barrister wipes off the bar when they oppose pro-se opponents.

I'm telling you very earnestly that your position is a fool's trap.

And that is a large reason, in part, why these challenges have not yet prevailed.

Your thinking is owned by the liberal left coast lawyers. Keep acting upon it, while millions die.

Personally, I don't care.

[Honcho]

We've had 32 years of "patience." The courts need to be hammered repeatedly with cases and petitions. Every avenue must be tried to overturn this abomination. The patient approach and the urgent approach should be used simultaneously and in tandem. That's how the culture of death pressure groups work. That's how we should work as well.


I'm very, very, leary at this point on the of the Supremes making a decision right before an expected to be a vacant spot on the court. Looks a little political to me.

[Lexinom]

I live in Washington State too, and have been livid about the abortion policies here for many years. The very things the pro-aborts scream about - "you're shoving your views down my throat" - are exactly how I've felt about them in silence. With the Web, the common citizen can have a voice. If I didn't have a job and deadlines, I'd spend all my time on the pro-life cause in this state. In the meantime, all I can do is donate to Pregnancy Choices (Human Life seems pretty ineffective).

[Indie]

Well said.

[patton]

It doesn't have to pass - VA law currently outlaws abortion.

It just isn't enforced, because of Roe.

If you were overturned, we could immediately round up every abortionist in the state, and charge them with murder.

[Lexinom]

The "expected" vacancy would msot likely come from the ailing Chief Justice Rehnquist. He would likely - MUST BE, in fact - replaced with another constructionist.

At least one of either Stevens, Bader, or O'Connor must also be replaced with a constructionist.

[ThanhPhero]

Overterning Roe would return the dispute to the legislatures of the states. It is a question of the definition of crime which is a legislative function.

[Lexinom]

If you were overturned, we could immediately round up every abortionist in the state, and charge them with murder.

Good. Hopefully the punishment would resemble what they did to their victims. Oh, I forgot, big people are more "human" than little people, so I guess I can't say that.

[Antoninus]

Shows your absolute and complete ignorance of legal procedures, and the legal system, and that you have no real (or unreal) connection to it. On the other hand, my involvement is only since 1973.

Our current legal system is a joke. It is so detached from the common person, cumbersome, unwieldy, and arcane, that it takes a team of "experts" such as yourself to explain even the simplest aspects of it. Lawyers speak in a Foucauldian jargon designed to make the system unapproachable for anyone outside the clique. It has become less about justice and more about making work to keep lawyers flush with cash. Our system needs a Justinianic-style reform in the worst possible way. Unfortunately, our money-hungry legal professionals today have little in common with the Tribonians of old.

And your trash talk is nothing more than the swill that any common ham & egger barrister wipes off the bar when they oppose pro-se opponents.

That's because they've learned how to game the system. Good for them. Any monkey can be trained to do so. My problem is with the system itself which has clearly demonstrated that it is a servant to powerful political interests. It's time for Pro-Life to become a powerful political interest that the judicial tyrants and the ACLU types fear and respect. Until that happens, we will continue to lose.

I'm telling you very earnestly that your position is a fool's trap.

Thanks for the warning. I'll take it for what it's worth--coming from someone with a limited historical and political perspective.

And that is a large reason, in part, why these challenges have not yet prevailed.

They have failed because the political establishment has been against us, not because we didn't play the proper legal cards. But the political establishment is slowly coming our way--as is the general public--because we have TRUTH on our side. Only the judiciary stands in the way at this point and all the legal tricks in the world won't make a Ruth Bader Ginsburg change her mind on baby-killing. The solution is to make life so miserable for the "abortion at all costs" judges, lawyers, and politicians that no one will want to line up on that side of the issue.

Personally, I don't care.

And there's your problem right there. Good day, sir.