McCorvey v. Roe

[Dragonfly]

Has anyone heard about Norma McCorvey (a.k.a. "Jane Roe") filing an affidavit to reopen Roe v. Wade?

I did a google search for 'McCorvey', 'Roe' & 'affidavit' and found the text. Anyone who is interested might consider doing the same - I would include it here, but just can't bring myself to link to Operation Rescue.

Just interested in hearing opinions (not about abortion, itself, as I know that would make for a very volatile thread), but about McCorvey's seeking to reopen the case. Also just a general heads up for pro-choice advocates....

[merpk]

Didn't hear, but not surprised. I had heard she's a born-again Christian.

[frogertgrl]

Yes, I heard. She said the court decision brought the 'holocaust of abortion' (to this country). Said she looks forward to the day that the 'guilt from all of these deaths will be removed from (her) shoulders'.

She has also said she is not 'anti-abortion' but 'pro-life'. I'm too dense to understand the subtleties of that.

[Quirky]

I don't see how she has any standing to re-open the case. The case and its progeny are decided law. The plaintiff can't get backsies just because she changes her mind later. It's just a publicity stunt by the anti-abortion crowd.

[K&JsMaMa]

[i]
She has also said she is not 'anti-abortion' but 'pro-life'. I'm too dense to understand the subtleties of that. [/B]

I think what she means is she doesn't like the negative tone of the "anti" in "anti-abortion". Just like the "choice" camp wouldn't like to be continuously called "anti-life".

I heard Norma McCorvey in an interview saying how the numbers of deaths from underground abortions were completley blown out of proportion. That she was rail-roaded by the feminists into being the scape goat for the "roe vs. wade". It was a lot of smoke and mirrors to get the killing of the unborn legalized.

[K&JsMaMa]

[i]
She has also said she is not 'anti-abortion' but 'pro-life'. I'm too dense to understand the subtleties of that. [/B]

I think what she means is she doesn't like the negative tone of the "anti" in "anti-abortion". Just like the "choice" camp wouldn't like to be continuously called "anti-life".

I heard Norma McCorvey in an interview saying how the numbers of deaths from underground abortions were completley blown out of proportion. That she was rail-roaded by the feminists into being the scape goat for the "roe vs. wade". It was a lot of smoke and mirrors to get the killing of the unborn legalized.

[frogertgrl]

Originally posted by K&JsMaMa
I think what she means is she doesn't like the negative tone of the "anti" in "anti-abortion".

Well, 'holocaust' is darn negative.

I agree with Jane, McCorvey's petition will not change the law.

[frogertgrl]

Originally posted by K&JsMaMa
It was a lot of smoke and mirrors to get the killing of the unborn legalized.

I'm not sure McCorvey's recollection is accurate, unfortunately. She was a drug abuser, alcoholic (and drug seller) during that time. If there were 'smoke and mirrors', her chemically altered state contributed to some distortions of reality, by definition.

Since she knew how to sell drugs, she understood using people for personal and monetary gain. She understood power and dependence, even just a little bit.

She had a change of heart long after becoming sober so it wasn't only that she was in a drug induced fog. She converted. That is her right absolutely. But to assign the blame upon 'feminists' who used 'smoke and mirrors' is not accurate.

[wolfmom]

fyi - in general the distinction between anti-abortion and pro-life is subtle yet significant. Anti-abortion means you do not believe in or are against abortion. Pro-life means you are against anything that destroys life including the death penalty, euthanasia, and in many cases war. As I said, this is the generalized definition. Many people use these terms interchangably but they do not actually mean the same thing. In addition, some people who would identify themselves as pro-life may not agree with all of the above definition. example - a person may be anti-abortion and anti-death penalty but not be against war. I hope this helps clarify things for some people!!

[frogertgrl]

Helps me tremendously, wolfmom! Thank you for explaining that to me. Makes more sense now with the clarification you took the time to provide.

Thanks.

[Peppermint]

I met Sarah Waddington, *Roe's* lawyer when I was in college, I asked her about how she felt about *Roe* now being opposed to abortion (it has been a while that she has been). She said and I quote, "She is not a stable woman, and never was". So, I asked her how she felt about making the case with an "unstable woman" ie- if she felt she had taken advantage of that, and she said, "it was more important than one individual."

[K&JsMaMa]

Originally posted by wolfmom
fyi - example - a person may be anti-abortion and anti-death penalty but not be against war. I hope this helps clarify things for some people!!

One thing I don't understand, and maybe someone here can clarify for me, is how someone can be anti-death penalty and anti-war, yet are for abortion. Clarification would be greatly appreciated.

TIA,

[K&JsMaMa]

Originally posted by jess7396
I met Sarah Waddington, *Roe's* lawyer when I was in college, I asked her about how she felt about *Roe* now being opposed to abortion (it has been a while that she has been). She said and I quote, "She is not a stable woman, and never was". So, I asked her how she felt about making the case with an "unstable woman" ie- if she felt she had taken advantage of that, and she said, "it was more important than one individual."

So this law is based on the testimony of an unstable woman? If she is to unstable now to say it's wrong, then she must have been to unstable then to say abortion should be "safe" and legal. No?

[K&JsMaMa]

Originally posted by frogertgrl
I'm not sure McCorvey's recollection is accurate, unfortunately. She was a drug abuser, alcoholic (and drug seller) during that time. If there were 'smoke and mirrors', her chemically altered state contributed to some distortions of reality, by definition.

So she was the best the feminists could find? An alcoholic drug abuser? Still sounds like they had an agenda to me.

[kama'aina mama]

Sounds like? Of course they had an agenda! Their agenda was to guarantee reproductive freedom to all women. They were never coy about that. She may have been unstable but she wanted to have an abortion and was denied it. It's not as though they knocked her on the head, hog tied her and dragged her into court against her will. She wanted to pursue the matter. The people involved in test cases that define law are not required to be saints... just a nice clear cut example of where and how the law is being defined.

[K&JsMaMa]

Originally posted by kama'aina mama
Sounds like? Of course they had an agenda! Their agenda was to guarantee reproductive freedom to all women.

Except the women yet to be born!!!


From her interview, the lawyers paraded her around, then when she questioned them, the shoved her to the background. Her "job" was done.

[frogertgrl]

Re: McCorvey v. Roe

Originally posted by Dragonfly
Just interested in hearing opinions (not about abortion, itself, as I know that would make for a very volatile thread), but about McCorvey's seeking to reopen the case. Also just a general heads up for pro-choice advocates....

Sure would love to see this request honored. "not about abortion, itself..."

[Quirky]

So McCorvey wasn't the best plaintiff to pick, in hindsight....so what? There were plenty of women who were denied abortions who could just have easily have been plaintiffs, and there are plenty of women today who would line up around the block to be plaintiffs to challenge anti-abortion laws if more are passed. You'd have to beat them off with a stick.

The Supreme Court did not decide Roe based on the particulars of the plaintiff before it, i.e. whether or not McCorvey was a stable, sober person. It decided Roe based on constitutional principles. McCorvey's past, present, and future have absolutely nothing to do with the legal basis of the decision. At the time, she had standing to pursue the suit, and that's what got the case in the door in order for the courts to have jurisdiction to adjudicate it. In other words, she was able to demonstrate an injury in fact that is actual and concrete, not remote and speculative (i.e. an unwanted pregnancy that she was unable to terminate legally) directly traceable to the complained-of conduct by the state (i.e. the anti-abortion laws) and redressable by the court (through a decision overturning the anti-abortion laws). Her opinions on the matter in hindsight are irrelevant.

To challenge a law, a plaintiff must currently have standing. So, for example, if new anti-abortion laws are passed, women who currently are pregnant and cannot get safe and legal abortions (or doctors who provide abortions, another common class of plaintiffs in these types of suits) will have to be the new plaintiffs. Conversely, if a law guaranteeing the right to safe and legal abortion were passed, any anti-abortion people who wanted to challenge it would have to demonstrate standing of their own. Once plaintiffs are in the door with standing, the court then decides the constitutionality of the law before it. Whether or not a plaintiff changes her mind later about an injury she may have pled at the time of the suit doesn't matter if the suit is over and done with.

[phathui5]

This is her press release about filing to overturn her case:

http://www.roenomore.org/press/2003.pdf

No one here seems to care that she was used by her lawyer as a pawn for a case that her lawyer wanted to file. She never even ended up having an abortion. She and her lawyer both lied in court.

[Peppermint]

Oh, I care, deeply. Please don't let it be construed that I don't.
I just have learned from experience about this subject on this board and I am taking the low side right now as I've done these arguments before and now I'm preggo. and just too tired, so forgive me fellow MDCers who feel as I do about this, but I just don't have the energy, and I thank you for posting on this.