McCorvey v. Roe - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 27 Old 06-19-2003, 11:15 AM - Thread Starter
 
Dragonfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: On the Brink
Posts: 6,550
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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....
Dragonfly is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 27 Old 06-19-2003, 12:06 PM
 
merpk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Didn't hear, but not surprised. I had heard she's a born-again Christian.
merpk is offline  
#3 of 27 Old 06-19-2003, 12:22 PM
Banned
 
frogertgrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: location, location, location
Posts: 1,518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
frogertgrl is offline  
#4 of 27 Old 06-19-2003, 12:39 PM
 
Quirky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 11,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

Come visit the NEW QuirkyBaby website -- earn QB Bucks rewards points for purchases, reviews, referrals, and more! Free US shipping on great brands of baby slings and carriers and FREE BabyLegs or babywearing mirror on orders of $100+. Take the QB Quiz for personalized advice!

Quirky is offline  
#5 of 27 Old 06-19-2003, 04:32 PM
 
K&JsMaMa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Utopia
Posts: 871
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
[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 is offline  
#6 of 27 Old 06-19-2003, 04:32 PM
 
K&JsMaMa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Utopia
Posts: 871
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
[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 is offline  
#7 of 27 Old 06-19-2003, 06:20 PM
Banned
 
frogertgrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: location, location, location
Posts: 1,518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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 is offline  
#8 of 27 Old 06-19-2003, 06:27 PM
Banned
 
frogertgrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: location, location, location
Posts: 1,518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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.
frogertgrl is offline  
#9 of 27 Old 06-19-2003, 07:52 PM
 
wolfmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: in the land of perpetual fatigue
Posts: 616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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!!

Peace and health, Jenny - Mama to my love 12/01, my lovely 7/04, and my beloved 10/06, and one angel. ****5****10****15***20****25****30****35***bellycast.gif40**
wolfmom is offline  
#10 of 27 Old 06-19-2003, 07:56 PM
Banned
 
frogertgrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: location, location, location
Posts: 1,518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
frogertgrl is offline  
#11 of 27 Old 06-19-2003, 09:18 PM
 
Peppermint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: work-in-progress
Posts: 5,288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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."

:Patty :fireman Catholic, intactalactivist, co-sleeping, GDing, HSing, no-vax Mama to .........................:..........hale:
Peppermint is offline  
#12 of 27 Old 06-19-2003, 09:58 PM
 
K&JsMaMa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Utopia
Posts: 871
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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 is offline  
#13 of 27 Old 06-19-2003, 10:01 PM
 
K&JsMaMa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Utopia
Posts: 871
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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 is offline  
#14 of 27 Old 06-19-2003, 10:05 PM
 
K&JsMaMa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Utopia
Posts: 871
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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.
K&JsMaMa is offline  
#15 of 27 Old 06-19-2003, 10:16 PM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
kama'aina mama is offline  
#16 of 27 Old 06-19-2003, 10:23 PM
 
K&JsMaMa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Utopia
Posts: 871
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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.
K&JsMaMa is offline  
#17 of 27 Old 06-19-2003, 11:43 PM
Banned
 
frogertgrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: location, location, location
Posts: 1,518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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..."
frogertgrl is offline  
#18 of 27 Old 06-20-2003, 12:58 AM
 
Quirky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 11,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

Come visit the NEW QuirkyBaby website -- earn QB Bucks rewards points for purchases, reviews, referrals, and more! Free US shipping on great brands of baby slings and carriers and FREE BabyLegs or babywearing mirror on orders of $100+. Take the QB Quiz for personalized advice!

Quirky is offline  
#19 of 27 Old 06-20-2003, 03:35 PM
 
phathui5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,012
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.

Midwife (CPM, LDM) and homeschooling mama to:
14yo ds   11yo dd  9yo ds and 7yo ds and 2yo ds  
phathui5 is offline  
#20 of 27 Old 06-20-2003, 03:41 PM
 
Peppermint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: work-in-progress
Posts: 5,288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

:Patty :fireman Catholic, intactalactivist, co-sleeping, GDing, HSing, no-vax Mama to .........................:..........hale:
Peppermint is offline  
#21 of 27 Old 06-20-2003, 03:47 PM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Jane

thank you for sharing the legalities of attempting to reopen such a case. I hope it opens some eyes as to what the law says in these types of siutations.
Arduinna is offline  
#22 of 27 Old 06-20-2003, 06:01 PM
 
K&JsMaMa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Utopia
Posts: 871
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
Oh, I care deeply. But to some, the ends justifies the means.

I thinks it's wonderful she wants to reopen the case. That she want to right this terrible wrong.
K&JsMaMa is offline  
#23 of 27 Old 06-20-2003, 06:22 PM
Banned
 
frogertgrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: location, location, location
Posts: 1,518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
That was fast.

Quote:
The court said late Thursday that Norma McCorvey's request wasn't made within a "reasonable time" after the 1973 judgment in Roe v. Wade.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../roe_v__wade_5
frogertgrl is offline  
#24 of 27 Old 06-20-2003, 07:38 PM
 
Quirky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 11,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
She wanted an abortion at the time, but could not obtain one legally in the time it took to have the case adjudicated, and gave birth instead. So she didn't lie in court and neither did her lawyer; the whole basis of her suit was that she wanted an abortion and could not obtain one. I believe she put the baby up for adoption. If abortion had been legal, she would have had one. No one forced her to be a plaintiff; it's not like her lawyer held a gun to her head and forced her to sign the affidavits she did. No matter what she says now, at the time she was perfectly willing to be a a plaintiff through the district court, appeals court, and Supreme Court proceedings. Revisionist history is a great thing, isn't it?

One of the legal issues the court had to deal with was whether her claim was mooted out because she had the baby before the Supreme Court heard her case. If the injury a plaintiff claims is past and cannot be remedied, then the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case. However, the Supreme Court found that the facts fell into one of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine, namely the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception. In other words, she could have gotten pregnant again, wanted an abortion, been denied a legal abortion, filed suit, and it wouldn't get heard to finality before the 38 weeks of pregnancy had elapsed. Therefore, her claim was not moot, and the court had jurisdiction to hear it.

Come visit the NEW QuirkyBaby website -- earn QB Bucks rewards points for purchases, reviews, referrals, and more! Free US shipping on great brands of baby slings and carriers and FREE BabyLegs or babywearing mirror on orders of $100+. Take the QB Quiz for personalized advice!

Quirky is offline  
#25 of 27 Old 06-20-2003, 10:31 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Is the new case going to be McCorvey -vs- Roe?

In the original case, McCorvey was Roe, and Wade was the district attorney in Texas against whom the young Sarah Waddington filed this test case. So basically the older McCorvey is suing the younger McCorvey?

Sarah Waddington actually was able to have the abortion she desired in law school, although she had to go to Mexico to get it; that is not convenient, but she did get the abortion she wanted.

When McCorvey became pregnant, had the baby and gave it up for adoption. She was vague about how she had become pregnant - first she said she was raped, then she said she had a one night stand, then she said she had a short-lived affair. Whatever happened, McCorvey has been taken advantage of by almost every segment of society, so I guess it is the pro-lifers turn.

Do you think Sarah Waddington could have found another woman who had more sense? I really do not think so. She used this poor woman, and McCorvey is just one professional victim. She is very pathetic.

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
#26 of 27 Old 06-21-2003, 01:48 PM
Banned
 
frogertgrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: location, location, location
Posts: 1,518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
applejuice, which child of McCorvey are you referring to? She gave three children up for adoption. So, she had at least three pregnancies.

As I've stated before, McCorvey, as a drug seller (and user) was at least a wee bit familiar with using persons for personal/monetary gain.
frogertgrl is offline  
#27 of 27 Old 06-21-2003, 11:43 PM
 
snshinenor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oregon
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well explained Jane!!! ) The weird thing is that the week prior to her comign out protesting the courts decision, I just finished up a philosophy class where we studied this case in particular in detail......



Melanie
snshinenor is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off