Roe V Wade?

Published on January 18, 2005 By drmiler In Politics

Now it seems that the originator of RoeV Wade wants it overturned. I wonder why? Repost is from NewsMax

Monday, Jan. 17, 2005 10:17 p.m. EST
McCorvey to High Court: Overturn Roe vs Wade

The woman whose case became the basis for the controversial 1973 Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion is petitioning the court to have the ruling overturned.

Norma McCorvvey, known as Jane Roe in court filings, told the Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" on Monday, "We're going to be fling a Motion 60 brief tomorrow with the Supreme Court and ask and plead and beg them to please overturn Roe vs. Wade."

McCorvey came out against abortion years ago, but her decision to actively challenge the landmark ruling was spurred, she explained, by new technology that dramatically increased chances for viability for the unborn.
She also cited the increase in post-abortion depression among women.

McCorvey's lawyer, Allan Parker, explained the legal process, telling "Hannity & Colmes": "Under Rule 60, Norma, as a party [to the original case], can ask the court to vacate her judgment - set it aside as if it never was - on the grounds that it's no longer just."

Parker said he would be required to show that both medical and legal conditions had changed significantly since the court decided Roe vs. Wade 32-years ago.

Comments (Page 2)

Furry Canary

on Jan 19, 2005

'anyone can have a pang of conscious'
We live in hope, Dr. Guy!

(I think the word you were grappling for was 'conscience'.)

UBoB

on Jan 19, 2005

'anyone can have a pang of conscious'
We live in hope, Dr. Guy!
(I think the word you were grappling for was 'conscience'.)

Hmm Dr. Guy, your malapropisms are showing. Or was this a humorous attempt at an intentional Freudian slip?

Dr Guy

on Jan 19, 2005

Hmm Dr. Guy, your malapropisms are showing. Or was this a humorous attempt at an intentional Freudian slip?

No, it is the reason I got into computers. My Handwriting is atrocious and my spelling worse. I wrote my own Word Processor back in 1980. on a Honeywell Mainframe.

Deference

on Jan 19, 2005

btw/ I hate abortion. but support a womans right to choose

What a nuanced posit, sounds like a flip - flop!

Dr Guy

on Jan 19, 2005

The control of a woman's body should not be used as a political or legal football.

That is not a political football. Life, that is the hot potatoe. If you beleive in the concept of life at conception, then it is murder. If you do not beleive that a parasite has any rights until they breath on their own, then it is just a procedure.

It is not about her body. it is about the definition of the beginning of life. IN a nutshell.

Dr Guy

on Jan 19, 2005

btw/ I hate abortion. but support a womans right to choose

What a nuanced posit, sounds like a flip - flop!

No, just a person trying to find a middle ground. I wish I could be as noble, but my conscience wont let me.

DNCdude

on Jan 20, 2005

I'm sorry, but last time I checked McCorvey doesn't represent all females, why should she think that she has the right to remove the choice of abortion from all females, doesn't make sense...

drmiler

on Jan 20, 2005

Reply #22 By: DNCdude - 1/20/2005 7:38:09 PM
I'm sorry, but last time I checked McCorvey doesn't represent all females, why should she think that she has the right to remove the choice of abortion from all females, doesn't make sense...

Get a grip dude! Roe V Wade was HER court case. And since it was HERS then she can contest if she so chooses. Doesn 't mean it's going to go the way she wants though.

trina_p

on Jan 20, 2005

I'm confused - I thought the person behind the orignal Roe vs Wade was Ellen Russell, who didn't want to have another baby and give it up for adoption so she tried to have an abortion was stopped ended up having the baby which was adopted out and turned like 5 or 10 before the court proceedings even wrapped up.
I watched a documentary called Roe vs Wade in Introduction to Family and Community (Australian equivelent of health class I guess) I remember because she was played by Holly Hunter.

McCorvey came out against abortion years ago, but her decision to actively challenge the landmark ruling was spurred, she explained, by new technology that dramatically increased chances for viability for the unborn.

I'm really confused about this statement was she originally against abortion or for it? And what does she mean about increased chances of viability? Is she talking about women who choose to abort for health reasons? I just don't understand what the viability has to do with it - If we agree it's a womans right to choose then it's her choice.

If we agree that it's a "baby" that's viable then isn't it murder?

I just don't get what this article is stating

drmiler

on Jan 20, 2005

Reply #24 By: trina_p - 1/20/2005 8:10:07 PM
I'm confused - I thought the person behind the orignal Roe vs Wade was Ellen Russell, who didn't want to have another baby and give it up for adoption so she tried to have an abortion was stopped ended up having the baby which was adopted out and turned like 5 or 10 before the court proceedings even wrapped up.

Then let me unconfuse you

Norma McCorvvey, known as Jane Roe in court filings, told the Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" on Monday, "We're going to be fling a Motion 60 brief tomorrow with the Supreme Court and ask and plead and beg them to please overturn Roe vs.

trina_p

on Jan 20, 2005

McCorvey said that if there had been the technology that we have now, such as sonograms, she believes that the Roe decision might have been differently decided. She also cited the increased knowledge of the damaging effects abortion has on women's physical and mental health. McCorvey noted new technology that dramatically increases the viablility of the unborn child. New laws that allow "safe haven" for women to leave their babies relieve them of the obligation of raising a child they cannot raise, McCorvey's motion notes[/quote

I found this here Link

But I still don't understand the viability statement. It's actually a forum but's its very onesided someone said something about "What? Over turn Roe vs. Wade and steal the Holy Grail of feminism? Perish the thought!" which is kinda uncalled for but I was looking for more information so I could understand

DNCdude

on Jan 20, 2005

Get a grip dude! Roe V Wade was HER court case. And since it was HERS then she can contest if she so chooses. Doesn 't mean it's going to go the way she wants though.

Yes I understand that, my point was simply that I got the feeling she didn't believe that females still had that right and that it should be taken away from them in a way that leaves other females with little or no say in the matter.

Dr Guy

on Jan 21, 2005

Why dont you read her actual statements, instead of the filtered version that the media gives you. You are actually not that far from the truth, but the real truth is a lot more complex.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!