'Jane Roe' appeals to Supreme Court

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
The woman known as "Roe" in the landmark case that struck down all state laws restricting abortion is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its 1973 decision...

At a news conference at the Supreme Court tomorrow at 11 a.m. Eastern, McCorvey will announce she wants the high court to reverse Roe vs. Wade, or at least, order a trial on the merits.

Link

Says' McCorvey: "Now we know so much more, and I plead with the court to listen to the witnesses and re-evaluate Roe vs. Wade. It was a dreadful day in America when the Supreme Court allowed a woman to kill her own child."
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
The woman known as "Roe" in the landmark case that struck down all state laws restricting abortion is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its 1973 decision...

At a news conference at the Supreme Court tomorrow at 11 a.m. Eastern, McCorvey will announce she wants the high court to reverse Roe vs. Wade, or at least, order a trial on the merits.

Link

Says' McCorvey: "Now we know so much more, and I plead with the court to listen to the witnesses and re-evaluate Roe vs. Wade. It was a dreadful day in America when the Supreme Court allowed a woman to kill her own child."

Just wanted to laugh at your sig, and moreso at the ignorance of truman. Guess Bush isn't the first stupid president we've had.

As to the meat of your post; more dreadful by far will be the day the Supreme Court allows a government to control the bodies and wills of it's citizens, regardless of gender.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
The woman known as "Roe" in the landmark case that struck down all state laws restricting abortion is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its 1973 decision...

At a news conference at the Supreme Court tomorrow at 11 a.m. Eastern, McCorvey will announce she wants the high court to reverse Roe vs. Wade, or at least, order a trial on the merits.

Link

Says' McCorvey: "Now we know so much more, and I plead with the court to listen to the witnesses and re-evaluate Roe vs. Wade. It was a dreadful day in America when the Supreme Court allowed a woman to kill her own child."

Can you PLEASE create a single abortion thread and then post to that when you have these little updates? Frankly, I and quite a few others here are getting sick of wading through your endless proselytizing and preaching via your endless abortion/condom/teenage sex threads.

Thanks for your consideration.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
This reminds me of how Darwin's supposed recantation on his death bed is trotted out by creationists to attack the idea of evolution. But here's the problem with this, ideas don't rest on one person. "Jane Roe" thinking abortion is a good thing has no more merit than if she thought it was a bad thing. It has no influence on the idea.

At least I'm willing to admit that, but when she agrees with you, suddenly you want to hear what she has to say.
 

CQuinn

Golden Member
May 31, 2000
1,656
0
0
Irrelevant, and this has been brought up before.

The decision of the court was not based on her particular status, but on the constitutional position
of society as a whole.

The high court is not going to reverse a prior decision without an effective challenge being raised
from the lower courts. Otherwise there is no point in trying the merits of the case, since no
other district or appelate court has found reason to decide a case so far in opposition to those
merits.

In other words, if she really wants it reviewed, she's going to have to prove her case in state
courts first.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: CQuinn
Irrelevant, and this has been brought up before.

The decision of the court was not based on her particular status, but on the constitutional position
of society as a whole.

The high court is not going to reverse a prior decision without an effective challenge being raised
from the lower courts. Otherwise there is no point in trying the merits of the case, since no
other district or appelate court has found reason to decide a case so far in opposition to those
merits.

In other words, if she really wants it reviewed, she's going to have to prove her case in state
courts first.

Damn you and your logic :p

Getting on TV and whining is the only way things get done around here ;)
 

Gravity

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2003
5,685
0
0
I'd like to see the the SC hear Jane. I doubt they will re-open or re-try the case but it would be nice to allow a reunion.

We DO know more about abortion now that we did 30 years ago. We know about the after affects on women and their bodies as well as the various developing stages of the baby.

 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Riprorin
The woman known as "Roe" in the landmark case that struck down all state laws restricting abortion is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its 1973 decision...

At a news conference at the Supreme Court tomorrow at 11 a.m. Eastern, McCorvey will announce she wants the high court to reverse Roe vs. Wade, or at least, order a trial on the merits.

Link

Says' McCorvey: "Now we know so much more, and I plead with the court to listen to the witnesses and re-evaluate Roe vs. Wade. It was a dreadful day in America when the Supreme Court allowed a woman to kill her own child."

Can you PLEASE create a single abortion thread and then post to that when you have these little updates? Frankly, I and quite a few others here are getting sick of wading through your endless proselytizing and preaching via your endless abortion/condom/teenage sex threads.

Thanks for your consideration.
:thumbsup:
call it "Rip's pointless abortion thread"
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Riprorin
The woman known as "Roe" in the landmark case that struck down all state laws restricting abortion is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its 1973 decision...

At a news conference at the Supreme Court tomorrow at 11 a.m. Eastern, McCorvey will announce she wants the high court to reverse Roe vs. Wade, or at least, order a trial on the merits.

Link

Says' McCorvey: "Now we know so much more, and I plead with the court to listen to the witnesses and re-evaluate Roe vs. Wade. It was a dreadful day in America when the Supreme Court allowed a woman to kill her own child."

Can you PLEASE create a single abortion thread and then post to that when you have these little updates? Frankly, I and quite a few others here are getting sick of wading through your endless proselytizing and preaching via your endless abortion/condom/teenage sex threads.

Thanks for your consideration.
Agreed. Rip's crusade is getting old.

 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Don't forget to tune in at 11:00 EST today.


ill be at work, but ill tune in afterward.
do me a favor and just edit this thread to discuss the actual conference (as opposed to the conference about the conference) and dont start a new one.
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
This is non news, she did this a few years ago and a federal appeals court rejected her. Plus there no precedent of SCOTUS revisiting a case.

Link

A three-judge panel of a federal appeals court dismissed a motion Tuesday from the original plaintiff in Roe v. Wade to have the landmark 1973 abortion case overturned, a court clerk said.

Norma McCorvey's motion asserted she had new information that would affect the case, but the panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Louisiana, rejected her claim, said Rhonda Flowers of the clerk's office.

"The case has been dismissed," Flowers said.

In her motion, McCorvey had argued that abortions cause women long-term emotional harm.

McCorvey is "Jane Roe," the pseudonym she assumed to remain anonymous as the lead plaintiff in the case that legalized abortion in the United States.

Once an abortion-rights supporter, McCorvey has switched sides: She's now a vocal anti-abortion activist.

She began her association with one of the most contentious and volatile sociopolitical issues in 1970, when she became the lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit challenging the strict anti-abortion laws in Texas.

The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Its January 1973 decision legalized the right to an abortion in all 50 states and sparked a political debate that remains charged to this day.

Many challenges to Roe v. Wade have sought to limit when abortions can be performed.

Last week, a third federal judge ruled a ban on late-term abortions was unconstitutional, citing a lack of an exception when a woman's health is in danger. (Full story)

McCorvey's life
McCorvey, who was 21 when the case was filed and was on her third pregnancy, never had an abortion and gave birth to a girl, who was given up for adoption.

McCorvey went public with her identity in the 1980s and wrote a book about her life called "I Am Roe: My Life, Roe v. Wade, and Freedom of Choice."

In the book, McCorvey, a ninth-grade dropout, describes a tough life, explaining that she suffered physical and emotional abuse as a child, spent some time in reform school and was raped as a teenager. She also tells of her alcohol and drug abuse, and experiences with lovers of both sexes.

Her first child, Melissa, was raised by her mother; her second child was raised by the father, and the couple agreed that McCorvey would never contact her.

She drifted through a series of dead-end jobs, including work as a bartender and a carnival barker. Once she went public with her story, she worked in several clinics where abortions were performed and did some public speaking, garnering publicity and a little bit of celebrity.

In 1995, McCorvey was working at a Dallas women's clinic when the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue moved its offices next door.

She and the Rev. Phillip Benham of Operation Rescue struck up a relationship across the protest lines when she would go outside to smoke.

Benham, an evangelical preacher, began discussing Christianity with McCorvey. She became friendly with some of Operation Rescue's office staff, and then she accepted an invitation from the daughter of the group's office manager to attend church. That night, she converted to Christianity.

McCorvey co-wrote a book about her religious conversion titled "Won By Love."

Besides, she knows nothing about having an abortion. She never had one.
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
so sv, what was she going to do today? same thing?

(nice grant morrison quote, by the by)
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,576
72
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
As to the meat of your post; more dreadful by far will be the day the Supreme Court allows a government to control the bodies and wills of it's citizens, regardless of gender.
So its ok if I poke a hole in the back of your head and suck out your brains? I mean, how can the govt dare controll the wills of one of its citizens right?
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Just wanted to laugh at your sig, and moreso at the ignorance of truman. Guess Bush isn't the first stupid president we've had.

As to the meat of your post; more dreadful by far will be the day the Supreme Court allows a government to control the bodies and wills of it's citizens, regardless of gender.

Just want to keep things in context.

If the SC decided to reverse Roe v Wade, do you know what would actually happen? Issue would be thrown back to the states, and each state could decide how to handle abortation.

 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,818
136
I don't think it's possible for the law to backtrack on Roe v. Wade - even if the federal law was scrapped, you'd see a practical rebellion in any state that decided to criminalize abortion afterwards (yes, even in the Deep South). Legal abortion might be unpleasant, but so is looking at adoption, backalley abortions, or having to deal with a child you can't possibly afford to raise... and before the conservatives here step in on that last point, if a couple's contraceptives fail or their financial circumstances suddenly take a sharp decline, they can be in the same boat as the merely irresponsible.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
As to the meat of your post; more dreadful by far will be the day the Supreme Court allows a government to control the bodies and wills of it's citizens, regardless of gender.
So its ok if I poke a hole in the back of your head and suck out your brains? I mean, how can the govt dare controll the wills of one of its citizens right?

You can try...you might not like my reaction though...which, btw, would be fully lawful within the context of the event. :cool:

As for citizenship...you have to actually have been born to be a citizen, unless I've missed a fairly important scotus ruling somewhere. While I've heard arguments about being alive while in the womb, I've never heard of citizenship granted to a fetus.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Just wanted to laugh at your sig, and moreso at the ignorance of truman. Guess Bush isn't the first stupid president we've had.

As to the meat of your post; more dreadful by far will be the day the Supreme Court allows a government to control the bodies and wills of it's citizens, regardless of gender.

Just want to keep things in context.

If the SC decided to reverse Roe v Wade, do you know what would actually happen? Issue would be thrown back to the states, and each state could decide how to handle abortation.

Which is exactly what should happen anyway...but that's not what WOULD happen, not with a minister in the oval office instead of a president.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
The woman known as "Roe" in the landmark case that struck down all state laws restricting abortion is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its 1973 decision...

At a news conference at the Supreme Court tomorrow at 11 a.m. Eastern, McCorvey will announce she wants the high court to reverse Roe vs. Wade, or at least, order a trial on the merits.

Link

Says' McCorvey: "Now we know so much more, and I plead with the court to listen to the witnesses and re-evaluate Roe vs. Wade. It was a dreadful day in America when the Supreme Court allowed a woman to kill her own child."

Well I'll say this for sure: WOW.

Jason
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
As to the meat of your post; more dreadful by far will be the day the Supreme Court allows a government to control the bodies and wills of it's citizens, regardless of gender.
So its ok if I poke a hole in the back of your head and suck out your brains? I mean, how can the govt dare controll the wills of one of its citizens right?

You can try...you might not like my reaction though...which, btw, would be fully lawful within the context of the event. :cool:

As for citizenship...you have to actually have been born to be a citizen, unless I've missed a fairly important scotus ruling somewhere. While I've heard arguments about being alive while in the womb, I've never heard of citizenship granted to a fetus.

But you have heard of leagel pretection be granted to fetuses, brought up during the Lisa Peterson murder case.