Roe from Roe V. Wade Files Motion to Overturn Ruling

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
(AP) The former plaintiff known as "Jane Roe" in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized abortion sought to have the case overturned in a motion filed Tuesday that asks the courts to consider new evidence that abortion hurts women.

Norma McCorvey, who joined the anti-abortion fight nearly 10 years ago and says she regrets her role in Roe v. Wade, said the Supreme Court's decision is no longer valid because scientific and anecdotal evidence that has come to light in the last 30 years has shown the negative effects of abortion.

"We're getting our babies back," a jubilant McCorvey said at a news conference while flanked by about 60 women, some who sobbed and held signs that read "I regret my abortion."

"I feel like the weight of the world has just been lifted off my shoulders," said McCorvey, 55.

Sarah Weddington, the abortion advocate and attorney who originally represented McCorvey, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. A representative from the National Organization for Women also did not immediately return a message.

Allen Parker Jr., McCorvey's attorney, said he could not remember any other landmark case in which the plaintiff has asked to have it overturned.

"I think the new evidence will show the court what they thought was good will turn out to be an instrument of wrong," said Parker, who is with the San Antonio-based Texas Justice Foundation.

McCorvey filed the motion with the federal district court in Dallas, which ruled to legalize abortion in Texas before the Supreme Court ruling. The Texas attorney general's office and Dallas district attorney each have 20 days to respond to the motion.

McCorvey and her attorneys asked the federal court to consider more than 5,400 pages of evidence, including 1,000 affidavits from women who say they regret their abortions.

McCorvey was a 21-year-old carnival barker when, pregnant for the third time, she sought an abortion. She agreed to be the plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking to overturn Texas' anti-abortion statute.

The Supreme Court decision came after she had the baby. It was the third child she put up for adoption. McCorvey publicly identified herself as Jane Roe in 1980.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/17/national/main559102.shtml
 
Isn't this just stupid grandstanding?


What if Brown became a Black separatist?

Should segregation be brought back?

Should we overturn Brown v. Board of Education
 
I think the evidence is circumstantial and irrelevent, at best.

"McCorvey and her attorneys asked the federal court to consider more than 5,400 pages of evidence, including 1,000 affidavits from women who say they regret their abortions."

"Evidence." I'm guessing "evidence" that says women really don't want their abortions. That's fine and all, but I don't see how that changes any of the legal and constitutional issues that legalized abortion to begin with.

Melon
 
deep in HELL said:
Isn't this just stupid grandstanding?
What if Brown became a Black separatist?
Should segregation be brought back?
Should we overturn Brown v. Board of Education

The two issues are nothing alike. Nothing.
 
Exactly how long has it been known that Norma McCorvey is a "nut case"? What is your proof that she is a "nut case".
 
We can debate her sanity all day long, and we can debate the relative safety of abortions all day long, too. It boils down to this: My freedoms should not be limited because someone else is unhappy with a choice she was allowed to make. So she's sorry. Then don't have another abortion. :tsk:
 
does this woman not even understand why the supreme court made this decision? they did not say its ok to have an abortion because the fetus is not an actual child. they simply ruled in favor of Roe because having an abortion is part of a woman's right to privacy -- a right the government supposedly can't push itself in to.

Regardless of the evidence Roe is going to produce now that states that a fetus is a child, it doesn't negate the fact that the decision had nothing to do with that.
 
80sU2isBest said:


The two issues are nothing alike. Nothing.


I understand what you are saying.

Segregation is less divisive than abortion.

But, I think the comparison is fair, that Brown or McCorvey?s changing their personal beliefs should not undo a decision.
 
80sU2isBest said:
Exactly how long has it been known that Norma McCorvey is a "nut case"? What is your proof that she is a "nut case".

I did read the 11 page brief.

I do not find her credible.
 
deep said:



I understand what you are saying.

Segregation is less divisive than abortion.

No, that's not really what I was saying. What I was saying was that giving a woman the right to terminate her baby is nowhere near as important an issue as the basic right to be treated like a human being (which is what the civil rights movement was all about). Especially for osmeone like me, who believes that abortion is slaughter of innocent people and that it is shameful for the government to condone slaughter of innocent people .
 
80sU2isBest said:
Exactly how long has it been known that Norma McCorvey is a "nut case"? What is your proof that she is a "nut case".

I think sparkysgrowl's use of the word "nutcase" was either (a) slang for someone whi is mentally ill or (2) someone who disagrees with her or, more likely a slang combination of the two. Either way, as "true U2 fans," it is our duty to agree with her and laugh along with her characterization of McCorvey as a "nutcase."

~U2Alabama
 
Last edited:
I've no wishes to control any one's body or decide any of the issues presented in Roe v. Wade, I merely commented on the use of the word "nutcase."

~U2Alabama
 
martha said:
:sigh:
I love it when complete strangers think my body is any of their business.
A person's "rights" end when they infringe on another person's "rights". If the fetus is a living human being, no one has a "right" to kill him/her.
 
That's a big if 80s. Surely you recognize many of us stand on the other side of the if from you. And if we do, then yes, that's an infringement on our bodies.
 
Nutcase is not a word I would use on a discussion board.

I stated I believe she is not credible.

I did read the 11-page affidavit and one she signed in 2000.
Based on those affidavits, she sounds unstable.
 
Back
Top Bottom