A strict reading of her new affifavit would find that she perjurs herself from one section to the next. She clearly knew what an abortion was when she sought one to end her pergnancy, though she subsequently claimed she had no idea what it was - one basis of her complaint. The bit about John Wayne is pure, disgusting theater. A more generous reading would find that she got religion that changed her perception of what a fetus is. Interestingly, she complains that her lawyers should have given her religion in 1970. [shakes head] This is sad. Sad that she was likely manpiulated by lawyers in 1970, and sadder that she's being manipulated by lawyers and religious nuts today. Nothing like being convinced you're responsible for 35 million murders.
You obviously have never worked with people living on the edge, with little education, or with weak mental skills. They will travel about all the time based on hearsay. They show up not really knowing about what they are seeking or knowing what it is all the time. It is standard operating procedure for them in their day to day survival. I see this sort of behavior daily. When you operate daily from ignorance you just sort of show up hoping someone can explain to you what might solve your problem.
You can tell them that the school will provide free lunch for their kindergartener for example and you will see them show up the next day with their 4 and 2 year old wondering if it applies to them as well. How do you explain what a "food stamp" is to someone who has less than a 6th grade education, speaks a language other than English, and has no background information to which to relate this information.
You likely do this yourself in some day to day matters and you certainly aren't a liar as a result. Ever had a home repair matter where you show up down at the hardware story with a problem but no real knowledge about what tools are needed, what the name of the parts/materials are, what adhesives or other items are needed, etc. You just show up hoping someone can give a little advice/explanation, point you in the direction and you can buy what you think might help you solve your problem. I watch people do this with credit, retirement planning, buying homes, buying cars, etc.
I have no doubt that McCorvey could have gone around seeking an abortion without full knowledge of what that entailed. Likewise she complains that abortion clinics essentually lie to these ignorant women when they show up as to the nature of what an abortion is from her perspective. They lie with regard to the risks and side effects of the procedure.
We aren't talking high minded debate here. We are talking about limited experience and getting fed lies when you seek true answers. Think about how many laws have been fought against that do not stop abortion, but just seek to fully inform the participants as to what they are going to experience. You may consider it just a piece of flesh with nothing near what a human brain would be yet. However they might see the little once inch arms or legs during the procedure and be highly tramatized by the realization that come from their uninformed view.
Ever read the terms of a cash/check advancing place? Ever watched someone get sucked into timeshare, health club, etc. not realizing the terms they have signed.
I'm sorry to drone on, but to claim someone can't walk around ignorant while seeking is just folly. I see it happen to plenty of people on matters not so heated as abortion. You likely do it yourself in some matters of day to day life and so do I. (You should have me when I couldn't understand that caulk can be cleaned up with water when it is supposed to keep out water.)
I'm not a legal scholar...people talk about "overturning" Roe v. Wade, but it was decided by the Supreme Court. To whom can you appeal? Can the same court re-hear a case and decide differently, or must all appeals be directed toward a higher court?
The Supreme Court can revisit the issue via a new case and in the course of crafting their decision they can modify or even overturn previous rulings. Roe isn't the only case that sets forth the Supreme Court's thinking on the subject of abortion. "Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services" and "Casey vs. Planned Parenthood" further clarified the Court's thinking on the matter. Supposedly the Court has made their rulings with reference to the Constitution. IMO that's simply not true.
A federal district court has dismissed a request by the former plaintiff known as "Jane Roe" to reconsider the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion 30 years ago.
Norma McCorvey, who joined the anti-abortion fight 10 years ago, filed the "motion for relief from judgment" Tuesday, asking the court to reopen Roe v. Wade and conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into scientific and anecdotal evidence she says shows abortion hurts women.
The court dismissed McCorvey's request late Thursday, saying it wasn't made within a "reasonable time" after the 1973 judgment.
"Whether or not the Supreme Court was infallible, its Roe decision was certainly final in this litigation," Judge David Godbey wrote in the ruling. "It is simply too late now, thirty years after the fact, for McCorvey to revisit that judgment."
A spokeswoman for the Texas Justice Foundation, which is representing McCorvey, did not immediately return a message for comment...
You obviously have never worked with people living on the edge, with little education, or with weak mental skills. [etc etc]
I agree with everything you say, but from what little I know of this woman she doesn't fit into those categories. It struck me reading her affidavit how she appears (though never says explicitly) to have come from a relatively well-off background. Her mother was able and willing to care for her first child. She was almost married to a doctor, but turned down his proposal. She had easy access to medical care. She had access to the (dubious) support of both her parents. On the other hand, she was terribly abused, obviously severely depressed (why in the world didn't her doctor investigate that?) and eventually would up in a substance-abusing street lifestyle. But she wasn't a dirt-poor, non-english speaking immigrant at the mercy of anyone who gave her a dollar. "Middle class kid who fell through the cracks" seems to fit better, but I wouldn't be surprised if an unembelished biography found she was basically a normal (for the late-60s) middle-class HS graduate. If, perhaps, a bit on the dim (and depressed) side.
I couldn't, after some quick googling, find a biography of her that didn't pretend her life began when she was baptized in 1995. I'd be curious to read one, though.
Comments
Originally posted by Towel
A strict reading of her new affifavit would find that she perjurs herself from one section to the next. She clearly knew what an abortion was when she sought one to end her pergnancy, though she subsequently claimed she had no idea what it was - one basis of her complaint. The bit about John Wayne is pure, disgusting theater. A more generous reading would find that she got religion that changed her perception of what a fetus is. Interestingly, she complains that her lawyers should have given her religion in 1970. [shakes head] This is sad. Sad that she was likely manpiulated by lawyers in 1970, and sadder that she's being manipulated by lawyers and religious nuts today. Nothing like being convinced you're responsible for 35 million murders.
You obviously have never worked with people living on the edge, with little education, or with weak mental skills. They will travel about all the time based on hearsay. They show up not really knowing about what they are seeking or knowing what it is all the time. It is standard operating procedure for them in their day to day survival. I see this sort of behavior daily. When you operate daily from ignorance you just sort of show up hoping someone can explain to you what might solve your problem.
You can tell them that the school will provide free lunch for their kindergartener for example and you will see them show up the next day with their 4 and 2 year old wondering if it applies to them as well. How do you explain what a "food stamp" is to someone who has less than a 6th grade education, speaks a language other than English, and has no background information to which to relate this information.
You likely do this yourself in some day to day matters and you certainly aren't a liar as a result. Ever had a home repair matter where you show up down at the hardware story with a problem but no real knowledge about what tools are needed, what the name of the parts/materials are, what adhesives or other items are needed, etc. You just show up hoping someone can give a little advice/explanation, point you in the direction and you can buy what you think might help you solve your problem. I watch people do this with credit, retirement planning, buying homes, buying cars, etc.
I have no doubt that McCorvey could have gone around seeking an abortion without full knowledge of what that entailed. Likewise she complains that abortion clinics essentually lie to these ignorant women when they show up as to the nature of what an abortion is from her perspective. They lie with regard to the risks and side effects of the procedure.
We aren't talking high minded debate here. We are talking about limited experience and getting fed lies when you seek true answers. Think about how many laws have been fought against that do not stop abortion, but just seek to fully inform the participants as to what they are going to experience. You may consider it just a piece of flesh with nothing near what a human brain would be yet. However they might see the little once inch arms or legs during the procedure and be highly tramatized by the realization that come from their uninformed view.
Ever read the terms of a cash/check advancing place? Ever watched someone get sucked into timeshare, health club, etc. not realizing the terms they have signed.
I'm sorry to drone on, but to claim someone can't walk around ignorant while seeking is just folly. I see it happen to plenty of people on matters not so heated as abortion. You likely do it yourself in some matters of day to day life and so do I. (You should have me when I couldn't understand that caulk can be cleaned up with water when it is supposed to keep out water.)
Nick
Originally posted by ShadyG
I'm not a legal scholar...people talk about "overturning" Roe v. Wade, but it was decided by the Supreme Court. To whom can you appeal? Can the same court re-hear a case and decide differently, or must all appeals be directed toward a higher court?
The Supreme Court can revisit the issue via a new case and in the course of crafting their decision they can modify or even overturn previous rulings. Roe isn't the only case that sets forth the Supreme Court's thinking on the subject of abortion. "Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services" and "Casey vs. Planned Parenthood" further clarified the Court's thinking on the matter. Supposedly the Court has made their rulings with reference to the Constitution. IMO that's simply not true.
By LISA FALKENBERG (Associated Press Writer)
The Associated Press
Web Posted : 06/20/2003 10:55 AM
A federal district court has dismissed a request by the former plaintiff known as "Jane Roe" to reconsider the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion 30 years ago.
Norma McCorvey, who joined the anti-abortion fight 10 years ago, filed the "motion for relief from judgment" Tuesday, asking the court to reopen Roe v. Wade and conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into scientific and anecdotal evidence she says shows abortion hurts women.
The court dismissed McCorvey's request late Thursday, saying it wasn't made within a "reasonable time" after the 1973 judgment.
"Whether or not the Supreme Court was infallible, its Roe decision was certainly final in this litigation," Judge David Godbey wrote in the ruling. "It is simply too late now, thirty years after the fact, for McCorvey to revisit that judgment."
A spokeswoman for the Texas Justice Foundation, which is representing McCorvey, did not immediately return a message for comment...
Originally posted by trumptman
You obviously have never worked with people living on the edge, with little education, or with weak mental skills. [etc etc]
I agree with everything you say, but from what little I know of this woman she doesn't fit into those categories. It struck me reading her affidavit how she appears (though never says explicitly) to have come from a relatively well-off background. Her mother was able and willing to care for her first child. She was almost married to a doctor, but turned down his proposal. She had easy access to medical care. She had access to the (dubious) support of both her parents. On the other hand, she was terribly abused, obviously severely depressed (why in the world didn't her doctor investigate that?) and eventually would up in a substance-abusing street lifestyle. But she wasn't a dirt-poor, non-english speaking immigrant at the mercy of anyone who gave her a dollar. "Middle class kid who fell through the cracks" seems to fit better, but I wouldn't be surprised if an unembelished biography found she was basically a normal (for the late-60s) middle-class HS graduate. If, perhaps, a bit on the dim (and depressed) side.
I couldn't, after some quick googling, find a biography of her that didn't pretend her life began when she was baptized in 1995. I'd be curious to read one, though.