Roe seeks to overturn Roe

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Roe doesn't want Roe



Quote:

On the 33rd anniversary of her initial lawsuit, which resulted in the high court's historic ruling three years later, Norma McCorvey (search) announced Tuesday she will petition the court to reopen the original case, based on changes in law and technology over the last 30 years.



That pretty much sums up this article. I will admit this is a very intesting way of striking at the abortion decision that I have never heard anyone ponder. I guess it is very rare for the original party to seek to have their own lawsuit overturned.



What do you think the chances are for her motion?



In an interesting bit of pondering and being a picky-butt about things, I have to point out that Roe did not legalize abortion. It nationalized abortion. However in seeking to overturn her own case McCorvey could bring about making abortion illegal instead of just an issue that goes back to the states. That to me, would be the profoundly ironic. This is because one of the arguments she is using is medical science about fetal developement. She is seeking person-status for fetuses which would be much more than just overturning Roe.



Quote:

? There is more evidence being submitted proving the harmful effects of abortions on women now that should outweigh McCorvey's single, original testimony 30 years ago arguing for abortion.



? The question of when life begins has been answered by scientific evidence within the past 30 decades.



? Various "Baby Moses" laws in 40 states say the states will take care of a child if the mother cannot, providing an alternative to abortion.



We live in interesting times.



Nick
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman





    We live in interesting times.







    There is a Chinese curse that says "may you live in interesting times."



    that is all.
  • Reply 2 of 24
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    ? The question of when life begins has been answered by scientific evidence within the past 30 decades.



    I think someone forgot to tell all the scientists.
  • Reply 3 of 24
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    There is a Chinese curse that says "may you live in interesting times."



    that is all.




    Some quote the same lines and say it is a Jewish Blessing..I wonder what its origins really are ?



    As per abortions..



    Hmmm..



    35 Million aborted children in America alone since 1973..

    Ten times more (roughly ) than all americans killed in all the wars she has fought since her beginning..



    Sounds more like government sanctioned genocide of the innocent.
  • Reply 4 of 24
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Her feelings about it now are irrelevant to the courts decision back then. Unless she can cite errors in the testimony there's no reason to revisit the first ruling.
  • Reply 5 of 24
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    i've thought this was going to be the big turning point for some time now. (the technology angle)



    interesting to see that she's big enough to be willing to overturn her own lawsuit if she thinks it's wrong.
  • Reply 6 of 24
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    I'm sure many will say she's been brainwashed by the pro-life people.





    Either way a new case needs to come up to present these new issues. The Court has said they are not interested in revisiting this issue so ... status quo for now.
  • Reply 7 of 24
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Her feelings about it now are irrelevant to the courts decision back then. Unless she can cite errors in the testimony there's no reason to revisit the first ruling.



    Really?



    Quote:

    We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."



    Seems to me she is right on.



    Nick
  • Reply 8 of 24
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Her changed attitude is old news . . . it seems that every year she gets another 15 minutes.
  • Reply 9 of 24
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    i dont think she adds or subtracts anything from the prolife case. that she was involved in the original suit is incidental.
  • Reply 10 of 24
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Really?







    Seems to me she is right on.



    Nick




    Yes.



    She may be right on but the case was put before the court way back when and the decision was made. End of story. No reason to reopen the case.



    A NEW case needs to come up for the court to look at this issue again.
  • Reply 11 of 24
    this poor woman has been convinced by the brain-dead zealots that she is responsible for 30 million dead babies. they trot her out every so often for this ludicrous dog and pony show, apparently the freeway over pass thing isn't working out.
  • Reply 12 of 24
    enaena Posts: 667member
    IIRC, I think there is an issue with bad/wrong/perjured testimony.
  • Reply 13 of 24
    the judiciary has had plenty of chances to overturn it on the merits that her attorneys are likely to present in their case.

    face it, roe v. wade is pretty entrenched.
  • Reply 14 of 24
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    My question is, what does Wade have to say??
  • Reply 15 of 24
    henry wade died in 2001.

    interestingly, he would of been the prosecutor in the oswald case.
  • Reply 16 of 24
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aquafire

    Sounds more like government sanctioned genocide of the innocent.



    I find this statement amusing to no end.
  • Reply 17 of 24
    shadygshadyg Posts: 64member
    I don't see how a challenge to the ruling could realistically be brought via a new case. Since the effect of the ruling is that states cannot make laws prohibiting abortion, an individual cannot make any kind of appeal on the grounds that they are injured. The aggreived party would have to be a state itself that passes a law and gets it deemed unconstitutional by its own Supreme Court. Then I guess the state could appeal to the USSC. But would any state attempt to pass such a law in blatent disregard for the current Law of the Land? Well, I guess if CA can legalize medicinal marijuana knowing they'd have to face down the Feds, some state out there could give it a go. But what lawmakers would be inclined to stick their neck out that far?



    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?



    -- ShadyG
  • Reply 18 of 24
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Yes.



    She may be right on but the case was put before the court way back when and the decision was made. End of story. No reason to reopen the case.



    A NEW case needs to come up for the court to look at this issue again.




    If you read Norma McCorvey's take on reveals quite a bit. She can't cite any errors in the testimony because she was never asked for any. She was a homeless white woman, who signed an affidavit and learned about the decision in the newspapers. She herself never had an abortion.



    Testimony



    Nick
  • Reply 19 of 24
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    I find this statement amusing to no end.



    You find Government sanctioned genocide of the innocent amusing.

    At least your consistent,( re enviromental issues ) even if lacking any real apparent understanding of how abortion has an ongoing impact on our society's values & long term future.\
  • Reply 20 of 24
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    If you read Norma McCorvey's take on reveals quite a bit.



    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.