High Court Asked to Overturn Roe V. Wade

[wicket]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050119/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion_2

The woman once known as "Jane Roe" has asked the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion 32 years ago.

Norma McCorvey, whose protest of Texas' abortion ban led to the 1973 ruling, contends in a petition received at the court Tuesday that the case should be heard again in light of evidence that the procedure may harm women.

"Now we know so much more, and I plead with the court to listen for witnesses and re-evaluate Roe v. Wade (news - web sites)," said McCorvey, who says she now regrets her role in the case.

The politically charged issue comes before the court as both sides gird for a possible bitter nomination fight over Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's replacement should the ailing justice retire this term. At least three justices, including Rehnquist, have said Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned.

[complain jane]

1. Enjoy your new house/car/nosejob, Norma,

because nobody gives a shit and the law doesn't change on your whim.

[Redleg]

8. LOL (EOM)

[Inland]

2. Safe from prosecution herself, she asks for jail terms for others

How can Bush resist this lady, given his that he too is safe from prosecution for his own coke use, and therefore becomes a proponent of draconian penalties for others?

[renaissanceguy]

99. Well it's all right when THEY do it.

I'll bet if one of Bushie's daughters got knocked up, they'd get their abortion.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16778992

[ixion]

3. so I wonder how much she got paid

to say that.

Maybe nothing, but I think the timing of this (and her reasoning) are suspicious.

[Donkeyboy75]

15. She's been saying crap like this for years.

I do wonder why it's now making headlines, though.

[barb162]

17. I am very worried; R. v. W. is going to be challenged this term

[TheWraith]

25. Not neccessarily.

I'm not convinced that they will mount a full-court effort to challenge it. It's the same reason that they won't really try to pass the anti-gay amendment: they would rather have the issue to run on rather than try to actually do anything about it. For that reason, they'll make a little noise, then send some fundraising letter to their supporters about the dirty tricks the evil liberals are using to block the good, 'Christ'ian efforts of God's Own Party. It's one of the instances where their hypocrisy works for us.

[0007]

34. This has been going on for sixty years. If not abortion,

then its 'Gun Control'. And now the new campaign challenge, the gay issue.

[TheWraith]

41. Yes, exactly.

And on issues like gun control, income tax, and the Department of Education, they still have not actually done anything, even when it was in their power to try. Like I said, they want propaganda more than they do success. It's like their famous fixation on the global gag rule. It really has no practical impact, but it's a propaganda thing for them. Realistically, I don't think that there's that much of a chance of them making a push on any of their so-called 'issues'. They won control of the purse-strings and the guns, and that's all that really matters to them.

[renaissanceguy]

100. I'm not so sure.

Regardless of what Bush himself says about the issue, the anti-choicers are motivated, and we have representatives out there supporting them. That's enough to create backward change.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16778992

[SemperEadem]

81. Isn't today the day the right to lifers usually descend upon DC?

[me b zola]

71. Like gay rights issues

this,too,will be used to stir the narrow-minded to the polls for '06.

[Roaming]

35. She's been around for years; I think it's been decades since

she had her change of heart and formed the group that she runs -- here's the web site http://www.roenomore.org/crossing_over/welcome.html

[trezic]

4. Ignorance

She needs to read Article 3 of the constitution.

[renaissanceguy]

101. Let's hope the justices read it the same way.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16778998

[Justitia]

5. Norma McCorvey is a bona fide nutcase, has been for yrs

and yes, her "testimony" has been bankrolled by the religiously insane for some time now, this is nothing new for her / them.

[zann725]

65. And let me guess, she's gonna say "abortion" ruined her life?!

Please!

Even IF this IS the same woman (verified fingerprints or DNA would be reassuring), I'd like to know what hefty "pay-off" she received.

[Dookus]

88. Nope she won't say that

because she never had an abortion. The baby was born and adopted out long before Roe was decided.

[renaissanceguy]

102. It's a moot point for her now, anyway.

She can't have a kid, even if she wanted to. That's why I have a problem when men are anti-choice... Simply stated, if a woman does not have the right over her own body, then she is not equal.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16778944

[WildClarySage]

6. I doubt she's been paid, I think she's been brainwashed.

And there is no evidence that the procedure harms women. That is a crock of shit. Illegal abortions hurt women. Evaluate that, Rehnquist.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

27. Most likely, the two things complement each other.

Like with some famous Hollywood actors & Scientology.

[Canuckistanian]

47. At the very least, she has a powerful advocate group behind her

Ernesto Miranda didn't have the choice to change the Miranda ruling, so why should Norma Bob?

[Democracy Died]

7. Again?!

Jane Roe needs to be slapped around. Repeatedly.

[prolesunited]

26. Yes, I'm sure physically abusing her

would be the answer. :eyes:

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[prolesunited]

40. Sorry, I don't find making jokes

about beating women amusing. It has nothing to do with my maturity level or sense of humor.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MissB]

48. It is hardly egotistical and childish

In a culture where women are still subject to spousal abuse, making jokes about physical violence about women isn't funny. It isn't even insensitive- it is shameful. It does nothing to stop physical abuse against women - joking about it only makes it seem acceptable.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

67. Well, someone here is angry.

Angry enough, at least, to get all my posts deleted, call me a freeper, a fundie, a woman hater, and trying to get me kicked out of the club. Call me crazy, but I don't think I deserve that, given that it wasn't my overreaction to a joke that started this sub-thread. And given all that, yes, I am a bit peeved that some people feel that it's A-OK to squelch one side of the discussion. However, I'm quite happy to be rational, if only someone will be rational back.

[MissB]

70. If the mods felt it was appropriate to delete your messages

and you do not agree, you should take it to the Ask The Administrators forum.

I can't say I had anything to do with your deleted posts. Get angry if you'd like, but take it to the appropriate forum.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

66. You refuse to listen.

We're talking about a joke someone made, not about real violence. It's a joke. It's not meant to be a serious suggestion, no matter how much you try to make it out to be. And you do very well at putting words in my mouth while all of my posts conveniently disappear--I said that overreacting to a simple and harmless joke destroys credibility when you *are* talking about real injustice.

[Clark2008]

93. From those of us who have been slapped around

I say to you - IT'S NOT A JOKE.

And, we see and hear enough of this bullshit on other forums. Don't take it here.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[prolesunited]

54. Thanks all!

Seems the mods found him.

[Mandate My Ass]

55. found him despite being a nearly invisible supernatural being

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CBHagman]

9. The timing is partly due to the anniversary.

I think the actual date of the Roe decision is the 22nd or the 23rd. As a result, at this time of year, DC area commuters risk getting squashed and poked by sign-carrying pro-life demonstrators descending on the Supreme Court grounds.

[Just Me]

10. I wonder who are major contributors to her "Crossing Over Ministry".

I also wonder whether her ministry receives any "faith-based" funding.

[Tempest]

11. She has actually done us a favor

She's brought this up now before Bush has had a chance to stack the SCOTUS with religious nutcases who are looking for any excuse to take control over a woman's body.

[Heddi]

12. In plain terms: I got my rights, so screw yours

Fuck you, Ms. McCorvey. My uterus says fuck you, my reproductive rights say fuck you, my husband says fuck you, and millions of women around this country say fuck you.

She says the procedure harms women----how? The cancer link has been debunked by all except for the Right-Wing Christian Anti-Choicers who see scientific fact as an obstacle to their hyperbole and hysteria. Pray tell, what harm does abortion do to women THAT PREGNANCY DOES NOT?

I certainly hope Ms. McCOrvey isn't suggesting that because the procedure can be emotionally wrenching for a woman (both before, during, and after) then it should be banned---pregnancy is just as emotional, especially when you're forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. THAT seems to be an equally emotionally charged situation, but that's okay, right, Ms. McCorvey?

I would guess, based on her age during the time RvW went to the Supreme Court, that she is beyond her childbearing years. So therefore, the direct implications in no way affect Ms. McCorvey at this time nor at any future time in her life. How lucky for her that she doesn't have to deal with unwanted pregnancy anymore (as she obviously did 32 years ago). How lucky that she feels she can dictate to women what they should and shouldn't do with their bodies---why, the VERY SAME THING that she was so upset about some 30-odd years ago.

Norma, thy name is hypocrite.

[Colorado Blue]

13. Amen.

Sorry about posting the duplicate - I didn't see this - I'm new to posting!

But - this is such an important topic. I am old enough to remember when my friends had to resort to coat-hanger abortions. One was rendered sterile at 18, and almost died. My sister had to pretend she was crazy - had to convince a state appointed shrink that her mental health would be impaired by having a baby. She was 18 and indigent. It was absolutely brutal. By the time the process was complete she was totally outta her tree and it was the fourth month, dangerous and terrible.

Meanwhile, well-to-do women of the Bush class went to good doctors overseas.

Given the current political climate, and the push by the natalists to produce more human capital, and the stated goal of the neocons to boost the US population to 500-600 million (aaaarrrgggghhhhhh), I think we really need to worry.

[KamaAina]

20. The stated goal of the neocons to boost the US pop. to 500 million?

Wow! Back that up with a link, and you've got perhaps the best 14th/15th posts in DU history! :hi:

How do they propose to do that? Mass immgration? Forced births (as you mention)? Annexing Canada and/or Mexico?? :scared:

[KDLarsen]

110. If they can outlaw abortions..

.. the birthrate is going to go through the roof. Or, that's my hunch. But then again, science won't be allowed to keep the elderly alive (either that, or they'll starve from their meager pensions), so I could imagine that death rate would even out the increased birth rate.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

112. I don't think so. But outlawing BIRTH CONTROL may do the trick. (nt)

[genieroze]

23. She's afraid Jesus is coming back and will send her to hell for what

she did. Nut case.

[Heddi]

24. Then let her and Jesus fight that out

Don't drag the rest of civilized society into her dogmatic crisis. Or better yet, she should allow others to partake in (what some consider to be) the GREATEST GIFT FROM GOD----the gift of FREE WILL.

If I want an abortion, that decision (medically) is made between me and my doctor.

If I have an abortion, and my religion teaches me that abortion is a sin, then that is between ME AND MY GOD. Not Norma and her god. Not Jerry Falwell and his god. Not you and your god. ME AND MY GOD.

Bully for Athiests and Agnostics who don't have to worry about the 'come rapture' implications of abortion. But I'm sure Norma would love nothing more but for THEM to feel her internal conflict as well.

I really just do not get so-called Pro-Lifer's (what a misnomer). They're generally republicans, vote based on morals and less government intrusion, yet their ENTIRE PLATFORM is based upon utmost government intrusion into my life---make abortion illegal, make gay marriage illegal, put the bible into schools blah blah blah. Seems like ALOT Of government intrusion into life to me......

Norma should shut the fuck up.

[genieroze]

29. delete dupe

[genieroze]

30. Amen. lol

[arikara]

37. They are not pro-life, that's their term for it

and I NEVER call them that, I prefer calling them pro-control or the fetus protection brigade...

If they really were pro-life they would be fighting to ensure that every child that is born has healthy food, a good education and proper medical care. They'd be fighting to ensure that the earth, air and water are clean and that all creatures are treated with dignity and respect.

[Heddi]

38. I really didn't mean to use that term

I refuse to allow them to dictate the language of the debate. I will never use "Partial Birth Abortion" except in quotes to denote THEIR non-medical definition. I use the medically correct "Intact D&X" or "Intact Dilation and Extraction". No medical textbook or dictionary even has the term Partial Birth Abortion. It's used to play to emotions of simple-thinking folk.

I believe in Choice, period. I also believe in Life, which is why I support school lunch programs, free health care and education for all citizens, prenatal counceling for women, free or very low cost child care for working mothers, a living wage, and generous retirement benefits for everyone who works in this country.

That, to me, is pro-life, because I valuse ALL lives. That's why I'm in nursing school---to ensure that every person I come in contact with is treated with compassion and understanding and respect.

But they're not pro-life. They're not LIFE anything. They're pro-fetus, and even then only tentatively. THey don't believe in free health care (or even low-cost health care) for pregnant women. THey don't believe in health care for people in GENERAL. They don't believe in the social programs that will allow the poor and working poor to better themselves. They don't care about the FETUS unless it forwards their sick political agenda.

In fact, they don't care about the fetus at all. That's just an issue to side-track people. Again, it allows them to appeal to basal emotional values (Babies = good). They care about CONTROL. They're not PRO-LIFE. THey're not even ANTI-ABORTION. They're ANTI-FREEDOM. PRO CONTROL.

For people who are so morally superior and puritanical in their views, they certainly spend alot of time with their noses in the vaginas of the world, no?

[arikara]

97. You said it, sister...

We have to keep up the good fight so that our world doesn't turn out like the one in the Handmaid's Tale.

Best of luck with your nursing career. I was a paramedic, the medical field can be difficult at times but is very gratifying work.

[jdj]

56. there is something to what you are saying ,and not just with regards

to Norma McCorvey. It is a hormonal thing that people get older and some go conservative, I have watched my mother turn into a pro-life wacko with age as well, a one-issue voter.

Maybe there's some hormone that kicks in to keep the human race going once you are past child-bearing years. A grandmother from hell gene or something.

Wherease many young females of all species don't mother their first infants properly. I'll never forget my awe at seeing a friend's pet rat climb down to the ground floor of a three story cage and take her adolescent daughter's newborn children one by one up to the third floor and put them in with her new litter of rat babies (the mass of breedings happened after one hot-to-trot female of the three got out and got pregnant somehow, and one of the babies was a male, and then all hell broke loose...), anyway, the grandmother baby-napped the babies because she knew the daughter was too young and was gonna let them die. It probably has something to do with evolution, this protectiveness, conservatism that older women have with regards to babies...but there are SO MANY kids in foster care that could benefit from this kind of drive to protect kids...but that's to much work, it's much easier just to screech about other women having abortions.

[Heddi]

59. I'm sure you've heard the saying:

A Repubican is a Democrat who Grew Up

Sadly, that's the case for many people (not that they "Grew up" but that they GREW OLD)

My mother is of the FREE LOVE HIPPIE generation. SO many of her compatriots who marched for love and peace and equality are now sitting in their 3-peice suits and calling for Republican ideas to become laws. They became what they protested against. They are their own past enemy.

My mother, as much of a liberal as she is, has started to turn a bit more conservative as she's gotten older. She likes Bill O'Reilly for god's sake!!! I asked her once what happened to the woman who raised me, because THAT woman would have kicked O'Reilly square in the nuts instead of listening with rapt attention to the pearls of wisdom that drip from his drooling chops.

I'm only 28. If anything, i've become MORE liberal as I've aged, and I used to be somewhat Right-Leaning to Centrist when I was younger. But growing up and seeing poverty, seeing disinfranchisement, seeing inequalities, I can't help but to become MORE compassionate to the world around me. I pray that never changes, and I'm sure it won't.

I love your story about the Rat Momma. That is basically a parallel to the "it takes a village" mentality that supposedly we used to have. WE don't have that anymore. Not only because of our highly commutable society where no one knows their neighbors, family lives miles away from each other, we live on one end of town and work and play and school on another.

I think that as much as our society has "evolved" we've equally "Devolved". We are just as classist and racist as we ever were. We're willing to help Ms. Pretty BLonde with the SUV when she needs someone to watch the kids so she can get a manicure, but we never even THINK to ask the working black mother with 3 kids if she'd like to have a day off just to SIT and do NOTHING for a few hours.

We're so wrapped up in our self-contained world that we've immunized ourselves from the suffering around us. We have the attitude that goes beyond NIMBY (not in my backyard) and has turned into NIML (not in my life). If *I* don't want an abortion, NO ONE should have an abortion. If *I* don't need free daycare, NO ONE should have free daycare.

I think with alot of older adults, and this is antectdotal based on the people I know, some of them are resentful that when THEY were bringing up children, THEY didn't have daycare provided by their jobs and THEY were able to make it, so why can't someone make it now?

or

When THEIR kids were in school, THEY didn't have free lunches, and THEY turned out okay, so OTHER KIDS TODAY shouldn't have free lunches.

It's almost a sense of past-entitlement. Not that I need this now, and am jealous that I can't have it, but that I don't need it now, but I needed it then and am Jealous the opportunity wasn't given to me.

Because I had to suffer then, everyone should suffer now.

I had to walk three miles to school in the snow, so there shouldn't be bussing for kids that live in rural areas, etc.

That's at least all I can figure out. Maybe I'm off the mark (prolly am!) but it seems that alot of older people who have turned conservative in their later years do so out of resentment of the things that we have now that they didn't have then.

or something

:)

[jdj]

85. At 36, I have a sneaking suspicion that it is anger and resentment

at the loss of self-definition and the feeling of life passing you by. I am amazed at some of the changes in me and the feelings I am having, and it is really a devastating loss not to be one's young self anymore.

But there is no ritual for this, for the loss of sexuality and attractiveness in particular. It's odd, that there is one for the rite of passage into adulthood. But attractiveness/youthfulness is such a part of identity and it wouldn't surprise me that alot of pro-life hate and resentment should spring from losing this part of one'self and using that movement to vent at young women in the prime of the sexual power that our culture affords young people. With many men, for women to have any power at all is threatening, so it may not be an age thing for them, but with aging women, well, it feels a bit like just being invisible, and older women who can't own this feeling in themselves have this movement to join to vent their feelings of anger and loss. Because I have always felt that the aborted fetus is a projection of pro-life people, it is some unresolved pain or victimization within themselves that drives them to such lengths, at least with regards to normal first tri-mester abortion.

[Jaybird]

14. hmmmm.....

....for some reason I was under the impression that americans don't like flip-floppers. If I'm not mistaken, this is a major flip-flop and she should be ridiculed by every right wing nut with a microphone for not making her decisions and sticking to them. The avalanche of negative commentary will be overwhelming for this poor woman.....or maybe not.

[rachelbirds]

16. Her and her attorney

were interviewed the other night. She said she won't give up trying to right the wrong she created. Nut Case???

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

96. My instincts say she's in it for the money.

She's a dream propaganda tool for the Right. Must be worth millions.

[AlCzervik]

18. Ok Norma, lets go back to the days of back alley abortions

Does she think that abortions will just not be done anymore? I can't even wrap my head around her insanity.

[renaissanceguy]

103. We're dealing with ideologues.

You can't talk logic with ideologues. They aren't concerned about facts.

Even so, I'm sure plenty of wingnuts out there believe that women deserve to die or become infected/sterilized by performing illegal abortions. These are anti-choice people, who believe anyone who doesn't think or act like them should be punished.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16778992

[Judi Lynn]

19. You can be sure they've not let her alone one moment from the second

her name became known publically.

To truly stupid people, getting her to recant would be like "taking back" abortion rights!

They don't seem to recognize far more is involved here than their own childish, selfish, ignorant demands they want rammed down the throats of every vulnerable female.

[RedCloud]

21. Human body aborts more than 67% of all embryos!

Sounds like W needs to arrest the good Lord then!

Maybe that case can be called "Rove V. Gays"

[jazzjunkysue]

68. Is 67 a reliable number? Got a source for that? Amazing.

[genieroze]

22. She didn't regret it then but now she wants to force women into

subservience. :grr:

[serryjw]

75. You do know that

she never benefited from Roe. It became the law of the land after her baby was born.

[renaissanceguy]

104. What was her argument during Roe?

and why the sudden change?

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16778992

[serryjw]

111. If I remember correctly......

she was very poor and had a few children and could not afford any more.....ROE became the law of the land with the help of the 4th amendment.....people argue that there is no 'privacy' built into the Constitution.....I disagree
quote......
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now I will never believe that my Founding Fathers cared about my VCR and NOT my body!They were brilliant but even they never considered the possibility of terminating preganancy at will.

Norma, has simply drinken the Koolaid. She is treated like royalty by the RW. They are using her and she loves it. She has never lived so well, nor with no eduaction or skills would she have a way to break out of poverty if it wasn't for the RW. Many claim to be saddened by their prior decison...I would expect that would if they have a conscience. BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT, it was the right decision at the time...you can't re-write history because someone middle age regrets making the decision when she was younger and could not have the child then.

[w4rma]

28. The push for more oppression within America. The wealthy can always fly

to another country to have *their* abortions done in secret. Heck, the middle class can too, now. This anti-abortion crap only affects the poor (except for the potential for epidemics from the unlicensed medical work). But it is *very* oppressive towards the poor. Anti-abortion policy is pro-death, not pro-life. Coat-hanger abortions, back alley unlicensed "doctors". More people on state welfare from within prison and more burials for the attempted abortions (and for the folks who needed abortions because of medical complications in their pregnancy).

[sarcasmo]

31. It's going to happen during Chimpy's next four years.

This is why all the moral freaks came out and voted. I have asked many Repukes here in the right wing part of Michigan and their only answer is Bush will get ride of abortion. The sad thing is once they have done away with abortion who will they go after next? My guess it will be birth control.

[Fleshdancer]

32. so abortion was OK when SHE was fertile??

my mother in law flipped on this too...she had a legal abortion in the 80's and now she wants abortion to be illegal. how convenient that she already went through menopause and now it's OK to lock women up for having the same procedure she was able to obtain by choice. :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Anakin Skywalker]

90. Good Point, Sister!

Right on!

[renaissanceguy]

105. It's OK when it's THEIR doing.

Like any anti-choice person, they do not want other people to have any choices, but of course they should be the exception to all rules.

Now as for her change of heart, I believe it might have something to do with fundie religion. Does anybody have evidence to prove this or otherwise?

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16778992

[Book Lover]

36. She tried this before

Wasn't it only last year? And that case was thrown out of court. Norma, if you want to stop abortions, please work for freely available birth control and responsible sex education. Your voice would be so powerful and would affect people on both sides of this issue. You can do so much, and yet you choose to be so ineffective. This case will go nowhere, just like it did last time.

[Brooklyn Michael]

39. The suit to reopen Roe v Wade WAS thrown out...

...last year. A good look at that case, and a history of abortion in the courts can be found at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20040916.html

Not a shoo-in, but if the previous case is any indication, this latest attempt should be thrown out as well.



“People say I am ruthless. I am not ruthless. And if I find the man who is calling me ruthless, I shall destroy him.” – Robert F. Kennedy

[American Tragedy]

42. Of course, she says this now that she's too old to be affected by it.

It was just fine when her own life and body were at stake. Just like my friend's mother, who is a hardcore Republican, yet apparently temporarily revised her conservative position when her own daughter became pregnant a few years ago. That, of course, is a secret.

[Solly Mack]

43. Psst, Norma. It was never about you to begin with

It was about the rights of all women. Just because you became the test case doesn't mean you words carry any weight on the matter now.

Harsh reality but you're just a symbol. You were Jane Roe....the anonymous woman who represented all women in the fight to gain control over our bodies. You're not even needed to be Jane Roe anymore.

As Norma McCorvey, you're just another symbol for the other side.

Symbols only have the power people give to them.

I yield to you no power.

[daleo]

44. Would she have legal standing at this point?

I just don't see it, 32 years later.

[JudyM]

53. My thoughts, exactly. n/t

[renaissanceguy]

106. Doubtful, BUT

remember that there are plenty of younger, anti-choice women out there.

The thing is, I wonder HOW they would have legal standing. Think of it this way:

1) Jane Roe was pregnant and wanted to terminate it
2) Abortion was illegal
3) Therefore, she was oppressed and had legal standing

NOW... How would a pregnant woman have legal standing to overturn it? She has the right to carry the fetus.

Here's what concerns me... With the Laci Peterson case, do fetuses have legal standing? Could pregnant women, therefore, speak on behalf of their fetuses?

I'm also concerned about how the MSM doesn't use the word "fetus" anymore... in fact, MSNBC tends to call it a "baby," not even "unborn child."

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16778992

[Wisc Badger]

45. In my College Constitutional Law course

that I took for political science, I learned that she was manipulated into being Roe by lawyers looking for a way to go after abortion.

I have always thought that as a matter of pure law Row V Wade was a badly/flawed reasoned decision.

I would also believe that the stricture of Stary decisis (sp) should apply to the decision now, but that does not chnage the fact that it was a poorly reasoned case.

[jdj]

51. by that argument, if she was manipulated then she's

capable of being manipulated now, so we shouldn't take her seriously.

That is quite the sexist post.

I love to hear who how you "learned" that she was manipulated, since obviously she did not tell you this herself.

Where did you go to school, Liberty University?

[Heddi]

61. Can you please parse down why you think that RvW was a bad decision

and why it was poorly reasoned?

And like the other poster said---if you reason that she was so easily manipulated in the past, what is to prevent her from being so easily manipulated now?

BUt the main thrust of my question is to find out your objection to RvW, why you think (or were taught) that it's a bad decision, and how you would do things differently, SIR :evilgrin:

Waiting with baited breath,
hed

[Wisc Badger]

63. Actualy I woudl not do any thing differently now

I just do not see a right to privacy specific in the constitution. When one useses the concept of implied rights than what kind of implied right will a future court find for say the government, perhaps the right to trample on established civil rights?

You see I don't think it is necessarily a conservative outlook to believe that the constitution should have words to back up it's meaning.

But me and my wife had to face a possible abortion situation and it is a bitch of a place to find your self in.

I subscribe to Clinton's idea, safe, legal, rare. Still think it was bad reasoning though.

[Heddi]

64. But if you take away the right to privacy

then there goes Griswod v. Connecticut, (bye bye birth control). And using implied right to privacy is in no way a threat to guaranteed civil rights already outlined in the constitution.

Or are you saying that we should have a constitutional ammendment guaranteeting the right to privacy?

And you don't need to preach to me about finding yourself in an abortion situation. As a male, whether married or not, whether wanting a child or not, you will NEVER face the same situation that a woman finds herself in when SHE is faced with the "abortion situation".

How does RvW do anything to undermine the safe-legal-rare part of the abortions? They're safe because they're regulated. They're legal b/c of RvW, and they'd be rarer if women and men had more access to a variety of health and social services.

Of course many people (not necessarily you) would say that RvW is bad because it forces to federalize an issue that should be a state's right issue, and that RvW should be overturned and turned over to the states to make their own decisions regarding the legality of abortion in that state.

Of course that would make abortion VERY rare in many situations because most states would prohibit not only abortion, but the transportation of a minor across state lines to receive an abortion in a state that would allow abortions.

By the states being able to ban abortion, millions of women who currently have access to abortion services would no longer have that access. They also would most likely not have the funds and time and transportation needs available to travel across the state (or several states if one lives in the Southeast or Midwest) to get an abortion in a state where the procedure were legalized.

Also, in states where abortion would be banned, there would be an increased need for social services for all of the children that were born that would have otherwise been aborted. Many more children on the Medicare rolls, on the state-insurance rolls. More children enrolled in schools. More children in need of welfare, food stamps, WIC, AFDC, SS payments, etc. More of a strain on the health care services offered in those areas.

And of course, as you know, the states that are all set for RvW to be overturned and abortion issue turned over to the states are the states that spend the LEAST for the impovereshed and poor in their states. They have the lowest educational levels, highest teen pregnancy rates, highest STD rates, highest death-in-childbirth rates, highest rates of unemployment, highest rates of uninsured, highest rates of citizens living at or below the poverty level and highest rates of children that live at or below the poverty level.

So please do elaborate on why you think it's bad reasoning, and what could do to make the issue of safe, legal, and rare abortions even safer, more legal, and rarer?

[mitchum]

52. Who cares what YOU think, Norma?

You're just a mentally unbalanced shill for the anti-choice movement.
It's not about you.

[jazzjunkysue]

69. When they lock up the men, too, I'll listen to arguments about abortion.

[Ilsa]

72. May harm women? So does pregnancy.

Some women develop antibodies to their own thyroid during pregnancy. End up with thyroid problems starting months or even years later. And then there is everyhting that can go wrong with pregnancy, labor, and delivery, and postpartum recovery.

[AllyCat]

78. Exactly! This advances the point that birth control must be

readily available...to protect women!!

[Anakin Skywalker]

92. Not to Mention Potential Physical and Mental Abuse

from their Overlords, uh...I mean husbands whom, according to the fundies, women are supposed to be submissive to.

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

73. roe would stand 6-3

ginsberg, breyer, stevens, souter, and even kennedy and occoner would up hold it. Kennedy and occoner voted to uphold it in Planned Parenthood v Casey when it was almost overturned.

[j-t]

74. Can someone clear this up for me

i got into an argument with a right-wing nut job today at work about this and he said that Norma never actually had an abortion, that she put her baby up for adoption...is this true? i wish i could abort my co-workers....

[Scout]

76. yes ... Norma McCorvey never had an abortion

the case was not decided in time for her to terminate her pregnancy. She gave at least one child up for adoption, there may have been others I'm not sure.

[leesa]

77. Norma. Whoring for Bush, eh? What if she becomes preggers?

[Megahurtz]

79. Make me hurl!

:puke:The timing is way too suspicious. How much was she bribed for this one? Bribery is against the law but the Repukes just change laws to fit their own agenda.

Fuck the psycho-fanatic fundamentalist radical right wingnuts running this country.:freak: Women are not breeding cows. There is too much oppostion on this subject. This will be a fight if they decide to get real serious about this one.

Oh, and I'll say it again. FUCK THEM!:mad:

[ynksnewyork2]

80. I'll state the obvious:

She's WHACK!!!

[renaissanceguy]

107. Yes, and

she's a selfish bitch.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16778992

[LostinVA]

82. She Found Jesus

Calm down, I am not being anti-Christian. But, Norma McCorvey had a long-term relationship with another woman, was basically preyed upon by religious predators who took advantage of her mental problems, found Jesus, and left her partner AND started all of this anti-choice stuff. I remember reading an article in The Advocate with her girlfriend, and it was just so sad, how sad.

I honestly think the "Christians" she became involved have used her for their agenda, with no thought for her emotional or spiritual life. Because, gang, she is kinda nuts...

[superconnected]

83. I found Jesus and I'm pro-choice.

Yes, the group she found probably used her.

and where the heck is my avatar?

[Megahurtz]

86. I've been wondering the same thing

maybe we're being monitered by the GOP on inauguration day.

[renaissanceguy]

108. Of course they're using her.

The first thing we MUST do is reiterate that a fetus is NOT a baby. We have to hold the MSM and every politician out there to that standard. Once we lose the language, we're screwed.

We also must stop referring to anti-choice people as pro-life. They are not pro-life if they support an unjust war, make the poor fend for themselves, ignore the welfare and education of our children, support the death penalty. Hell, they're not pro-life if they go hunting innocent animals. Now, pro-choice is what it says. Some women may never want an abortion, but they would never force another woman to unwillingly keep her fetus. Pro-choicers are all about letting a woman decide for herself, and keeping the government's hands off her body. They want the woman--not the rapist, incestuous father, abusive husband, or whatever--to have the choice over her body and destiny. At the same time, we value born children. We make sure they are taken care of, and that families can survive.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16778992

[Megahurtz]

84. That says it all

It kinda confirms that our fearful leader is using her too for his own agenda, just like he uses everyone else.

[Anakin Skywalker]

91. Nuts? People like her

drive people like ME nuts! Just reading about her makes me want to pull my hair out! Grrrrrrrrr......

[chomskysright]

87. it 'harms' women due to frigid atmosphere of community....

....which tries to put such a guilt trip on women. Today. while standing in the line 2.5 hours worth, to get into inaguration ro protest, a media person came up and asked me about abortion matters given that I had a sticker on the back of my coat: Keep Abortion Legal'.

I told them that I had had an abortion many years ago, had never regretted it.

[Anakin Skywalker]

89. That Woman is a Tool!

[Sgent]

94. This case

This case is so bad that even the FReepers are saying its useless.

She essentially is claiming that in 1970, she told the court she was raped. Since then, she has retracted that.

The plantiff (her) filed to set aside the verdict based on new facts. The district, and circuit court dismissed -- saying new facts are not a good reason to set aside a 32 year old decision, when the plantiff won in the first place.

The case is dumb, someone is wasting their time, and no supreme court -- no matter how conservative, would use this case as a vehicle to overtern Roe v. Wade. Doing so would cause massive chaos in the court system because you couldn't be assured that a final verdict, is in fact final.

[renaissanceguy]

109. This goes back to the question

of who has legal standing to even attempt a case against Roe v. Wade?

Has a precedent been set in which a woman can speak for her fetus? for other women's fetuses?

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16778992

[Democrats_win]

95. Overturn corporate personhood and Gore v. Bush 2000

[jasop]

98. No shit