Effort to reopen Roe v. Wade

[kit'n]

DALLAS, Texas (AP) -- A federal appeals court has agreed to hear a request from the woman formerly known as "Jane Roe" to reconsider the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.

Norma McCorvey, who joined with anti-abortion activists nearly 10 years ago, is seeking to have the decision overturned, citing what she says is more than 30 years of evidence that abortions are psychologically harmful to women.

A federal district judge threw out her initial request in June, saying it was not made within a reasonable time. But the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to hear McCorvey's arguments March 2.

"It's something that I've wanted ever since Day One, and it's happening," McCorvey said from her Dallas home.

Dallas County District Attorney Bill Hill, whose predecessor Henry Wade who was named in the original lawsuit, has not filed a response to McCorvey's appeal. That may put the appeals court in the unusual position of hearing arguments from only one side.

Wade was named in the original case because he was charged with enforcing the Texas law that prevented McCorvey from having an abortion. Hill's office has argued that since that law no longer exists, Hill has no authority to prosecute and should not be sued.

More than 20 Texas law school professors concerned about an unbalanced hearing filed a brief Wednesday asking to be allowed to argue the other side of the case.

"It's important that the court hear from somebody representing the position that the district court took, which I think is clearly right," said David Schenck, a lawyer representing the professors. "At this point, the case is moot, and she's presenting at best a political question."

The Supreme Court decision came after McCorvey had her baby. The baby was the third child McCorvey put up for adoption; she was a 21-year-old carnival worker at the time.

She publicly identified herself as Jane Roe in 1980.

cnn

[alexican]

WHA?!?! So Jane Roe is now the one leading the fight to overturn the legalization of abortion? Goddman this is so fucked up! I mean, not like I'm a big fan of abortion or anything (pro-choice but that doesn't mean that I like their choices) but don't you think she waited a bit too long to make this change? This reminds me of those adoption cases where after like a few years the birth parents changed their minds and wanted their kid back. She was involved in this policy-changing ordeal and won and now after its affected millions of women, their partners, and families she thinks it was a bad idea. Whats all this about "wanting this since Day One?" Day one was like 30 years ago sweetheart and if thats what you wanted then why the hell did you go through with the case?

[Ryan]

I don't think it will ever happen. Regardless of what either side tells you, the population is split at almost exactly 50% on the abortion debate. Considering the political volatility of the issue, it would be political suicide to take extreme action in either direction. This is precisely why even Bush has always backed off taking a hardline pro-life stance.

This issue, along with all the other pressing social issues needs to be seen in historical context. This country is not getting more conservative but rather, is going through a more conservative phase. The mainstream public maintains a core belief system but they sway rapidly when it comes to legislative action, based mainly upon what the media and the leadership is telling them at the time. If you will recall, the Clinton era was marked by political correctness, "tolerance," and numerous other "liberal" ideals, all of which have since become curse words in America. At the time, many conservatives feared that the liberal movement in the media and government would result in expanded affirmative action, universal publicly-funded abortion, and legalized gay marriage. None of these came about because of the push from the right. Likewise, the conservative push in the government and media we are experiencing today will likely be offset by pressure from liberals and moderates who are not willing to take such a hardline approach to these issues.

Just watch next November. If Kerry and/or Edwards can convince the public to put them into office (and there's a very good chance they will), you'll see another ideological shift in the opposite direction where it will be the liberals once again accusing the conservatives of being "hateful" and the conservatives accusing the liberals of victimizing them. In either case, it is likely that the outcome on these issues will be the status quo. All these maggot politicians who run our government raise money and earn votes by grandstanding and "speaking out" on these issues. But the truth is, most of them do it with only their re-election in mind and not many of them are willing to piss off half the voting base.

Roe isn't really even the leading case anymore.

Roe established a tri-mester test for legality of abortions (among other things - including establishing legality of abortion)

Subsequent case law established the "viability test."

So... from an arbitrary time defined test to an arbitrary amorphously defined test.

I would be stunned if the courts would hear Roes case.

[alexican]

Originally posted by Ryan
I don't think it will ever happen. Regardless of what either side tells you, the population is split at almost exactly 50% on the abortion debate. Considering the political volatility of the issue, it would be political suicide to take extreme action in either direction. This is precisely why even Bush has always backed off taking a hardline pro-life stance.

This issue, along with all the other pressing social issues needs to be seen in historical context. This country is not getting more conservative but rather, is going through a more conservative phase. The mainstream public maintains a core belief system but they sway rapidly when it comes to legislative action, based mainly upon what the media and the leadership is telling them at the time. If you will recall, the Clinton era was marked by political correctness, "tolerance," and numerous other "liberal" ideals, all of which have since become curse words in America. At the time, many conservatives feared that the liberal movement in the media and government would result in expanded affirmative action, universal publicly-funded abortion, and legalized gay marriage. None of these came about because of the push from the right. Likewise, the conservative push in the government and media we are experiencing today will likely be offset by pressure from liberals and moderates who are not willing to take such a hardline approach to these issues.

Just watch next November. If Kerry and/or Edwards can convince the public to put them into office (and there's a very good chance they will), you'll see another ideological shift in the opposite direction where it will be the liberals once again accusing the conservatives of being "hateful" and the conservatives accusing the liberals of victimizing them. In either case, it is likely that the outcome on these issues will be the status quo. All these maggot politicians who run our government raise money and earn votes by grandstanding and "speaking out" on these issues. But the truth is, most of them do it with only their re-election in mind and not many of them are willing to piss off half the voting base.

I don't agree totally. I think they're getting scared. Which may or may not go hand in hand with being conservative. I feel that they're not seeing any end to the most pressing problems at hand so they're going to be hyperstrict on touchy subjects, mainly abortion and gay marriage. I don't think though that having Democrats in the office is really gonna change much this time around. That doesn't mean I've lost hope, just that I think the course that Bush has started is going to be very difficult to reverse or even detour. We're stuck in this war and huge debates over abortion and gay marriage are in the news again. I just hope that Kerry can bring in people with fresh and innovative ideas for these issues and not get struck down by all the Republicans who are too anal to let someone else run the show.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by RainbowBriteB29
I don't agree totally. I think they're getting scared. Which may or may not go hand in hand with being conservative. I feel that they're not seeing any end to the most pressing problems at hand so they're going to be hyperstrict on touchy subjects, mainly abortion and gay marriage. I don't think though that having Democrats in the office is really gonna change much this time around. That doesn't mean I've lost hope, just that I think the course that Bush has started is going to be very difficult to reverse or even detour. We're stuck in this war and huge debates over abortion and gay marriage are in the news again. I just hope that Kerry can bring in people with fresh and innovative ideas for these issues and not get struck down by all the Republicans who are too anal to let someone else run the show.

In all fairness, it was the liberals who brought up the gay marriage debate as much as the conservatives. It may have been casually discussed amongst conservatives as of late, but it was the liberal court in Mass. and the mayor of San Francisco that turned this into a battle. I am a near-violent proponent of legalized gay marriage (or an end to any government recognition of marriage), but this was very poor timing to bring this debate to the forefront.

This makes me wish that someone would appeal the Supreme Court to repeal the law that made it legal for women to vote.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by -m-3000
This makes me wish that someone would appeal the Supreme Court to repeal the law that made it legal for women to vote.

I believe Bush has set that at the top of his agenda if he is re-elected, right after an end to the negra vote.

Just kidding.

Originally posted by Ryan
In all fairness, it was the liberals who brought up the gay marriage debate as much as the conservatives. It may have been casually discussed amongst conservatives as of late, but it was the liberal court in Mass. and the mayor of San Francisco that turned this into a battle. I am a near-violent proponent of legalized gay marriage (or an end to any government recognition of marriage), but this was very poor timing to bring this debate to the forefront.

If there was no government (legal) recognition of marriage this would create huge problems with property, health care, inheritence etc.

How would you propose those issues be dealth with?

Originally posted by -m-3000
This makes me wish that someone would appeal the Supreme Court to repeal the law that made it legal for women to vote.

Well the Supremes can't do it actually.


The only way to repeal and amendment is with another amendment.



and - yes - clearly your commet was meant to be a joke - I know

[Ryan]

Originally posted by xiannaix
If there was no government (legal) recognition of marriage this would create huge problems with property, health care, inheritence etc.

How would you propose those issues be dealth with?

Yes, that would suck. Now how do you think gay people feel?

Originally posted by Ryan
Yes, that would suck. Now how do you think gay people feel?

Power of Attorney and a will can clear that right up.

Establishing the legal rights just takes different steps.

Planning a wedding is much more difficult than signing a couple docs and much more expensive.

but this wasn't an answer to my question

[Ryan]

Originally posted by xiannaix
Power of Attorney and a will can clear that right up.

I think you just answered your own question.

Establishing the legal rights just takes different steps.

Planning a wedding is much more difficult than signing a couple docs and much more expensive.

but this wasn't an answer to my question

A wedding has nothing to do with legal marriage. I'm not sure I understand your point here.

Originally posted by Ryan
I think you just answered your own question.



A wedding has nothing to do with legal marriage. I'm not sure I understand your point here.

Regarding the first point - I don't think that is a good idea.

regarding the second....Weddings are generally the formality or procedure by which a marriage is recognized. Civil ceremonies that formalize a marriage are no less weddings.

So - a wedding has everything to do with a marriage.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by xiannaix
Regarding the first point - I don't think that is a good idea.

regarding the second....Weddings are generally the formality or procedure by which a marriage is recognized. Civil ceremonies that formalize a marriage are no less weddings.

So - a wedding has everything to do with a marriage.

Why isn't it a "good idea?" If you are going to require one segment of the population to jump through a few extra hoops, then why do you think you shouldn't have to? If it's as easy as you have suggested, and I think it is, then what's wrong with making people accountable for their own estates instead of giving them special government recognition?

Regarding the wedding thing, I still don't get the point. I am getting married to my fiancee this summer and we're not having a wedding because we think it's stupid and we want to do something else with the money instead. This certainly does not make our marriage any less valid or any less "legal."