Overturn Roe v. Wade?

[lucky-E-leven]

Judicial Panel Named in Case to Overturn Roe v. Wade Abortion Decision

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
February 24, 2004

New Orleans, LA (LifeNews.com) -- A three-judge panel has been named by the federal appeals court that will hear Norma McCorvey's case to overturn the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Once named, the judges immediately declared that they will not hear oral arguments in the case.

The panel consists of Judge Edith Holland Jones, Judge Edward Prado of San Antonio, and Judge Jacques L. Wiener of Shreveport, Louisiana.

The judges say they do not need to hear oral arguments in order to rule on McCorvey's motion, which included over 5000 pages of evidence with affidavits from over 1000 woman who have been harmed by abortion.

The decision doesn't indicate how the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel will rule on McCorvey's Rule 60 motion, which allows original litigants in a case to petition a court to overturn its decision if new facts relevant to the lawsuit are presented.

McCorvey's attorneys submitted thousands of signed affidavits from women who have been hurt by abortion as evidence and reason for the court to reconsider the Roe decision.

"I deeply regret the damage my original case caused women," McCorvey said. "I want the Supreme Court to examine the evidence and have a spirit of justice for women and children."

The appeals court previously indicated it would hear oral arguments in the case on March 2 and the order declining to hear arguments came without explanation. That means the court will rely on written briefs to make its decision.

McCorvey's attorney, Allan Parker, said "We are surprised at this turn of events, but this has been, and will be, an amazing and unusual case until it reaches and is ultimately decided by the United States Supreme Court."

Parker, CEO of the Texas-based Justice Foundation, a pro-life nonprofit law firm, said he is pleased with the panel's selection of judges. He indicated the court decision may mean the judges want the case to proceed to the Supreme Court.

The appeals court also denied a motion by a group of pro-abortion attorneys to file an amicus brief in the case.

A federal district court in Dallas, the same court that originally heard the Roe v. Wade case at the local level, dismissed McCorvey's case only days after it was filed.

"The judge denied Norma McCorvey's motion after only two days without adequately considering the 5,347 pages of affidavits from over one thousand women harmed by abortion and scientific experts," Parker explained.

The judge said too much time has elapsed since the Roe decision. (See, not all important Texans are Idiots. So she took it to New Orleans and now look.)

The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed its own precedents using Rule 60(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 60), most recently in the 1997 decision of Agostini v. Felton. There, the court overturned a 12 year-old precedent.

Parker says the high court has overturned precedents as long as 41 years-old, longer than the length of time since Roe.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This article doesn't mention that Norma McCorvey is actually "Jane Roe" who was named in the initial Roe v. Wade case back in 1973. Apparently the cause was good enough then, when she thought of abortion as a young woman, but now that she is older and wiser (and has found God) she has decided it is too dangerous for other young women. At least this is the premise for her new case to overturn the original.

McCorvey, a former lesbian, drug addict, and militant pro-abortionist, is now a Christian pro-life advocate. On January 21, 1998, she testified before the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property rights: "I'm sorry to admit that I'm the Jane Roe of 'Roe v. Wade.' The affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court didn't happen the way I said it did, pure and simple. I lied!" Shouldn't this make her new case, null and void?

I find it hard to buy her argument that it's all for the safety of the mother, when she runs an entire ministry based on pro-life here in Dallas. Many of her messages there have everything to do with the unborn and nothing to do with safety.

Crossing Over Ministry

Sorry to bring this up, but I didn't think there was a way to challenge this again and was disheartened to find out that not only can it be challenged, but that it actually is being challenged.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

A woman who considers abortion is making a hard desicion. It may turn out to be the right thing, it may turn out to be the wrong thing.

The only thing that really matters is that it's her choice to make.

It would be out of the question to tell a woman who is happy to hear that she is going to have a baby, that she mustn't give birth to the baby, because childbirth has proven dangerous to some women's health. If she wants to take the risk of dying while in labour, then that's her right to choose to take that risk.

A woman who doens't want to have a baby should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy, without the interference of holier-than-thou, Born Again Christians

 

[snooper]

... but I didn't think there was a way to challenge this again ...

Of course anything can be challenged, and anything can be overturned, even in a relatively undemocratic country like the USA. That is why there are all those amendments to the Constitution.

For anyone who is wondering why I think the USA is undemocratic, it is because every elected office needs a lot of money spent to win it. In a real democracy there is a limit of so many cents per voter on campaign spending and it is rigidly enforced. In the UK equivalent of the Congressional elections it is, todays exchange rate, less than ten US cents plus free postage on one mailshot, and no paid political advertising on TV.

Edited for an annoying typo

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't understand what they're trying to establish by challenging the right to abortion based on the safety of the procedure.

Does she think it's safer if women have to resort to back-alley abortions?

---dr.M.

 

[Couture]

Well, being that she is "Roe", I would imagine she is also trying to get the verdict overturned by saying she lied. Sort of like someone getting off of death row due to new DNA evidence.

 

[minsue]

She's been talking about doing this for a long time. I do feel for her. She has come to agree with the anti-choice folks that abortion is murder and she feels responsible for all the abortions performed since the Row V Wade decision.

What is odd is that the courts are allowing her to try to overturn a verdict in her favor even though the defendant, actually the person who currently holds Wade's former office, has submitted a brief stating that they will not fight the original decision. I am confused as to how the courts can reopen a lawsuit where the plaintiff won and the defendant does not want the verdict overturned.

Regardless, we now have an election year with two of the most polarizing issues in the American psyche at the forefront. They're going to rip this country apart at the seams.

- Mindy

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The cynic in me has to wonder how much this non profit organization is shelling out in legal fees and is she is getting some of that money under the table. It also notes she is probably past the age where an unwanted pregnancy is likely in her life.

The realist in me isn't surprised, the attack on reproductive rights was obviously coming and with the passage of the partial birth abortion law it became obvious it was coming soon. The refusal of the panel to accept an amicus brief from Pro choice advocates also shows that they have probably already made up their minds. Considering the curent composition of the high court, one is forced to wonder if they would even agree to hear an appeal if the panel overturns Row v. Wade.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

No doubt some women are harmed by the choices they make. Other woman are harmed by being forced to become pregnant and bear children, and still others are harmed by medically unsafe back-alley abortions of the kind that are affordable to the poor.

Under the pretense of protecting women, pro-life advocates will simply expand the number of non-medical abortions to include everyone who can't afford to travel outside the country for the procedure.

Until the religious extremists find a way to keep pregnant women from leaving the country, there will always be a choice for the wealthy.

"Pro-life" activists should confine their efforts to adopting the tens of thousands of hard-to-place children - those of mixed-race, those born addicted to crack and heroin, those born HIV-positive, the many older children whose mothers tried to keep them and gave up, and who are no longer the infants that are in demand by couples seeking to adopt - the tens of thousands of children in the U.S. who languish in pediatric AIDS facilities and foster care, the ones who die of abuse each year in Florida while Jeb Bush's Head of Dept. of Children & Families proposes "prayer for our social workers" as a solution. Adopt all of those children into loving, stable homes equipped to provide them with the intense care and attention that they need. And when there is no longer a problem of unwanted children in the U.S., turn your efforts to the untold number of children who have been born in poverty in the third world since our president denied funding to birth control clinics that so much as hand out pamphlets about medical abortion.

When the world is free of suffering children and enslaved women whose tragedies might not have happened if there had been a choice, then talk to us about the harm done by the existence of choice.

Set aside the issue of whether a woman who is pregnant against her will - or whose doctor determines that pregnancy is a danger to her - should be forced to act as an incubator for a life that some consider more valuable than her own. Assume that society has that right, and you are still left with the unforgiveable lie that there is a loving, capable home waiting for every child.

A woman who considers abortion is making a hard desicion. It may turn out to be the right thing, it may turn out to be the wrong thing.

The only thing that really matters is that it's her choice to make.

It would be out of the question to tell a woman who is happy to hear that she is going to have a baby, that she mustn't give birth to the baby, because childbirth has proven dangerous to some women's health. If she wants to take the risk of dying while in labour, then that's her right to choose to take that risk.

A woman who doens't want to have a baby should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy, without the interference of holier-than-thou, Born Again Christians

 

[Pure]

I can see substantial modification of Roe v Wade coming. A nice little TV drama, the other night, illustrated a conflict when a new person is appointed to the Supreme Court; the pressures she or he would be under.

And I think the outcome is not unrealistic: Roe third trimester standards applied earlier, even throughout the second trimester:

The state has compelling interest in the life of the fetus after 14 weeks, incest and life of mother being the only exceptions. BUT the mother's choice, however exercized, may not give rise to a murder/homicide charge.

Mother has a choice, assuming some dr's will consider it medically feasible and defensible, to abort before that time.

IOW, the 'pure choice'; 'it's my body, my decision' position (to 26 weeks) can't be sustained in US courts. IMO.

 

[Icingsugar]

I don't understand what they're trying to establish by challenging the right to abortion based on the safety of the procedure.

Does she think it's safer if women have to resort to back-alley abortions?

I'm not a doctor, but shouldn't also the health risks involved in an abortion be pretty minor to those of an actual birth?

Sounds like clutching at straws for the anti-abortionists.

 

[shereads]

I'm not a doctor, but shouldn't also the health risks involved in an abortion be pretty minor to those of an actual birth?

Sounds like clutching at straws for the anti-abortionists.

From Planned Parenthood's website, some of the information that the judicial panel has refused to hear:

Roe v. Wade: Its History and Impact



Ruling Reflects American Traditions, Changing Times

By the late 1960s, a nationwide effort was underway to reform the criminal abortion laws in effect in nearly every state. Health care providers, women's rights advocates, clergy members, and the legal community lobbied state legislatures and went to court to overturn statutes that had been in place since before the turn of the century. Many of these laws dated back to the mid-1800s, when state legislatures moved to ban abortion despite this nation's history since colonial times of allowing abortion prior to "quickening."


"Today, abortion is 11 times safer than childbirth (Gold, 1990). Legal abortion has been associated with decreases in both maternal and infant mortality. According to one estimate, 1,500 pregnancy-related deaths were prevented in 1985 (AGI, 1990)."

 

[Pure]

A well performed abortion, esp. done in first 12 weeks has--rough guess-- a tenth, or less, of the danger of a pregnancy to term. IIRC.

 

[shereads]

At the root of the "pro-life" movement it's not possible to find logic. Doctors being murdered, with an ultimate goal of even health-endangered women being forced to carry their fetuses to term, is hardly a pro-life stance. Knowing what I do of fundamentalist Christianity, having lived at its heart, I wonder if the underlyiing message isn't that women who become pregnant need to get what's coming to them - and that the life of any woman who is not a virgin, particulary those who are unmarried, is inherintly less valuable than the "innocent" life in her womb. Moreover, there will always be a need for a sub-class of undereducated, needy people to do the grunt work for which society chooses to pay below-poverty wages. If birth control became a fact of live at all levels of society, 20 years from now nobody would be willing to launder our clothes, mow our lawns and change our children's diapers for less than a decent minimum wage. There would be an undersuppoly of second-class citizens, and they'd be too well-educated to settle for less than others.

In medieval times, those might have been socially acceptable reasons to limit access to birth control and to make terminating a pregnancy a criminal act. But this century, in a free society, the anti-choice movement would have a tough time if it didn't couch its thinking in more palatable terms.

"Pro-life" and "anti-freedom" are the same thing.

 

[OldnotDead]

Colly, I think the Supremes have to hear the case if the Appellates rule on a case in a way that contradicts a Supreme Court ruling. I know at the lower level if a judge rules in contradiction to existing rulings, it's pretty much automatic grounds for an appeal that will be heard. as you point out, not hearing it would be a tacit reversal. Also, if I remember the rules, you only need three judges concurrence to hear a case.

Pesonally, I hope it does get to that level. I've never liked the original decision and not because of pro life support. Rather, I felt like they overturned a single law, wrote the decision in such a way that it made it clear that most similar laws were vulnerable as well, but didn't really help provide the guidance for reasonable legislation as was done in the case of the death penalty.

I do not know the answer on this one, because to me the issue of pro-life or pro-choice is the WRONG discussion. I do not like the fact that young women are educated to think of abortion as an alternative means of birth control. I think it is an unhealthy system where Planned Parenthood makes significant revenues to help support its programs from the abortions performed at its clinics. Think about the total lack of incentive for them to suggest abstinence to anyone. I do not think of PP as a 'bad' organization, rather I think of them as a 'trapped' one.

Also, I'm not sure about this, and going to have to do some digging, but I'm not sure reversing Roe v. Wade is as debilitating as some might think. When the Texas law was struck down, New York became the temporary abortion capital of the country. Over time, other states started allowing the procedure, but I do not think it was all from the courts. Then, in the late 70's most states revised their criminal codes in accordance with some national recommendations. I'm not sure that there are anti-abortion laws in existence in most states now.

So a reversal would probably have absolutely zero immediate effect until individual states, or Congress passed constitutional anti- abortion legislation. And if you do the math and check the polls, that is not likely to happen. Sure there may be some local areas that would ban it and maybe even some states, but any attempt at instituting legislation on a state or national level would probably end up in the same 'round file' as all the attempts at a constituional ammendment. It's a lot easier for most politicians to take a public stand if they don't actually have to vote.

It's truly a marginalized issue that does get some people quite worked up, but the majority in the middle really want it to be between a woman, her conscience and her doctor. I think the pro lifers have wasted alot of people's money and time on this one that could be far better spent.

 

[OldnotDead]

should have looked here first

hello, again,

This URL will take you to a page that summarizes current law, both State and national. Current laws on the books do exist from Supreme Court Guidance out of Roe v. Wade and some other decisions.

But New York had passed a liberalised law 3 years before.

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/abortl.htm

The bottom line, however, remains the same. Overturn Roe v. Wade at this point means very little. Tighter laws could be passed, but the question remains - WOULD they?

 

[minsue]

Re: should have looked here first

hello, again,

This URL will take you to a page that summarizes current law, both State and national. Current laws on the books do exist from Supreme Court Guidance out of Roe v. Wade and some other decisions.

But New York had passed a liberalised law 3 years before.

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/abortl.htm

The bottom line, however, remains the same. Overturn Roe v. Wade at this point means very little. Tighter laws could be passed, but the question remains - WOULD they?

I vehemently disagree with your assessment. Overturning Roe V Wade would have a large impact and would be a great victory for those who would have abortion be illegal. I simply cannot believe that the religious right would stop at that victory and not make a push to either A) illegalize abortion at the federal level or, failing that, B) a strong state by state push to ban abortions.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

It's not about pro-life, it's about pro-birth. The only reason why they call themselves pro-life is because they realised that "pro-" sounds much more nice than "against".

If these people really cared about about LIFE, they would a)be against death penalty, b)not harm/kill doctors who are pro-choice, an, most importantly, c)take care of those lives that already exist!

It's just hollow words to talk about wanting to protect the non-yet born lives, when you don't give a damned about the ones that exist. This isn't about saving little children, if it was, these people would adopt orphans, and the pro-life politicians would invest in child health care much more than they do now.

This is just about stopping women from having a choice, because limiting a woman's right to her body is also limiting her sexuality, and such a dirty, scary thing MUST be limited as much as possible, otherwise women might start demanding equal rights!

Banish the thought!

 

[minsue]

It's not about pro-life, it's about pro-birth. The only reason why they call themselves pro-life is because they realised that "pro-" sounds much more nice than "against".

If these people really cared about about LIFE, they would a)be against death penalty, b)not harm/kill doctors who are pro-choice, an, most importantly, c)take care of those lives that already exist!

It's just hollow words to talk about wanting to protect the non-yet born lives, when you don't give a damned about the ones that exist. This isn't about saving little children, if it was, these people would adopt orphans, and the pro-life politicians would invest in child health care much more than they do now.

This is just about stopping women from having a choice, because limiting a woman's right to her body is also limiting her sexuality, and such a dirty, scary thing MUST be limited as much as possible, otherwise women might start demanding equal rights!

Banish the thought!

I believe the motto is "Love 'em til their born."

 

[shereads]

Re: should have looked here first

The bottom line, however, remains the same. Overturn Roe v. Wade at this point means very little. Tighter laws could be passed, but the question remains - WOULD they?

In conservative states they very well might. Which is meaningless to women who have the financial means to travel. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not eliminate medical abortion as a choice for the privileged, only for the poor - and soon, in states like Florida where the Christian right now holds a firm political majority.

 

[shereads]

I believe the motto is "Love 'em til their born."

You're not far from right. Note that this Congress, having resisted the previous administration's efforts to fund health care for pregnant women, funded the same thing when it was phased as healthcare for "unborn children."

It makes perfect sense in light of a belief in Original Sin. The way it's most often explained, we are "born in sin." While we're still in the womb, we appear to be under a blanket pardon.

 

[minsue]

You're not far from wrong. Notice that this Congress, having resisted the previous administration's efforts to fund health care for pregnant women, funded the same thing when it was phased as healthcare for "unborn children."

Believe me, Sher, I noticed. I've had many arguments with those who claim that was a completely 'above board' thing to do and not at all a back door to banning abortion.

 

[shereads]

I felt your pain.



That's the dangerous thing about political oppression. It takes place in small, harmless-seeming steps. Only a few people tried to take a serious stand against that part of the budget, because defeating it would have meant denying health care to pregnant women and "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" as my mom used to say. Those who opposed it vehemently, recognized it as the administration's first salvo in the war against women's rights.

Once we've written into law that a human fetus has rights, it's a matter of increments before the rights of the fetus supercede those of its incubator.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, I think the Supremes have to hear the case if the Appellates rule on a case in a way that contradicts a Supreme Court ruling. I know at the lower level if a judge rules in contradiction to existing rulings, it's pretty much automatic grounds for an appeal that will be heard. as you point out, not hearing it would be a tacit reversal. Also, if I remember the rules, you only need three judges concurrence to hear a case.

Pesonally, I hope it does get to that level. I've never liked the original decision and not because of pro life support. Rather, I felt like they overturned a single law, wrote the decision in such a way that it made it clear that most similar laws were vulnerable as well, but didn't really help provide the guidance for reasonable legislation as was done in the case of the death penalty.

I do not know the answer on this one, because to me the issue of pro-life or pro-choice is the WRONG discussion. I do not like the fact that young women are educated to think of abortion as an alternative means of birth control. I think it is an unhealthy system where Planned Parenthood makes significant revenues to help support its programs from the abortions performed at its clinics. Think about the total lack of incentive for them to suggest abstinence to anyone. I do not think of PP as a 'bad' organization, rather I think of them as a 'trapped' one.

Also, I'm not sure about this, and going to have to do some digging, but I'm not sure reversing Roe v. Wade is as debilitating as some might think. When the Texas law was struck down, New York became the temporary abortion capital of the country. Over time, other states started allowing the procedure, but I do not think it was all from the courts. Then, in the late 70's most states revised their criminal codes in accordance with some national recommendations. I'm not sure that there are anti-abortion laws in existence in most states now.

So a reversal would probably have absolutely zero immediate effect until individual states, or Congress passed constitutional anti- abortion legislation. And if you do the math and check the polls, that is not likely to happen. Sure there may be some local areas that would ban it and maybe even some states, but any attempt at instituting legislation on a state or national level would probably end up in the same 'round file' as all the attempts at a constituional ammendment. It's a lot easier for most politicians to take a public stand if they don't actually have to vote.

It's truly a marginalized issue that does get some people quite worked up, but the majority in the middle really want it to be between a woman, her conscience and her doctor. I think the pro lifers have wasted alot of people's money and time on this one that could be far better spent.

I think your argument mises a point OnD. The state laws were revized because of Roe V Wade. RvW does not make abortion legal so much as it shot down a federal law making it illegal and forced both pro lifer's and pro-choicers to go and fight it out in the states. In essense, the high court ruled that setting abortion laws is not a federal mandate and does not fall under the neccessary and proper clause in the constitution and therefore, is a reserve power of the states to regulate.

If RvW is overturned, then you re open the question of wheter or not it is a federal or state power to regulate. With the current congress and another four years of GWB looming, it is pretty obvious that there will be a federal ban passed within a few days of the protections of RvW being lifted. Such a ban would of course face challenges at all levels of the judiciary, but it would put the pro life lobby in the driver's seat, instead of bucking the law that protects a woman's reproductive freedom they would just be defending a law already in place. It can make a huge amount of difference.

Personally I don't agree with using abortion as an alternate means of birth control, I don't even know that I could have one should I become pregnant, no matter how that occured. But by god, the decision to carry the child to term or to abort should be mine, in consultation with my doctor, the father and my family. It should not be made by a bunch of a-holes, many who are to old to father a child and the vast majority of whom couldn't even begin to understand the decision and emotions involved since they aren't able to get pregnant.

I don't see any attacks being made on male reproductive freedom. No one is pushing to make vasectomy's illegal. A guy dosen't need a letter from mommy to get one of those. Pro life is a misnomer. Misogynistic is more appropriate.

Their arguments always boil down to the same thing, purely and simply, I am a woman and I shouldn't have the ability to decide what to do with my own body. I am weak willed, stupid and need guidence from a higher moral authority to make sound decisions. You can play with semantics till you are blue in the face, you can couch it in whatever terms float your boat, but at the heart of it is the simple assumption I am too stupid to make such an important decision and the state should take the option from me, for my own good.

-Colly

 

[raphy]

... but at the heart of it is the simple assumption I am too stupid to make such an important decision and the state should take the option from me, for my own good.

-Colly

For the state's own good, surely. You can't possibly think the state gives a shit about your own good.

 

[shereads]

Personally I don't agree with using abortion as an alternate means of birth control,

Unfortunately, the religious right is conducting a simultaneous campaign to limit other forms of birth control, as well. The abstinence-only program being pushed for school sex education, and the elimination of condom giveaways in high schools under the logic that it will make kids decide to have sex, are proof that the religious right will not settle for an abortion ban. They want "loose" women to have no other option than the risk of pregnancy and childbirth. There's simply no other way to interpret it.

But by god, the decision to carry the child to term or to abort should be mine, in consultation with my doctor, the father and my family. It should not be made by a bunch of a-holes, many who are to old to father a child and the vast majority of whom couldn't even begin to understand the decision and emotions involved since they aren't able to get pregnant.

I may have posted this at another thread when the topic of abortion rights came up. It was one of the most memorable moments in television for me - unpracticed honesty by a right-wing pro-life politician faced with an unexpected question. A moment that spoke volumes of truth. Barbara Walters was interviewing then-Vice-President Dan Quayle. She asked him, "If your 14-year-old daughter came to you and said she was pregnant, what would you say to her?" He thought for a few seconds and said, "Her mother and I would both discuss it with her, and as a family I'm sure we'd help her make the right choice."

Long pause. Camera on his face. Sudden realization of what he's said - and that it was honest.

Barbara said, "Then you believe your daughter should have a choice?"

He didn't know what to say.