It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Jane Roe" Asks Supreme Court To Reconsider: Update: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
The woman who was identified only as Jane Roe in the landmark abortion case Roe verses Wade, has asked that the United Stets Supreme Court overturn the ruling. Norma McCorvey, now a born-again Christian, has had a change in heart.
 

Update: 2/26/05 Supreme Court Rejects Appeal



WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a challenge to its landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion by the woman once known as "Jane Roe," who was at the center of the historic case.

Without comment, justices declined to hear the appeal from Norma McCorvey and thus dodged a highly charged political debate for now. McCorvey's protest of Texas' abortion ban led to the Roe v. Wade ruling establishing a constitutional right to abortion.
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal




www.foxnews.com
Norma McCorvey, the woman whose lawsuit challenging the state of Texas' abortion ban led to the landmark Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion nationwide, now wants the court to change its mind.

McCorvey told FOX News' "Hannity & Colmes" that she would ask the high court Tuesday to vacate its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which remains a lightning rod for debate. It often takes several days for court officials to account for what gets filed so it was unclear Tuesday if McCorvey's appeal was made.

The court allows parties to its judgments to ask the court to vacate ? or overturn ? rulings, according to McCorvey's legal team.

McCorvey, now a born-again Christian, challenged Texas' abortion ban under the pseudonym Jane Roe.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I love her newfound attitude, however, just because she has changed her mind does not invalidate the Supreme Courts decision. The Constitution of the United States does not grant the governemnt the right to regulate a womans uterus period. No doubt the ultra right religious groups are salivating at the possibility of Bush loading the court with anti abortion judges.


[edit on 2/26/05 by FredT]




posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

I love her newfound attitude, however, just because she has changed her mind does not invalidate the Supreme Courts decision. The Constitution of the United States does not grant the governemnt the right to regulate a womans uterus period. No doubt the ultra right religious groups are salivating at the possibility of Bush loading the court with anti abortion judges.


[edit on 1/18/05 by FredT]


For the record, this is not a new found attitude. She has been saying this type of thing for years. The only thing new here is the legal aspect that allows her to take action for what she has been saying for a long time. She has long been saying she was used and regrets it.

As for the government not regulating a woman's uterus, let's be clear. The issue is not and never has been about the woman's uterus, it's what is growing inside of it.

I personally do not think this is a topic worth discussing on a board like this, neither side will be swayed, no matter what anyone says, and I promised myself never to address this issue here, but oh well. The most profound thing I can say on this topic (okay, not really) is this:

Anyone who is against abortion, it is because they believe this act involves the taking of a life (as in they are certain). Those who support abortion say they do not "think" it involves the taking of a life (as in they don't know for sure, but even if they convince themselves of that, they cannot prove it). What side do you want to err on?

Personally, I have never met a woman who had an abortion who didn't regret it. (I am talking about in real life, not on a board). Just my experience.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   
And I agree with Fred, it really had little to do with Norma herself. Everyone involved in the abortion debate should take the time to read it.

From the decision:


In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches [410 U.S. 113, 163] term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. findlaw


In a nutshell - The Court ruled that the State had NO right to interfere with an abortion carried out in the first trimester. The decision should be left to the woman and her physician. During the second and third trimesters the justices acknowledged that the State did have an interest and could regulate abortion as it saw fit so long as a medical exception protecting the life of the mother was provided for.

I see the logic in the Justice's decision - no fetus is viable outside the womb during the first trimester so the State should not be involved in a woman's decision whether to keep or terminate the pregnancy.

B



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I find this as another attempt for anti abortion pursuers to take another shot to regulate women choices.

Regardless of the change of hart of this women, (I am very happy that she found redemption for her decision when she was young)

It has nothing to do with her of what she wants.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   
At this point the Roe v. Wade decision is out of the hands of Mrs. Roe as it has come to affect the decision making process for or against more than just women in the state of Texas. There are only 2 people that have the right to tell a woman what she is to do with her own body; her and a woman who has experienced being pregnant and sits on the Supreme Court. Even a man who has engaged in consentual sex with a woman doesn't have the say so; though that man does have a right to question a womans motives if she is the person he got pregnant. If you allow a church organization, a woman who has never been pregnant, or a man who is not the reason the woman is pregnant consentually to choose what that woman does with her body eventually the United States will be no better than places like China. Granted Chinas decision on this is more due to population control than anything else, but noone in America who is just as much for the freedom of women as any other freedom wants that to happen here. I would want every child to have the chance to be born into this world that still has the possibility of being a wonderful place. What I disagree with is organizations, not people are the start of why a human being thinks its not in their best interest (as well as the childs) to have an abortion. If every woman who was pregnant wanted to have an abortion this would be a different issue, but that is not what's happening here. A fetus does not grow itself, its mother does. The mother is the person who decided to have consentual sex and became pregnant. There is no such thing as telling a person its ok to procreate how they choose to, people just do it. If the sound of a heartbeat changes somones opinion on what they want to do with their own body then that's wonderful, a new light for the world will be born. If that person decides they don't want to give birth they are giving their choice for a baby to live. A baby doesn't decide when it will start to be formed. Therefore it is as much even to the last minute before birth that a mother has the decision to give birth to a child or to stop the process. Even those who don't appose abortion rights hope that a child gets the chance to be born. The rights of that birth are not however the decision of someone whos position is not to give birth to that child in the first place. The only rights a person who is not giving birth to the child of a person who has to make the decision to give birth is that their opinion is "pro life". Being pro-life is speaking words and having an opinion about someone else giving birth or not. It doesn't give that person a right to tell someone else what to do with their body (which includes the life inside them).

I really hate to sound like I'm ranting about this subject, and everything I've said here is just as much (just another opinion) but I feel very strongly about a womans rights to be a woman. The person who decides to give birth because of what someone else tells them instead of a personal choice to end the process within them is no longer a decision maker on the life they had the choice to begin to start with. That person now no more has a decision for or against that life any more than the life within them. And one last thing since this topic involves the possibility of a church organiztions "leading" a person to change their mind. The correct translation of probably the most famous of the ten commandments is not "Thou shalt not kill", it's "Thou shalt not murder"; and there is a moral difference between the two.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by existence]

[edit on 18-1-2005 by existence]

[edit on 18-1-2005 by existence]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Abortion is murder, but alas, neither the courts nor any branch of the Government will ever put the genie back into the bottle. Only time and the consequences of actions will reinstitute social duty above personal convenience.

[edit on 05/1/18 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Abortion is murder if the person who is pregnant believes it would be to have the abortion. Procreation is not a condition of being part of society, it is a natural function for creatures who part of their being is to have offspring. The intent to describe giving birth as a function of society is to say that society is the reason why someone gives birth. People give birth because it is the aftermath of procreation. Procreation is not what brings about society. Society is the creation of intellect that defines itself within a living group of creatures who consciously realize they have intellect. As creatures who are conscious of our own intellect we call the outcome of our procreation, society. Procreation is simply to further the existence of our own race by giving birth to more of ourselves. Our belief that abortion is an act of murder is just that, a belief. Intellect, which includes the opinion of the person who has an abortion is when the decision is made to have or not have the abortion. That is why abortion is only murder to the opinion of the person who believes they should not have one because they believe it is murder to do so.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Except for the procrative function, you have said nothing that could not be applied to any killing. Society has always dictated individual action, especially regarding the most innocent and vulnerable among us. No one is more innocent or vulnerable than the unborn. It is almost unimaginable arrogance to assert that only the actor is in a position to determine if any killing is murder.

[edit on 05/1/18 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Without it seeming so in my last two posts I am very much against abortion. The issue here was not about an adults decision to kill someone and say because it was their opinion it was not murder. That is why we have laws in this country that define what an adult can do that implies physical harm to another adult. Killing someone without reason is part of that. Just as much as I feel strongy about saying it is the decision of the carrier of a fetus to take that life away I can understand why what I have said would be considered arrogant. But neither one of us are the person that has the possibility of giving birth, are we. The bottom line is the free will of that person to become a giver of life. Neither one of us, nor someone who is not giving birth to their child has the right (other than opinion) to call them a murderer. I agree completely with you "Grady" that I don't think anyone should have an abortion. What I will never agree with is saying it is ok for someone who is not giving birth for them to say their opinion is the law of what that person has to do with the life inside them. I think for most people who've gone through that process that the best decision is usually made. Granted some do not make the greatest life decision for the life inside them. But if they are not the majority, then calling it murder throughout society makes the opinion such that it borders on legalized socialism for all possible mothers. I think the best that can happen in society in course of possible abortions or not is happening right now. Do you not agree mothers to be are the most of who make the decision on whether they are having an abortion (right now) with no law in place to label them a murderer?



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Please allow me to re-phrase my original assertion. Abortion is homicide. Whether any given abortion is murder is not the decision of the bearer of the child, but rather the courts, if at some point Roe v. Wade is overturned. It was my mistake to refer to any killing as murder, without consideration for the circumstances.

[edit on 05/1/19 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Please allow me to re-phrase my original assertion. Abortion is homicide.


Grady, on what are you basing this on. By and large the late term abortion is simply a facade issue created buy religious opposition groups to try to chip away at the decisons. Would you also apply you homicide lable to someone taking the RU-486 pill?



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Any termination of a pregancy is the taking of a human life. I suppose legally there might be some variations in terminolgy. I like homicide, because, when literally translated it says exactly what is happening. Legal variations might include manslaugter, justifiable homicide, negligent homicide, to name but a few. Regardless of whether abortion is considered a crime, let us not shrink from calling it what is it really is. "A woman's right to choose" is an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person. Women have plenty of chances to choose prior to prior to having become pregnant.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Any termination of a pregancy is the taking of a human life. I suppose legally there might be some variations in terminolgy. I like homicide, because, when literally translated it says exactly what is happening. Legal variations might include manslaugter, justifiable homicide, negligent homicide, to name but a few. Regardless of whether abortion is considered a crime, let us not shrink from calling it what is it really is. "A woman's right to choose" is an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person. Women have plenty of chances to choose prior to having become pregnant.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Grady, by your definition of "life killing" the treatment of cancer, or the removal of say a tumor would also fall into that definition would it not? Are you suggesting that the government in this case has an ownership of something that is part of a womans body? A small, organized yes, but otherwise basically a lump of dividing cells if terminated constitues homicide?



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Women have plenty of chances to choose prior to prior to having become pregnant.


What if they did not have a choice? Rape victems come to mind, would you still oppose an abortion under these horrific circustances?



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:29 AM
link   
I don't see how this comes under federal juristiction. The Supreme Court was wrong in Roe v. Wade to make abortion a federal issue -- it isn't interstate commerce and physicians are licensed by the states, so I think it should be left the each state to decide on its own abortion laws.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:33 AM
link   
All Roe V Wade did was say that the states could not ban abortion as that was unconstitutional. In otherwords, its not a states rights issue. In this they were correct. Once again its the dogma of religous groups attemoting to overide everybody values with thiers. :shk:



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Any termination of a pregancy is the taking of a human life. I suppose legally there might be some variations in terminolgy. I like homicide, because, when literally translated it says exactly what is happening. Legal variations might include manslaugter, justifiable homicide, negligent homicide, to name but a few. Regardless of whether abortion is considered a crime, let us not shrink from calling it what is it really is. "A woman's right to choose" is an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person. Women have plenty of chances to choose prior to prior to having become pregnant.


You go Grady. You tell it like it is, and I strongly agree with you. The only way aborting a childs life should be legal is if the young lady is raped, or it is life threatening to the mother. Otherwise the women are just carelessly getting pregnant and killing a human life free of any criminal charges. I wish all women knew how precious having and raising a child is. I would never throw away any gifts from God, and most certainly not a child.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by krt1967
[. Otherwise the women are just carelessly getting pregnant and killing a human life free of any criminal charges. I wish all women knew how precious having and raising a child is.


Really and di I take this as you voulentering to take care of these children? How many black children go unadopted because of this type of dogma. Understand mind you that alot of these same groupd protesting abortion also view birth controll as a sin. You assume that people are having abortions because they are too lazy or stupid to practice birth controll. Its just not that simplistic as you want to make the issue out to be :shk:



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 03:35 AM
link   
The Consequences of Roe v. Wade

44,670,812 Deaths and counting.

Total Abortions since 1973. There were over 3,600 abortions per day in 2000, 151 per hour, one every 24 seconds.

As I have said before here, abortion is the # 1 cause of death in the United States.
Modern genocide.
Also, given the psycological and moral consequences to the woman that has the child aborted, or murdered, it is so hard for me to understand how it has legally taken so many lives, and riuned/hurt the lives of others.
The practioners of this homicide of innocent children hide their faces in shame and fear.They will not come out and speak- I cannot comprehend what would motivate people to be employed as same, and pity them when they reach the gates of heaven. These are the most guilty, the practioners- the takers of human life.
Murder, for convienence. That is what abortion is. Wrong- totally wrong, except in case of rape or incest.
I'm sure Norma wants to change things- can she? She has much on her conscience.

Right To Life

[edit on 19-1-2005 by Journey]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join