So, it’s interesting that “Mary Doe” in the U.S. Supreme Court cast that was the partner case to Roe vs. Wade – has denounced abortion and said that it harms women. Did she have a special voice as a woman seeking an abortion – and if so, does she have any particular standing to denounce the procedure?
I don’t think so. A legal case stands or falls on its merits, not because the plaintiffs have a change of heart 20 or 30 years down the road.
It’s actually “Jane Roe,” a.k.a. Norma McCorvey, who has decided abortion is evil after all. But I agree with Blalron, who started a thread about this subject when it was current. Her opinion is wholly irrelevant. Just because she’s wrong in her view about abortion doesn’t mean others don’t need it.
Whaaa! Restate that please!
Well, that’s what I meant to say. My phrasing is either awful or weird. I’m sure “doesn’t mean others don’t need it” sounds like a double-negative, but it’s not. It’s triple. 
Others need it. 
Translated: “the fact that she NOW thinks abortion is wrong and harmful - which implies she feels she should never have had one - does not change the fact that other women do need abortions. McCorvey’s opinion on the subject, though it might make an interesting postscript, doesn’t change reality.”
In any event, Roe v. Wade was a test case. If Norma McCorvey hadn’t wanted an abortion at that particular time, someone else who did would’ve taken her place and nothing else would’ve changed.
No, it’s actualy both Jane Roe and Mary Doe, plaintiff in Doe v. Bolton who have come to a new pro-life perspective.
Do either of them have standing to do anything about thecourt cases that hinged on their complaints back in the 70s? No.
Do either of them have standing to make public statements about their current point of view, including denouncing the procedure or the court cases they began? Absolutely, and if they feel strongly about the issue (and they clearly do) then all the more reason. More power to them.
Found a link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-06-20-roe-vs-wade_x.htm
Kind of an odd response! (hilighting mine) :eek:
That’s right. Norma “Jane Roe” McCorvey and Sandra “Mary Doe” Cano have both spoken out against these decisions. This is more than just a change of heart on their parts, though. They’re complaining about having been dishonestly represented in these landmark cases. Search for their names through a search engine and you’ll find any number of articles on this matter.
As others have pointed out, these cases can’t be overturned based merely on the current stance of these women. They doubtlessly know that. By speaking out, they surely seek to target public opinion, rather than the Supreme Court’s decisions.
Actually, Roe v. Wade should be overturned for the simple reason that the Court was in error, albeit deliberate, in hearing “Roe” under the pretext of a “privacy” issue.
The politics of feminism was in high-gear during the Supreme Court sessions of 1972 - 73, and the pretext of “privacy” was the issue put before the court by those pushing the agenda. The Court, sympathetic to the politics of feminism, accepted the pretext as a basis for hearing the case.
But, there was no violation of “privacy” involved in “Roe”. The Texas law that was brought before the Court, was a law that forbade a specific medical proceedure.
This law was, in no way, a violation of anyone’s “right to privacy” anymore than a state’s law against gambling is not an infringement of one’s right to privately spend their own money as they see fit.
The Supreme Court, in hearing “Roe” under the pretext of a “right to privacy” violation, illustrated its willingness to prostitute itself for an agenda, rather than perform its proper function.
While Razorsharp may have a point about judicial activism, I’m rather afraid that he has expressed enough ignorance of how law works in the previous Ten Commandments threads that anything he says can not be taken very seriously without further input from people who actually can speak the law. Minty?
How about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg?:
What, you want me to start yet another thread on abortion, substantive due process, and the so-called “right to privacy”? 
Sure do, Minty! And that’s what I wanted to see, Bob.
So… she’s not saying it was wrong to do it that way, just that it would have been better to do it another way. I don’t see how it follows that
Minty?
**I don’t think she’s arguing that it should be overturned. She’s smart enough to recognize the inertia of long-established law, however specious the logic was that launched it; perhaps she does have a strong “equality” argument in her hip pocket.
But she is strongly suggesting, it seems to me, that this was inappropriate judicial activism that used privacy as an unwarranted foundation.
I will cite that great Constitutional scholar, minty green, in pointing out that the other amendment referenced in the decision, the Ninth, is one that has no real basis as a foundation for a decision:
So, we are left with a decision based on the fourteenth amendment, a questionable approach according to Ginsburg, and on the ninth, which is a mirage of a foundation (I agree with minty). That’s why there are pro-choice constitutional scholars who still disagree with the decision.
Oh, horse hockey… I’ve kicked Minty’s butt on both “freedom of choice” and the 2nd Amendment. Sure, he/she may be able to “speak the law”, but when the law is twisted and perverted to accomodate an agenda, what credence can one be given for “speaking the law”?
As for your assertion that I expressed “ignorance of how law works in the previous Ten Commandments threads”, I wasn’t really commenting on the law. I was commenting on liberals and the inherent hypocrisy of liberalism. It went something like this:
Oh, I am far from ignorant on how the law works. See, all that has to be done is to infect the judiciary with a liberal robed dictator that has no compunction against twisting and perverting the words and meaning of the “law”, so long as it accomodates the favored ideology.
Now, if you would like to address me personally on a point I have made, rather than making a snide third-person remark, you’re free to do so. Come on, show some guts.
Way to throw around political/legal theories without having the BALLS to express your own opinion about this subject, Razorsharp. Put your cards on the table.
Feel free to disregard this post if you don’t come equipped with ovaries.
Raz: Hush. And stop trying to hijack the thread.
Bob: Thank you for that link. I’ve, honestly, never quite understood the decisions. So, I suppose it can be said that they were the right decisions for the wrong reasons. But if there is an equally valid and much stronger pillar of law to hang them on, why were the decisions made is this more fragile manner?
As far as Roe and Doe… well, Roe appears to have changed directions faster than a weathercock, honestly. Doe, I don’t know much about. But is it all that surprising that someone who would hang on a radical edge would flipflop off it?
Look up Texas vs Johnson, and then get back to me, Razorsharp.
I’m not sure there’s a strong alternate Constitutional argument. I haven’t heard one. I also believe that “right decisions for the wrong reasons” are terrible law and a recipe for problems downstream (though, FTR, I am pro-life, so I wouldn’t describe this decision as “right” in any respect).
I think Justice Rehnquist pointed out the most obvious non sequitur in the Roe v. Wade decision:
**So there you have it: a Fourteenth Amendment argument to strike down laws that the drafters of the amendment apparently had no issue with. I agree with Justice Rehnquist regarding the tortuous logic employed:
**
I am completely in agreement with that portion of your post, Bob.
However, the honorable Judge Ginsburg seems, at least in that blurb above, to state a issue under right to privacy which she sees as stronger than the existing decision.
But I’m pro choice, if not fond of abortion. I would say “but I’ll agree to disagree”, but that sort of comes up with my end of things ‘winning’. So… you understand I respect your opinion on the matter, even if I disagree with it.