I don’t have a debate for this. MPSIMS seemed too innocent for this so…here it is.
Why am I not surprised?
Conservatives literally need to manufacture outrage otherwise they’ve got nothing except the colossal assholes they are staring back at them in the mirror.
To me, that stance always reeked of insincerity. Those groups also could have done more to reduce the number of abortions by financing birth control and prenatal care than by doing this.
Wow. Very interesting article! I’d like to see a list of all the donors to her and Operation Save America.
If the documentary has, um, solid documentation of improper payments (i.e. money received prior to her “conversion”), then it’s a damning commentary on the ethics of anti-abortion rights advocates.
If it’s basically her say-so, then I’m not impressed. Though she had an important historical role, McCorvey’s credibility has suffered from her about-faces.
In general, I’m dubious about the veracity of deathbed renunciations.
So, you are fine with her veracity prior to all this but doubt a deathbed confession?
Doesn’t the law give special consideration to deathbed confessions/declarations with the notion being the person really has no reason to lie at that point and are, maybe, trying to unburden their soul? (or something like that…I really don’t know why they give it special consideration)
I didn’t see her “finding God” and turning against her Roe v. Wade backers as a big deal, and suspected at the time that her conversion had a lot to do with seeking the attention that she felt abortion rights supporters were no longer giving her. Is her latest claim another cry for attention?
People tend to give undue credence to those who dramatically reverse their views on controversial subjects. There’s a one-time fervent anti-GMOer of the crop-vandalizing persuasion who switched to being an outspoken supporter of genetic modification technology. That’s nice, but the conversion doesn’t lend him super credibility.
I’ll wait to see McCorvey’s documentation before leaping with glee.
Damn. I don’t know what to think, but what a difficult, sad, and complicated life she had.
She would have been five years younger when she died than my parents are now, and she looks about twenty years older 
I’m gonna go with “no” on this since she has been dead for three years and I don’t think her health was very good when she made these statements.
Yeah, but she was just living with her choices and she set aside morality for money. I don’t pity her all that much.
And I was today years old when I realized your username is not Fretful Porcupine.
Always hoped that I’d be an Apostle
Knew that I would make it if I tried
Then when we retire we can write the Gospels
So they’ll all still talk about us when we’ve died
She was already immortalized by virtue of the Roe v. Wade case.
Anything she did after is a footnote at best.
Put another way, she didn’t have to do anything at all to be talked about after her death.
Ok…
(blink blink)
(looks at the user name)
:eek: !!!
The idea was that no one who was about to meet their maker would do so with the stain of a very recent lie for which they had had no time to repent. So this idea obviously goes back to a time when you could presume someone believed in G-d, and also to a time when Catholic sensibilities prevailed.
Even fairly recently, according to a lawyer I know “dying declarations” (the legal term for “deathbed confessions,” and other quoted statements admitted as exempted from hearsay rules) have to be made by a person who knows he is dying, and if the opposing side can bring in someone who can produce convincing evidence that the person wasn’t aware of the fact that he was dying, the final things he said won’t be admitted into evidence as “dying declarations.”
So they are still given special legal status.
I sort of wonder, though, if it’s not a wink-wink because there’s no other way to get a dying person’s testimony admitted if it wasn’t recorded-- and even then, it might be dicey, since you can’t cross-examine a recording. I have a cousin who is a prosecutor in Chicago. I should ask him about it.
It’s a variant.
Thanks heavens for Bertie Wooster, to whom I owe my classical education. 
Holy crap!
To the OP, I guess that sleazeball with the crappy editing skills who tried to set up Mueller and Fauci wasn’t the first conservative sleazeball.
Your link quotes Reverend Schenck describing her as “a “needy” person in need of love and protection”. Evidently she also had a great need for attention, even near the end of her life.
Remember that McCorvey did not have the greatest reputation for veracity. From her Wikipedia bio:
*"McCorvey revealed herself to the press as being “Jane Roe” soon after the decision was reached, stating that she had sought an abortion because she was unemployable and greatly depressed. In 1983, McCorvey told the press that she had been raped. In 1987, she said the rape claim was untrue…
In 1994, McCorvey’s autobiography, I Am Roe, was published. At a signing of I Am Roe, McCorvey was befriended by Flip Benham, an evangelical minister and the national director of anti-abortion organization Operation Rescue. She converted to Christianity and was baptized on August 8, 1995, by Benham, in a Dallas, Texas, backyard swimming pool, an event that was filmed for national television. Two days later, she announced that she had quit her job at an abortion clinic and had become an advocate of Operation Rescue’s campaign to make abortion illegal. She voiced remorse for her part in the Supreme Court decision and said she had been a pawn of abortion activists.
McCorvey’s second book, Won by Love, described her religious conversion and was published in 1998. In the book, she said that her change of heart occurred in 1995, when she saw a fetal development poster in an Operation Rescue office."*
OK, so maybe the upcoming video documents a quid pro quo in which she got money then converted to anti-abortion rights activism. Or it shows her being paid over a period of time to keep her from feeling too needy and flipping back to the pro-abortion rights side. Could someone construe her job at an abortion clinic as “payment” for her services during Roe v. Wade? (rest assured, someone will).
I can understand the documentary’s producer(s) sitting on this supposed bombshell for over three years and then trying to make a splash in time for the 2020 Presidential election. If it has the goods and the impact is as hoped, then fine.
I suspect though that if she’d dramatically revealed payments from pro-abortion rights advocates to keep her loyal during the Roe v. Wade era and the charges were trundled out during a critical election campaign, pro-choicers would be crying foul/conspiracy etc.
Let’s see the evidence first.
As if ethics beyond their primary goal at all cost to womens’ health and reproductive rights has ever been an issue with the anti-abortion crowd? These are people who deny fundamental science, lie about how and when procedures are performed, attempt to mislead, deceive, and intimidate women seeking an abortion, and occasionally bomb clinics and attack doctors in pursuit of their “pro-life” agenda.
Stranger
Why does it even matter? Why should this one individual’s views on abortion be held as any more significant than any of the other 300 million individuals in this country?
I have the same reaction. And it’s the same reaction I had whenever previously confronted with the fact that “the original Jane Roe says now that she’d never have an abortion”. So what? It’s not like she was the only potential plaintiff they could have found at the time.