# SCOTUS refuses to revisit landmark abortion case **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 11, 2006, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-refuses-to-revisit-landmark-abortion-case/376014 "2006-10-11T02:09:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-refuses-to-revisit-landmark-abortion-case/376014/1 "2006-10-11T02:09:44Z")
[Court won’t rethink ‘Mary Doe’ abortion case](http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/10/scotus.abortion/index.html) > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Tuesday from a Georgia woman seeking to reverse a 1973 Supreme Court ruling giving her the right to an abortion… > > …Since the McCorvey rejection, Sandra Day O’Connor, who generally supported access to abortion, has retired from the bench, replaced in January by Justice Samuel Alito. The change did not appear to make a difference in the latest challenge. I hate posting something and then having little to say, but what else is there to say except that the Chicken Little pro-abortion people were dead wrong when they said that Roberts and Alito would destroy the balance on the Supreme Court and ban abortion. Has anything that the alarmists were claiming would happen come to pass? If anything, thus far the court has told the President to suck wind. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-refuses-to-revisit-landmark-abortion-case/376014/2 "2006-10-11T02:24:02Z")
This is nothing to get excited about. This woman wanted the Court to reconsider a 1973 opinion. Procedurally, she had the proverbial snowball’s chance in hell of winning. The question before the Court was not “Should abortion be legal?”, but something like “should we reconsider a 33 year old opinion because one of the litigants changed her mind?”. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-refuses-to-revisit-landmark-abortion-case/376014/3 "2006-10-11T02:30:43Z")
I’m not excited. Frankly, I think that abortion should remain legal although I personally have grave issues about it, but that’s just my opinion based upon my upbringing (Catholicism and all that). I’m simply noting that some of the more politically minded among us, virtually all of them being of the left-leaning persuasion, were saying that with the confirmation of Alito and Roberts abortion was all but gone first chance they got. Frankly, I don’t see it happening, and this was the first demonstration of their commitment to precedent, procedural rejection or not. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-refuses-to-revisit-landmark-abortion-case/376014/4 "2006-10-11T02:33:13Z")
What **Oakminster** said. The reason the appeal was rejected had nothing to do with the merits of the original decision but was more about the standing of McCovey to ask them to reverse it. What you should worry about is the upcoming decision on so-called “partial-birth” abortion procedures. That’s where the Court will really have an opportunity to hurt women. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-refuses-to-revisit-landmark-abortion-case/376014/5 "2006-10-11T03:33:41Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] What **Oakminster** said. The reason the appeal was rejected had nothing to do with the merits of the original decision but was more about the standing of McCovey to ask them to reverse it. [/QUOTE] Truly minor nitpick, **Diogenes** : The Court has increasingly taken groups of related cases for argument together. In the original landmark abortion case, Norma McCorvey sued Wade anonymously as “Jane Roe” – and it was her decision that was the lead one always cited. It was also McCorvey whose request for reversal was turned down on the standing ground (I believe actually it was on the ground of mootness, but some Doper-at-law can resolve that extremely sidelight question if (s)he chooses.) Sandra Cano sued Bolton as “Mary Doe” in the companion case which related to state-imposed medical requirements for an abortion. It was her case which was just declined, and in this case the court refused to even give a reason for doing so. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-refuses-to-revisit-landmark-abortion-case/376014/6 "2006-10-11T16:07:15Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] I’m not excited. Frankly, I think that abortion should remain legal although I personally have grave issues about it, but that’s just my opinion based upon my upbringing (Catholicism and all that). I’m simply noting that some of the more politically minded among us, virtually all of them being of the left-leaning persuasion, were saying that with the confirmation of Alito and Roberts abortion was all but gone first chance they got. Frankly, I don’t see it happening, and this was the first demonstration of their commitment to precedent, procedural rejection or not. [/QUOTE] **Airman** I’m not certain how the new Supremes will actually rule if and when abortion is put squarely before them. But I do know that you are reading entirely too much into this. The simple fact of the matter is that no 33-year old already-decided case can legally be revisited by any United States Court, regardless of the issue the case presents. (Particularly where, as here, the issue is moot. Don’t know the woman in question, but given that it has been 33 years, I doubt she is still pregnant. For the courts to hear a matter, there must be a “case or controversy”. Since the woman isn’t pregnant and [most likely, given her age], won’t be getting pregnant, there is no case.) Just to put this in perspective - Let’s pretend that, 33 years ago, the state of Connecticut exercised eminent domain and seized a property. The property owners sued and lost. Now, 33 years later, the state of Connecticut has a change of heart and decides that it shouldn’t have seized that property. It files a motion seeking to have the seizure overturned. Every court along the way rightly tosses out the motion, including the Supremes. Would you take that as evidence that the Supreme Court is respecting its controversial precedent on eminent domain, or just is procedurally tossing out a case that shouldn’t be before it? Sua