"WASHINGTON - The woman once known as "Jane Roe" has asked the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion 32 years ago."
I heard an interview with Ms McCorvey some years back in which she made it clear that she regretted her decision to have an abortion, regretted being the one to bring the test case that legalised it, and in general was firmly convinced that the whole thing had been a big mistake that she desperately wishes she had not been involved in, let alone the keystone for.
Yeah, I've heard her, too. For many years. I think she's even in a documentary about it. I'm just distressed that anyone is listening to her, especially when 3 sitting justices say Roe should be overturned.
Well, to play Devil's Advocate for a moment... if they listened to her 32 years ago, why shouldn't they listen to her now?
If she's not worth listening to now, why should they have listened to her 32 years ago?Meanwhile, note that the SCOTUS have not agreed to hear the case; all that's happened is that she's asked them to do so. Several lower courts have told her it's too late to turn back time, so now, she's taken it to the top. That's the process doing it's job.
Well, my little satan, as is usually the case, it wasn't her that had something worthwhile to say (then or now). It was the law. And the law on which Roe v. Wade was decided (if I am correct, she meeped, cringing a little) was a birth control matter decided on privacy issues. That aside, and playing atheists advocate, then she was a rational, thinking person and now she is a minister of Christ on Earth, Amen. Or something. Here's hoping SCOTUS tells her to take a hike. Especially if her reasoning is that she, as an individual, has changed her mind. I think if that's the case, she should go ahead and never have another abortion.
The best way to explain how I think about it with a parallel to parliamentary law. There are three steps to making a main motion: a member stands and makes the original motion, another member seconds it, and then the chair restates the motion. The maker of the motion can withdraw or modify it until the chair has restated the motion; after that point the motion is the property of the assembly and the maker has no more claim to it than any other member.
This could be extended to any idea or judgment in society. Once the motion/case/general idea is suggested to society and asked to be decided on its merits, the original person can't take it back. Locke can't come back and say, "No no, I was wrong; you guys should have a divine king." Thomas Edison can't take back the light bulb. And Jane Roe can't come back say, "Enh, forget the whole thing," any more than anyone else can.
Roe v. Wade may be a lousy decision with teetering precedent that many on the left say would benefit abortion rights in the long run by being struck down, but it's there. And Jane Roe doesn't have any special status just because it's her name (or ex-name) on the title page.
I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem to me that she has standing to bring the suit. Something which I'm sure she well knows, and if this was anything but a publicity stunt, she wouldn't have appealed from the lower court ruling.
Okay, after I post this I'm gonna see who you're friends with on my list.
On the topic: FUCK! As I was a religious studies major, I can say accurately that the current incarnation of Christianity makes me nauseous in all possible ways.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
I love Dark Crystal!!!
From:
Re: I love Dark Crystal!!!
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I heard an interview with Ms McCorvey some years back in which she made it clear that she regretted her decision to have an abortion, regretted being the one to bring the test case that legalised it, and in general was firmly convinced that the whole thing had been a big mistake that she desperately wishes she had not been involved in, let alone the keystone for.
From:
no subject
I'm just distressed that anyone is listening to her, especially when 3 sitting justices say Roe should be overturned.
From:
no subject
If she's not worth listening to now, why should they have listened to her 32 years ago?
Meanwhile, note that the SCOTUS have not agreed to hear the case; all that's happened is that she's asked them to do so. Several lower courts have told her it's too late to turn back time, so now, she's taken it to the top. That's the process doing it's job.
From:
no subject
That aside, and playing atheists advocate, then she was a rational, thinking person and now she is a minister of Christ on Earth, Amen. Or something.
Here's hoping SCOTUS tells her to take a hike. Especially if her reasoning is that she, as an individual, has changed her mind. I think if that's the case, she should go ahead and never have another abortion.
From:
standing
This could be extended to any idea or judgment in society. Once the motion/case/general idea is suggested to society and asked to be decided on its merits, the original person can't take it back. Locke can't come back and say, "No no, I was wrong; you guys should have a divine king." Thomas Edison can't take back the light bulb. And Jane Roe can't come back say, "Enh, forget the whole thing," any more than anyone else can.
Roe v. Wade may be a lousy decision with teetering precedent that many on the left say would benefit abortion rights in the long run by being struck down, but it's there. And Jane Roe doesn't have any special status just because it's her name (or ex-name) on the title page.
I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem to me that she has standing to bring the suit. Something which I'm sure she well knows, and if this was anything but a publicity stunt, she wouldn't have appealed from the lower court ruling.
From:
oy vay
From:
Re: oy vay
spigotspirit when last I saw her.From:
Re: oy vay
From:
Re: oy vay
yeah (http://www.roenomore.org/crossing_over/).
was the holy spirit what made her realize she was killin god's chillun.
(ooh! i AM a poet!)
From:
friendsfriends! again!
On the topic: FUCK! As I was a religious studies major, I can say accurately that the current incarnation of Christianity makes me nauseous in all possible ways.
From:
no subject
Read a little about A HREF="http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml">the seamy underside of the soi-disant "pro-life" movement. Looks like she fits right in.