Roe Vs. Wade, request for overturn

[Fitz]

Tonight on Hannity and Colmes, Norma Mccorvey is stating the she will go to the Supreme Court tomorrow and at a press conference make a plea to open and overturn Roe. vs. Wade. She and her lawyer are going to do this with rule (or pt.) 60. I am not sure what # 60 is because I did not hear it clearly.

They will use information like: suicide rates for women that have had abortions, depression, life long depression, etc. to make their point.

 

[Agomemnon]

Fitz:

Tonight on Hannity and Colmes, Norma Mccorvey is stating the she will go to the Supreme Court tomorrow and at a press conference make a plea to open and overturn Roe. vs. Wade. She and her lawyer are going to do this with rule (or pt.) 60. I am not sure what # 60 is because I did not hear it clearly.

They will use information like: suicide rates for women that have had abortions, depression, life long depression, etc. to make their point.

Well that and the other facts that Roe V. Wade was based upon lies, pseudo-science, and other Nazi tacticts.

Roe V. Wade should be overturned because it was based upon lies. Then it would go back to the states and the media blackout would be much more difficult.

 

[Almeria]

I found a news article about it:

newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/17/221851.shtml

McCorvey to High Court: Overturn Roe vs Wade

The woman whose case became the basis for the controversial 1973 Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion is petitioning the court to have the ruling overturned.

Norma McCorvvey, known as Jane Roe in court filings, told the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes” on Monday, “We’re going to be fling a Motion 60 brief tomorrow with the Supreme Court and ask and plead and beg them to please overturn Roe vs. Wade.”

Story Continues Below

McCorvey came out against abortion years ago, but her decision to actively challenge the landmark ruling was spurred, she explained, by new technology that dramatically increased chances for viability for the unborn.

She also cited the increase in post-abortion depression among women.

McCorvey’s lawyer, Allan Parker, explained the legal process, telling “Hannity & Colmes”: “Under Rule 60, Norma, as a party [to the original case], can ask the court to vacate her judgment - set it aside as if it never was - on the grounds that it’s no longer just.”

Parker said he would be required to show that both medical and legal conditions had changed significantly since the court decided Roe vs. Wade 32-years ago.

I’ve always wondered why she didn’t try using that Rule before. I’m glad she’s giving it a try, and I pray the Supreme Court vacates the judgement.

 

[Lisa_N]

Agomemnon:

Well that and the other facts that Roe V. Wade was based upon lies, pseudo-science, and other Nazi tacticts.

Roe V. Wade should be overturned because it was based upon lies. Then it would go back to the states and the media blackout would be much more difficult.

Absolutely. If we had known then, what we know now, there is no question the case would have been decided in favor of the unborn. If you read (I mean WADE) through all of the prose, reasons for etc, the judges are literally pulling at straws. They quote old wives tales such as the baby ‘quickening’ They quote Greek and Roman philosophers. Amost no science and while things were quite unsophisticated in comparison to today’s understanding of fetal development, even back then they knew the baby was a completely and genetically unique person.

I hope this is carefully and seriously considered in light of our greater knowledge and ability to save even very premature babies.

Lisa N

 

[_pro-life_teen]

Does anyone know if its possible to actually watch this request, such as online or on CSPAN or something? I would love to be able to watch those judges squirm!

 

[chicago]

What is the Court’s responsibility in regard to this petition? Are they required to receive it? Must they formally rule on it? can it merely be dismissed?

 

[chicago]

*pro-life_teen*:

Does anyone know if its possible to actually watch this request, such as online or on CSPAN or something? I would love to be able to watch those judges squirm!

There’s no “Court TV” for the Supremes. They do make an audio recording of argumentations which I want to say is later available for listening purposes. On rare occasion (like when the arguments over the 2000 Presidential race were heard), they will release this recording for broadcast.

 

[Fitz]

Let’s all pray that this petition makes the news today. They like to put prolife matters on the back burner. Imagine this being announced today, the week of the inauguration and the week before the prollife activities in DC. This is really good, don’t you all think?

 

[neophyte]

Lisa N:

Absolutely. If we had known then, what we know now, there is no question the case would have been decided in favor of the unborn. If you read (I mean WADE) through all of the prose, reasons for etc, the judges are literally pulling at straws. They quote old wives tales such as the baby ‘quickening’ They quote Greek and Roman philosophers. Amost no science and while things were quite unsophisticated in comparison to today’s understanding of fetal development, even back then they knew the baby was a completely and genetically unique person.

I hope this is carefully and seriously considered in light of our greater knowledge and ability to save even very premature babies.

Lisa N

Sister, you ain’t kidding, I was stunned when I read the majority decision. What really chilled my blood was the statement that it didn’t matter whether or not the baby was a person.

 

[mommy]

Fitz:

Let’s all pray that this petition makes the news today. They like to put prolife matters on the back burner. Imagine this being announced today, the week of the inauguration and the week before the prollife activities in DC. This is really good, don’t you all think?

Yes I hope W steps up to the plate and mentions and supports this action!! Especially with all the hoopla that we should have a party because soldiers are dying. Well so are babies!!! Let’s start caring about that. (My comment is not in any way diminish the soldiers, just shedding light on the babies)

 

[Island_Oak]

Unfortunately all of you overlook the 30+ years of judicial rulings that have interpreted the Roe decision and applied it to a multitude of variable situations and challenges. It is virtually unimaginable that the original plaintiff coming back in and petitioning for the decision to be vacated on the grounds cited under a Rule 60 motion is anything other than an attempt to further publicize Ms. McCorvey’s current position on this case. It is also unimaginable to me that challenges to Roe under any number of legal theories would ever eliminate the “right of privacy” which first emerged in a series of decisions concerning birth control leading up to Roe and which, in the last 30 years have become an entrenched part of the logic that has united and sustained these decisions. There exists quite a chasm between the logic and ethics of the Catholic church and those upheld by the federal courts of this country.

 

[Magster]

While I heartily applaude the effort to use Rule 60 to get the Supreme Court to vacate their abominable decision, I don’t hold out much hope of that happening. Given the Supreme Court’s long history of only expanding the right to murder unborn children under the guise of privacy, and never curtailing it, I doubt the Supreme Court Justices will view the petition as anything more than a publicity stunt, or give it more than a cursory read.

I watched Hannity and Colmes last night and the attorney, Allan Parker, responded to a question by Colmes about the source of the claim that many women suffer severe psychological trauma, including an increased rate of suicide, after abortion. Parker stated that more than 300 medical reports are cited in the petition to back that claim. Colmes did not have any relevant reply to Parker.

I hope the Court gives serious consideration to the immense damage abortion has done to women. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[Fitz]

Magster:

Given the Supreme Court’s long history of only expanding the right to murder unborn children under the guise of privacy, and never curtailing it, I doubt the Supreme Court Justices will view the petition as anything more than a publicity stunt, or give it more than a cursory read.

I really don’t follow the Supreme Court decisions like I should. If they dismiss this, would they ever take another look? I mean, if public opinion is growing on the side of revoking Roe v Wade, would it matter to the Supreme Court?

 

[AmericanAtheist]

Roe Vs Wade needs to stay!!! Keep It Legal!!! I have marched in support of it twice and I plan on marching again!! We will keep it upheld!!

 

[Tlaloc]

Fitz:

I really don’t follow the Supreme Court decisions like I should. If they dismiss this, would they ever take another look?

If another case comes before them on the issue. The courts can’t initiate anything they only rule on those suits brought to them.

I mean, if public opinion is growing on the side of revoking Roe v Wade, would it matter to the Supreme Court?

Fortunately the courts are fairly insulated against public opinion which is why they are the protectors of our constitutional rights. For instance both the suffragette movement and the civil rights movement were rather unpopular because it meant the majority lost power. The courts are there in part to protect against the “tyranny of the majority.”

So to answer your question, ideally it doesn’t matter what public opinion is the courts will rule according to the law. Of course public opinion can be a factor in what judges get appointed so that over time it may indeed influence the balance of the court.

 

[jman507]

Feel the harden heart. What possible can make killing your son or daughter worth it?

 

[Island_Oak]

Fitz:

I really don’t follow the Supreme Court decisions like I should. If they dismiss this, would they ever take another look? I mean, if public opinion is growing on the side of revoking Roe v Wade, would it matter to the Supreme Court?

No. The court is bound in its rulings by precedent–meaning cases decided since Roe that have interpreted and applied it to differing fact patterns or legal issues. Aspects of Roe have been upheld in numerous challenges, even while other portions have been limited in their scope or application. No court, especially the US Supreme Court, is a barometer of public opinion. That’s why participation in elections is so vital, because the legislative and executive branch members do serve according to popular will and support. I can’t imagine that even if portions of the Roe decision were ever overturned, that the right to an abortion would be eliminated entirely.