Jane Roe to ask Supremes to vacate Roe v. Wade

[Ned]

Jane Roe, named party to the original case, just announced on Hannity & Colmes that she will seek to vacate Roe v. Wade. As a party to the case, she has a right to file a Rule 60 motion in the court. Her grounds are that abortions harm women (new evidence) and that technology has advanced, sonagrams and the like, so that we now know that the so-called fetus is actually a formed human after eight weeks or so.

I wonder how the Supremes will handle this hot potato.

[Ted Striker]

I'd hit it.

[Ned]

Let's hope that Jane Roe's lawyer is better aquainted with the real "Supremes."

[Dr Strangelove]

I thought that she had tried that years ago?

[Urban Ranger]

I distinctly remember that also.

[Ned]

Interesting. Is this a second bite at the same apple?

[David Floyd]

Seems to me that this so-called "new information" doesn't really change the Constitutional issues. For that to be the case, the information would have to prove that the fetus not only has the same rights as everyone else, but that those rights supercede the mother's rights.

The first argument is a medical one. I'm sure Jane Roe/Norma McCorvey can find doctors to file briefs on her behalf, but those doctors who would file such a brief certainly don't represent the commonly held medical views.

The second argument is a legal argument, and I'm not sure that the Court would find that the fetus's supposed rights supercede the mother's.

Maybe there's some fact or rule that I'm not aware of, but I just don't see how anything is different now than it was then.

[ravagon]

Re: Jane Roe to ask Supremes to vacate Roe v. Wade

Her grounds are that abortions harm women (new evidence) and ...

Probably has something to do with it.

[Dr Strangelove]

I've forgotten the particulars of the original case. Did Roe sue the state of Texas because she had been punished for having an abortion, or did she sue because she couldn't have an abortion and was forced to have the kid, or did she go elsewhere for an abortion then sued because Texas didn't allow her to have the abortion in Texas?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Seems to me that this so-called "new information" doesn't really change the Constitutional issues.

Bingo. This is an utter non-issue.

And the fact of the matter is that the ruling was NOT made for her benefit. By the time the case came to the Supreme Court, she was forced to have her child, but the Supreme Court said the issue was so important to other pregnant women's rights (NO ONE could go through all the appeals up to the Supreme Court in 9 months), that they'd decide the issue based on that.

Doc, IIRC, she wanted to have an abortion and Texas did not allow it. She had the kid, btw, before the court issued the ruling.

[Dinner]

The case is already tried decades ago and even if she personally changed her mind the legal verdict isn't going to change reguarding the legality of abortion. Face it Ned, you are once again barking up the wrong tree.

[Ben Kenobi]

Seems to me that this so-called "new information" doesn't really change the Constitutional issues. For that to be the case, the information would have to prove that the fetus not only has the same rights as everyone else, but that those rights supercede the mother's rights.

How so? To say that both the mother and the child have the right to live, is not saying that the mother's right to live, is outweighed by the child's.

Now, if what you are saying is that the mother's right to privacy ought to outweigh the child's right to life, you are on shaky grounds. You are not permitted to beat your child in the privacy of your home, so why should you be permitted to kill your child in the privacy of an abortion clinic?

If the unborn child is considered to be a person, than indeed, their rights need to be balanced with the rights of the mother, such that both are considered equally persons.

The first argument is a medical one. I'm sure Jane Roe/Norma McCorvey can find doctors to file briefs on her behalf, but those doctors who would file such a brief certainly don't represent the commonly held medical views.

Commonly held medical view? Abortion hurts women in a variety of ways through a variety of complications. Regardless of what some of the medical community chooses to accept as evidence, there is solid evidence in favour of the massive sequelae surrounding induced abortion.

[Ben Kenobi]

And the fact of the matter is that the ruling was NOT made for her benefit. By the time the case came to the Supreme Court, she was forced to have her child, but the Supreme Court said the issue was so important to other pregnant women's rights (NO ONE could go through all the appeals up to the Supreme Court in 9 months), that they'd decide the issue based on that.

Spot on. The case was never about Norma. She was a puppet, used, and then disposed of when she was no longer needed.

[David Floyd]

How so? To say that both the mother and the child have the right to live, is not saying that the mother's right to live, is outweighed by the child's.

The question is whether or not the fetus's "right to life" supercedes all other rights of the mother - that is, the mother is legally obligated to give birth, whether she wants to or not, regardless of the situation.

That would imply that there is a "hierarchy of rights", in a moral sense, with the right to life being at the top - and that is a concept I utterly reject. Accepting a hierarchy of rights is going to leave you with limited individual liberty if you take it to the logical conclusion.

Now, if what you are saying is that the mother's right to privacy ought to outweigh the child's right to life, you are on shaky grounds. You are not permitted to beat your child in the privacy of your home, so why should you be permitted to kill your child in the privacy of an abortion clinic?

Now hold on a second - you aren't "killing your child", you are simply deciding that the fetus/child can no longer use your body. Let's look at it this way - if you agree to allow your body to be hooked up to a machine in order to sustain someone's else's life, does it become murder if you change your mind and take yourself off the machine?

Obviously, it does not - that person doesn't have a moral claim to your body. His right to life is irrelevant - it's not a factor because you are not violating it.

If the unborn child is considered to be a person, than indeed, their rights need to be balanced with the rights of the mother, such that both are considered equally persons.

Bingo, and that's why I still would be in favor of abortion rights, because morally speaking, I cannot condone forcing one to use their body to support another.

Commonly held medical view? Abortion hurts women in a variety of ways through a variety of complications. Regardless of what some of the medical community chooses to accept as evidence, there is solid evidence in favour of the massive sequelae surrounding induced abortion.

Unfortunately for you, though, this is a medical question, and as such, the views of the medical community at large are going to hold quite a bit of weight - certainly more than certain doctors who hold views based on their religion, or at least doctors who allow religion to shape or influence their medical judgment.

Spot on. The case was never about Norma. She was a puppet, used, and then disposed of when she was no longer needed.

Maybe, but what's your point? Roe v. Wade was a landmark decision instrumental in securing reproductive rights. Just because Roe/McCorvey now disagrees with it doesn't mean the decision is going to go away - to repeat what I said in my first post, and what Imran backed me up on, Norma McCorvey's opinion is irrelevant as to the actual Constitutional issues and rights associated with Roe v. Wade.

[Ben Kenobi]

The question is whether or not the fetus's "right to life" supercedes all other rights of the mother - that is, the mother is legally obligated to give birth, whether she wants to or not, regardless of the situation.

Sure. After all, the mother's right to life is more important than her husband's right to privacy.

That would imply that there is a "hierarchy of rights", in a moral sense, with the right to life being at the top - and that is a concept I utterly reject. Accepting a hierarchy of rights is going to leave you with limited individual liberty if you take it to the logical conclusion.

Why not? That's the way it works for all other persons. We do not have the right to kill other people because they hinder our freedoms. In all other cases, we believe that individual liberties are less important than the right to life.

Suppose I had the freedom to speak. If someone denies me that right through censorship, do I now have the right to kill that person? No. There are steps to regain the loss of individual liberties that do not entail killing others.

Now hold on a second - you aren't "killing your child", you are simply deciding that the fetus/child can no longer use your body. Let's look at it this way - if you agree to allow your body to be hooked up to a machine in order to sustain someone's else's life, does it become murder if you change your mind and take yourself off the machine?

Been reading Judith Jarvis Thomson, eh? You need to brush up on your analogy.

First of all, if you consent to the procedure, than why should you be allowed to change your mind later when changing your mind will result in the death of the other person? That's not right. This is why JJT's argument is just slightly different than yours.

Obviously, it does not - that person doesn't have a moral claim to your body. His right to life is irrelevant - it's not a factor because you are not violating it.

How is the person violating your body? You have allowed him to be hooked up to you in the first place. He can no more violate your body, than you can violate yourself. He has a claim to your body because you consented to having him hooked up to you.

Bingo, and that's why I still would be in favor of abortion rights, because morally speaking, I cannot condone forcing one to use their body to support another.

Do you agree with child support? Same thing. You are forcing fathers to provide for their unwanted children.

Unfortunately for you, though, this is a medical question, and as such, the views of the medical community at large are going to hold quite a bit of weight - certainly more than certain doctors who hold views based on their religion, or at least doctors who allow religion to shape or influence their medical judgment.

Great! What do you make of Dr. Janet Daling?

Dr. Janet Daling, who is strongly pro-choice, told the L.A. Daily News in September 1997: "If politics gets involved in science it will really hold back the progress that we make. I have three sisters with breast cancer and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of what is."

Now, her study:

(Daling JR, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994; 86: 1584-1592.)

determined that women who underwent induced abortions had a 50% greater risk of breast cancer than women who did not have abortions. When abortion was induced during the last month of the first trimester, the risk almost doubled. For women younger than 18 years at the time of a first induced abortion, the relative risk was 2.5. This was reduced to 1.3 if the abortion was induced earlier in gestation. Women older than 30 years at the time of a first induced abortion had a relative risk of 2.1.

Norma McCorvey's opinion is irrelevant as to the actual Constitutional issues and rights associated with Roe v. Wade.

If you believe that abortion empowers women, then it is quite a blow to see the shocking treatment that Norma has received from the prochoice side.