High Court Asked to Overturn Roe V. Wade

Wed Jan 19,12:33 PM ET


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.

Norma McCorvey, whose protest of Texas' abortion ban led to the 1973 ruling, contends in a petition received at the court Tuesday that the case should be heard again in light of evidence that the procedure may harm women.

"Now we know so much more, and I plead with the court to listen for witnesses and re-evaluate Roe v. Wade (news - web sites)," said McCorvey, who says she now regrets her role in the case.

The politically charged issue comes before the court as both sides gird for a possible bitter nomination fight over Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's replacement should the ailing justice retire this term. At least three justices, including Rehnquist, have said Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned.

Two lower courts last year threw out McCorvey's request to have the ruling reconsidered.

But in a strongly worded concurrence, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) judge Edith H. Jones criticized the abortion ruling and said new medical evidence may well show undue harm to a mother and her fetus.

The last major abortion decision by the Supreme Court came in 2000, when the court ruled 5-4 to strike down Nebraska's ban on so-called "partial-birth" abortion because it failed to provide an exception to protect the mother's health.

Justices since then have shown little interest in wading back to the emotional issue.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let the mayhem comence

How so? I presume this is physical, not emotional harm? Does anyone know?

She can have her case overturned if I can stick her 32 year-old daughter back into her uterus.

--PunkDavid

I'm wondering, is there anyone who is not necessarily opposed to abortion but also believes that the supreme court made an unconstitutional decision in roe v. wade?
I mean, if you can extract a right to an abortion out of the constitution god only knows what other "rights" are hidden in there. Blackmun's opinion is...interesting, to be sure.

Wouldn't it be better if this issue was decided by the people, via their state legislature, rather than 5 old farts tainted by ideology?

*fixed

Well, again, as long as benefit vs risk (aka informed consent) is present, it really shouldnt' matter.

But there certainly are physical risks to the mother also. IT is a surgery. Endometritis is most common (infection).

~GG

I wonder what is more harmful to women, Surgery performed by a trained doctor using surgical tools or Surgery performed by Doctor Nick with a coat hanger in unsanitary conditions.

agreed. banning it would just create more health risks for women determined to have it done anyway.

Incorrect, wise guy. Jane Roe never had her abortion. The child was born.


If you ever read Roe, you'll see that this, and all of the other cases that led up to Roe, were decided not so much in terms of a right for a woman to have an abortion, but a right of a DOCTOR to give medical care to his patients without government interference. Beginning with Griswold, which was the case that legalized birth control in all jurisdictions, it was doctors protesting criminal sanctions against them for giving medical treatment or advice. Roe changed things a little bit because Blackmun began to see this issue as a civil rights issue for women, and he hinted at that rationale in dicta in the opinion. But the opinion was still based on the right to doctor/patient confidentiality and freedom from government interference regarding the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to make one's own medical decisions, especially in regards to procreation. The next major case, the name of which currently escapes me, involved a husband who didn't want his wife to have an abortion, and in that case, the court finally ruled that it was the woman's right to make the decision, and the father had no say in the matter. It was really at this point that the opposition to Roe really started to build.

The point is that to overturn Roe, the court would have to overturn all law that guarantees everyone the right to medical privacy and the right to make one's own medical decisions without state interference. It doesn't take much imagination to see other ways in which the state may choose to inject themselves into a person's medical decisions. The Terri Schiavo case is a perfect example of what the religious right would like to be able to do.

People always talk, on both sides, about the court overturning Roe, but overturning precedent is just not as simple as having 5 justices vote for it. The supreme court is not a legislative body, as much as the far right would sometimes like it to be (and other times not ). To change precedent, it takes the right case, with the right facts and the right laws at issue, and then a legal rationale that a majority of the court will sign on to.

The worry for me in the upcoming nominations is not someone's views on whether abortion is wrong or not, but their willingness to take judicial shortcuts to overturn Roe, as if that's the most important thing the court has to deal with. That is the definition of "judicial activism".


No. When it comes to individual rights, I'd ALWAYS rather have judges deciding things than legislatures. A committee is only as smart as its weakest think, and the larger the body (a legislature), the dumber the dumbest person is. However I feel about their politics, all supreme court justices are brilliant (well, Thomas is only smarter than average).

Just because pressure has resulted in this poor woman being made to regret her decision and her being used as a poster child for such regret doesn't mean that the ruling and the law should be change "back" to the way it was before the ruling. It was the right ruling regardless of whether or not this woman regrets her choice, it was still her RIGHT to make the choice, as it is mine, or any other woman't right to choose. Also, punkdavid makes an excellent point: it is not so much in terms of a right for a woman to have an abortion, but a right of a DOCTOR to give medical care to his patients without government interference. It's not unlike the Terry S. woman and the battle and the government interference. Such things should be left between families and their doctors, the state and federal government should NOT be in the business of making 1:1 medical decisions, they should be in the business of regulating the medical industry in such a way as to ensure it is working properly and safely for the consumers (patients), relative to fair business practises, safety, accessability, etc. The government, if they have to be involved at all, should be involved at the 10,000 or 100,000 foot level, not the 1,000 foot level or 100 foot level, proverbially (or is that an analogy,...... I'm so done with this week I swear.....)

c-

Even Rush Limbaugh?

Worst argument ever. If it's illegal, it's illegal. Acts should not be deemed legal or illegal based on health risks, unless you're arguing that swimming or driving should be illegal due to the inherent risks in both.

Well, I do think there is a level of risk that might warrant making an activity illegal, but my threshold there is pretty high.

Sure, but to say something should be legal because of the health risks if it isn't is ridiculous. Maybe robbing convenience stores should be legal, that way no one will get shot during the robbery?

I'm not convinced that abortions are more risky than blood pressure medicine, cholesterol reducers, pain killers, and/or vaccines.

Hmmmm, i think we're going in opposite directions. The argument was that abortion should remain legal because of the risks of illegal abortions.

You see, the risk is the illegal abortions, not the legal ones, and my argument was that you don't make or keep something legal because of possible health risks associated with the illegal practices.

Again, illegal risks, not legal ones.

Nice shooter guy, btw.

I thought that at first, but something you said (too lazy to go back and check) sent me in another direction.

I don't see too much wrong in considering the impact of illegal activity. It's just being realistic. You can't just ignore the impact b/c people are breaking the law.

Still, if that was the only argument, it's a very weak argument.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm 85% in agreement with you.

this is what makes america great.
republicans endorse the murder of people in iraq, and the us soliders sent over there.
democrats endorse the murder of unborn babies.

what a country.

Why not? It seems a very logical factor to take into account when deciding if something should be illegal or not. Health risk legal vs. health risk illegal. Absolutely.