It seems really unfortunate that 30 years after the fact, Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe in the Roe v. Wade ruling) makes claims that she never really understood what an abortion was, and wants the Court to reverse the ruling in order to prevent "great harm to the women and children of our nation". Clearly, many people feel that reversing this ruling will cause more harm than letting it stand. The affidavit that Roe writes to the State of Texas is posted in the above link- it's pretty telling, and somewhat graphic (you've been warned!). Included with her affidavit are the petitions of 1000 more women who have had abortions and regret them.
I know there is a lot of abortion topics here, so you can keep the pro-choice/pro-life posts for the main one. Basically here, I want to discuss what you think the courts will do and the implications of McCorvey admitting these things. Frankly, I find it strange to think that someone who doesn't know what an abortion is would actively seek one out. I also highly doubt that the courts will throw out a 30 year ruling based on the regrets of 1001 women- sure there are many times the number who have had no adverse effects to abortions, or indeed, felt relieved. Still, with current administration in charge, and the recent ruling to ban the misnomered 'partial birth abortions', it seems somewhat worrisome.
I'm especially interested in what BruinDan (local law expert, hee!) and MizScarlet have to say, especially since the Roe v. Wade 'anniversary' thread that was posted awhile back.
Ahh, I read about that too, and my sister and I sighed with dismay.
I feel sorry that Ms. Roe regretted having an abortion and I know that she is not alone. But it is a tough decision to make, and the important matter of the ruling is that it ensures that women are still allowed to make that decision for themselves. Of course, this includes the decisions NOT to terminate a pregnancy.
If the pro-life faction wants to be most effective, imho, they need to take the angle of offering more alternatives to abortion, whether by prevention of sexual assault/rape/violence, ensuring that men and women both are educated about pregnancy prevention measures, or by making adoption a more viable alternative to abortion. The pro-life movement's reactionary tactics of endorsing bans on the procedure, picketing clinics (and the occasional nutjob who kills a doctor) only incur resentment from the pro-choice faction and make the debate violently divisive.
Has anybody read Ms. McCorvey's book 'I am Roe'? I wanted to, but i had a backlog of books to finish reading and I never got around to borrowing it from a friend. If you have read it, please post a review of it.
------------------ Summertime, and the living's easy...
Posts: 12677 | From: Los Angeles, CA ... somewhere off the 10 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
That sounds like a good idea, but ultimately, whether or not some people eventually regret something or not is not good grounds for making laws. By that logic, if you could find 1000 women who regret having babies (and I'm sure you could), we should make having babies illegal too!
Posts: 2710 | From: Australia | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
Honestly, all I've got to say on this is to agree with what Beppie has said.
Norma McCorvey has been going this route for a little while now. I'm earnestly convinced she's not right in the head at this point, and some of that may well be due to the fact that her case and her history was a pretty serious ordeal for her (which is seriously ironic, considering).
I regret having eaten dairy for many years of my life. It slayed my gallbladder and made me really ill, but that has to do with my own constitution, and I certainnly wouldn't suggest dairy be made illegal, even though it makes a whole lot of people ill, and even though the way most of it is produced is really cruel.
And this is certainly an issue an analogy like that can't even come close to equaling.
One wouldn't have a hard time finding hundreds of thousands of women to claim that they didn't regret their abortions, and/or even if they did would support abortion being legal: I'm certainly one of them. But I'd say that's irrelevant. There exist no laws which control how or if men reproduce. As far as I'm concerned, the same should always apply to women.
Honestly, I have a really hard time even dealing with these issues at this point in my life, because the entire idea of a law governing my ovaries just gets more ludicrous and terrifying with every passing year. The older I get the pushing for that just seems sickening when at the same time I'd be limited should I choose to bear a child if I raised him or her with a same-sex partner, when the administration has taken away funds required for those of us who are low-income to even have healthy babies, when the foster care and adoption system is such a holy terror, when we have one of the highest child mortality and child poverty rates of any developed nation.
I could go on, but it really makes me ill. When the "sanctity" of life becomes more important than the quality of life, there's just no untangling that warped logic.
I'd definitely agree with MizScarlet in that I think Miss McCorvey is a bit out of it, but I'd go far enough as to think that she's really been out of the loop (so to speak) her entire life. The woman was an aide at a circus, had 5 kids by the time she was 19, and seemed to have an all-around rough life. While there's nothing wrong with working at a circus, or with having five unplanned children while still in your teens...it's definitely not your run-of-the-mill upbringing, and I'd imagine that may have taken a toll.
The downside of that is that sometimes people who "aren't all there" get used by people in positions of power. When the pro-choice folks needed a figurehead, there she was. Now it's the pro-life folks who are using this woman, and I'm willing to bet there were groups in between who manipulated her as well.
But aside from personal speculation, I don't think this is as much of an immediate threat as it seems at first glance. Two-thirds of the justices on the Supreme Court are committed to upholding Roe vs. Wade, and should they even consider this request, it will almost certainly be upheld.
However. This is indicative of a general trend away from abortion that should be taken notice of. While I still have a hard time swallowing many of the arguments the pro-choice lobby uses, I'm also well aware that until we've got a better solution, I'd much rather keep things the way they are now. I make no secret of my personal distaste for abortion, it's just not something I'm all that fond of. But, like having a tooth pulled, sometimes things I personally find distasteful are things that really ought to be kept around until something better comes along. When 100% reliable contraception is available to 100% of the world, maybe I'll vote against abortion. Until then, I'd much rather keep things the way they are today.
And for the time being, I think that will hold. I'm sure we'll see a challenge and some vociferous debate in the next few years, but if enough of us remember to vote and take the time to write our congresspeople, we just might keep things together.
Merci Bruin! BTW, it turns out the courts overturned McCorvey's request today. That was super fast. I wonder if there was a big backlash when McCorvey's affidavit was made public.
Posts: 1679 | From: London, ON | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
ok you guys arent going to like what i have to say but this is in politics so im going to post anyway. i dont believe in abortion (although anything on this site that deals with abortion i just keep my mouth shut). i think that they should ban abortion but i didnt think she would have a good case because of how long it had been and it seems that she does have some problems. i think she just wants more attention. i would think that if she felt this way she would have felt this way along time ago. and what kind of people go into a lawsuit (or anything else) without knowing the facts? i dont get it. i think she is lying and wanting attention.
like i said i dont agree with abortion i am pro-life. but this is a pro-choice website which is why you probably didnt know that. and i know quite a bit about abortions but you will not hear from me on the subject. i respect heather and everyone elses opinions so even though i am pro-life i am not putting people down. i just dont reply if i am against it. im sorry if i insulted someone (i probably did) but that was not my intentions. the only intentions i had was to say that i think that the lawsuit was (to sum it up) stupid.
I don't believe at all that she didn't know what abortion was. And if that were the case, why would she go through with a whole grueling lawsuit about something she didn't know what it was? And why did it take her THIS long to figure out what it was and change her mind? I don't buy it at all. It's too late to turn things back around.
Posts: 304 | From: Pittsburgh PA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Copyright 1998, 2014 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998
Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.