Woman Behind Roe v. Wade: “I’m Dedicating My Life to Overturning It”

Nov 2005
9,001
3,482
California
#11
She is glorified as some sort of Rosa parks historical figure but her actual story is not given.
The amusing thing about your claim is that it is obvious that the red part proves the blue part a lie... :rolleyes:


She was not raped
She did not have an abortion
She regrets her part in the whole process
Those are pretty important facts that get conveniently left out of the mythology.
I find it interesting
This means absolutely nothing.
If Mildred Loving and Richard Loving had divorced, that wouldn't have any significance regarding Loving v Virginia...
 
Nov 2013
2,623
1,134
NM
#12
I find it interesting that these historical facts are conveniently left out of the narrative.




Norma McCorvey never wanted an abortion — she was seeking a divorce from her husband — but young, pro-abortion feminist attorney Sarah Weddington used McCorvey’s case as a means of attempting to overturn Texas’ law making most abortions illegal. Weddington took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which invalidated every pro-life state law in the nation protecting unborn children and the rest is history.

But most Americans don’t know that McCorvey, who was “pro-choice” on abortion at the time, is now a pro-life advocate. She is now dedicated to reversing the Supreme Court case that bears her fictitious name, Jane Roe.



“I think it’s safe to say that the entire abortion industry is based on a lie…. I am dedicated to spending the rest of my life undoing the law that bears my name,” McCorvey says.


Woman Behind Roe v. Wade: "I'm Dedicating My Life to Overturning It" | LifeNews.com
Except, of course, that Roe v. Wade doesn't bear her (McCorvey's) name. It bears a conventional legal name, given as a placeholder in place of her real name - which I assume she didn't want to use @ the time, for whatever reason. The states & Congress had plenty of time to work out national legislation on abortion, if they had wanted to (states had addressed abortion since @ least the 1880s). From what I've read, there was very little interest in a national or federal law on the topic. & so the Supreme Court finally went ahead & rendered a ruling with national precedence.

Was Roe behind Roe v. Wade? I don't think so. Her case was symbolic, perhaps, of the discontent with the very fragmented legal status of access to abortion across the country. That may have been why the Supreme Court finally acted, to put in place @ least a common base for all the states to work from.
 
Sep 2018
6,679
1,127
cleveland ohio
#13
she was a pawn and not very bright, to me it doesnt matter what she thinks or wants this whole thing is bigger than one feeble minded cow
 
Jul 2018
4,419
1,986
Trump World! Where the circus is always in town.
#14
Violating the Constitution and federalism to take away a state's plenary powers and rights is what liberals advocate. The US would be a much better place if violating the Constitution was part of the treason clause.
States right's was a mistake from day one. It was a sellout to the rich to get all areas to come together.
Should have long ago been abolished.
 
Sep 2018
6,679
1,127
cleveland ohio
#15
States right's was a mistake from day one. It was a sellout to the rich to get all areas to come together.
Should have long ago been abolished.
it never existed it was a chimera
The Supremacy Clause is a clause within Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which dictates that federal law is the "supreme law of the land." This means that judges in every state must follow the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the federal government in matters which are directly or indirectly within the government's control. Under the doctrine of preemption, which is based on the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law, even when the laws conflict. Thus, a federal court may require a state to stop certain behavior it believes interferes with, or is in conflict with, federal law.
The Supremacy Clause and the Doctrine of Preemption - FindLaw
 
Sep 2018
6,679
1,127
cleveland ohio
#16
States right's was a mistake from day one. It was a sellout to the rich to get all areas to come together.
Should have long ago been abolished.
i will say this perhaps issues like this should be decided by states, gay rights abortion marijuanna, the only thing i would gaurantee on federal level would be race relgion and gender, you cant violate basic rights, up till recently being gay was a crimanal act as was abortion both deeply offensive to relgious people in the south, let them instead of legislating fromthe bunch let majorites decide thse issues, i would draw the line at volating very basic ights like segregation or no girls and such eiter that or its time for north and south to go seprerate ways
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,180
Barsoom
#19
States right's was a mistake from day one. It was a sellout to the rich to get all areas to come together. Should have long ago been abolished.
States' rights are what happens when states make a compact between the states. States' rights are what happens when a unitary government is not part of the equation. States' rights are what happens when statism is rejected.
 
Likes: Sabcat
Dec 2018
3,400
987
New England
#20
the supremacy clause makes this whole discussion absurd
I suspect were your understanding accurate it would more properly be labeled the "Omnipotence Clause."

Suffice to say if you think the supremacy clause nullifies the 9th and 10th amendments then you don't posses even the most basic grasp of Constitutional law.
 
Likes: Jimmyb