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

Dec 2015
18,057
17,185
Arizona
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.
Here's a challenge for you Jimmy. Try to post something without using the words "plenary", liberal or constitution.
 
Apr 2014
3,170
1,372
redacted
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.

In a video, McCorvey explains her effort to obtain a legal abortion in the 1970s when facing an unplanned pregnancy. However, she has never had an abortion and now realizes that her court case was the biggest mistake of her life and currently fights to stop abortion.

“Back in 1973, I was a very confused twenty-one year old with one child and facing an unplanned pregnancy,” she says in the ad. “At the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had an abortion.”

“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
Next up, #BLM will be seeking to overturn the 13th Amendment. “We made a mistake!”

/sarcasm
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,180
Barsoom
Here's a challenge for you Jimmy. Try to post something without using the words "plenary", liberal or constitution.
Here is a challenge, post something regarding the topic, which is the Constitution, but only use basketball terms.
 
Jul 2014
15,316
9,413
massachusetts
Here is a challenge, post something regarding the topic, which is the Constitution, but only use basketball terms.
It's a slam dunk that jimmy's arguments will be out of bounds, as he gets stuffed by reality once again....

Why is it that the logical conclusions reached from applying your beliefs differ so much from reality ?
It's like you want to argue about the spells in Harry Potter.
Even if you firmly believe that something someone once said is different from how the courts currently interpret the constitution, doesn't that mean that either you got it wrong or the person you are referring to got it wrong?
 
  • Like
Reactions: foundit66
Jun 2012
41,958
15,180
Barsoom
It's a slam dunk that jimmy's arguments will be out of bounds, as he gets stuffed by reality once again....

Why is it that the logical conclusions reached from applying your beliefs differ so much from reality ?
It's like you want to argue about the spells in Harry Potter.
Even if you firmly believe that something someone once said is different from how the courts currently interpret the constitution, doesn't that mean that either you got it wrong or the person you are referring to got it wrong?
^^^^^^Someone translate this into functional English for me.^^^^^^^
 
Nov 2005
9,224
3,689
California
It's a slam dunk that jimmy's arguments will be out of bounds, as he gets stuffed by reality once again....

Why is it that the logical conclusions reached from applying your beliefs differ so much from reality ?
It's like you want to argue about the spells in Harry Potter.
Even if you firmly believe that something someone once said is different from how the courts currently interpret the constitution, doesn't that mean that either you got it wrong or the person you are referring to got it wrong?
There are different discussion styles. Some posters often devolve (sometimes wayyyy too quickly) into a form of "this is my opinion and you need to change it in order to win"
Jimmyb repeatedly adds the twist of wanting to take thread after thread into non-topical territory ... :rolleyes:


Here is a challenge, post something regarding the topic, which is the Constitution, but only use basketball terms.
No. The topic of this thread is not "the constitution". Based on post #1, it's not even based on the constitution applying to abortion.
The woman involved who "changed her mind" did not do so based on a constitutional argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: catus felis
Dec 2015
18,057
17,185
Arizona
Here is a challenge, post something regarding the topic, which is the Constitution, but only use basketball terms.
AH HA!! You couldn't DO IT. YOU HAD to use the word Constitution. UH-YUP UH-YUP! So you lost and now you challenge me? Go ahead....underestimate me. That will be fun! Ready?

The Constitution of the United States established America’s national government BOARD GAME and fundamental rules wherein the very tall players are guaranteed certain basic rights/rules to dribble, fast break and dunk. The first full-court press was employed September 17, 1787, by players to the Constitutional Hoops Convention in Philadelphia. At that 1787 game, the players displayed their very large BALLS and then devised their plan for all strong defensive future games.
There would be three branches of the game: 1) Executive (owners, managers). 2)Legislative (NBA) and 3) Judicial (Refs).
In addition, there were amendments to the HOOPS GAME, which is a good thing because the amendments to the game allowed black guys to play. Another says women can play. One more says the U.S. President can only play two seasons.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,180
Barsoom
No. The topic of this thread is not "the constitution". Based on post #1, it's not even based on the constitution applying to abortion.
The woman involved who "changed her mind" did not do so based on a constitutional argument.
Here is what we know:

Roe v Wade is a Supreme Court case.

The Supreme Court's opinion was based on its agenda based interpretation of the Constitution.