Supremes awaiting Dem prez to overturn Roe?
Pro-aborts are bantering a new theory: that the U.S. Supreme Court is awaiting the election of a Democrat president to “throw a wrench into the plans of a new administration” by overturning Roe v. Wade.
That theory relies on another theory that Justice Anthony Kennedy has converted from being “tepidly pro-choice” to pro-life over the course of time. Roe was decided in 1973. Kennedy came onto the Supreme Court in 1988 and was initially considered an anti-Roe vote. Then came 1992, as CNN reported in 2004:
As lawyers and court watchers have long suspected, the Supreme Court was ready to effectively overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1992, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy got cold feet, and the vote went the other way….
Internal notes in the papers of late Justice Harry Blackmun reveal the secretive dealings that led to the court’s ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey….
Blackmun’s notes show that Chief Justice William Rehnquist led a 5-justice majority to overrule Roe. Four other justices voting with Rehnquist were Byron White, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Kennedy. Rehnquist himself was to write the majority opinion.
Unbeknownst to him, Kennedy was having second thoughts, and agreed with Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter, to a compromise position.
The Casey ruling carved out a middle ground that upheld a woman’s right to abortion largely free from state regulation.
The case was argued in April and Rehnquist was at work on his majority ruling, when Kennedy sent a note to Blackmun….
“I need to see you as soon as you have a few moments,” the note read. “I want to tell you about a new development in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It should come as welcome news.”
Blackmun picked up a pink memo pad and scribbled, “Roe Sound”….
Has Kennedy acquired Catholic guilt, his supposed faith? Kay Steiger at RH Reality Check doesn’t speculate on motives but does speculate on a possible change of heart. Seems far-fetched to me but is pleasant to ponder…
This theory would also elevate the importance of the CO personhood and SD abortion ban referendums. These would potentially be Roe decision triggers that cautious pro-life wisdom has considered imprudent to bring forth now.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
As I reported yesterday, the Personhood Amendment in CO is down 41 points in the polls- 68% against and 27% for, so I guess South Dakota will have to provide the fodder for this conspiracy theory.
This is why Roe v. Wade is ridiculous!
All this arguing over who has a majority? The Supreme Court is not a representative governmental body – it is a group of people who are commissioned with protection of the Constitution. The MERE FACT that we’re fighting over a majority means that Roe’s sweeping approval of all types of abortions is flawed as to the role the Court was playing – legislator.
Return the decision to the states – let us debate the topic. Half the country has their hands tied in this fight.
i want to repost something that i posted earlier today. i hope it’s okay but i wanted everyonre to see it!
i just found this excellent pro-life movie called Come What May. it is college kids debating Roe vs. Wade and how they can overturn it. you can order it for $20.00 or watch it for free for a limited time on their website. this is a must see before the election,the website claims.
http://adventfilmgroup.com/FreeMovie.html
That’s interesting given recent statements by Ruth Bader Ginsberg:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4509.html
PPC:
I guess one can determine the content of one’s character by what one stands for.
It is very hard for me to understand how anyone would not want to define a baby from conception as a person, except for the political ramifications of doing so.
This is very telling as to where this generation stands and the disaster that it is headed for.
Again, I want to apologize for my generations’ total failure at raising this current generation in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
The South Dakota abortion ban is somewhere between dead even and a slight advantage to “no”.
HisMan – Its kinda presumptious to think that you speak for an entire generation, and furthermore, that this generation really needs your apologies at all. Aside from being turning into armed mercenaries in a proxy-war for oil companies i think we’re doing pretty good.
Chris
She said it went too far, but she hasn’t changed her mind about abortion.
The Roe vs. Wade case took three years of trials to reach the United States Supreme Court. In the meantime, McCorvey had not aborted, but had given birth to the baby in question. In the case, she claimed that her pregnancy was the result of rape. She now claims that to have been untrue.[2]
In the 1980s, McCorvey revealed herself to be the “Jane Roe” of the famous case, and that she had been the “pawn” of two young and ambitious lawyers (Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee) who were looking for a plaintiff with whom they could challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion.[3]
The pro abortion won the case on lying. The judges decision was based on lies. The judges need to be reminded of this also.
xppc
Doe of Doe vs. Bolton did not want an abortion. She wanted a divorce from her abusive husband and help getting her children about of foster care. She was pregnant, but did not want an abortion. She placed that baby for adoption. She was also used by deceptive lawyers.
The only difference is that it took some years for Norma to come to the pro life side.
Sandra Cano is the Doe of Doe V Bolton. She has always been prolife and actually had to run to another state and run from her lawyers who had set up an abortion for her. An abortion she never wanted.
Sandra’s book is Supreme Deception.
Norma’s book is Won by Love.
I got to meet them both in April. :)
I didn’t mean to make it sound like Sandra had an abortion. She did not.
I know you didn’t write it that way, Carla. I’ve read her story (not the book, but on a website): she didn’t want an abortion and the baby she did give birth to (that didn’t get aborted) was placed for adoption.
McCorvey revealed herself to be the “Jane Roe” of the famous case, and that she had been the “pawn” of two young and ambitious lawyers
Oh come on. McCorvey wanted an abortion. She sought out lawyers to help her get one, legally. The rest is history, and yes, there’s a lot that came from it, but Roe ended up helping ensuring that what McCorvey wanted – legal access to abortions – came about.
In Doe versus Bolton, the restrictions were onerous in Georgia, and somebody living just across a state line could not have an abortion in Georgia, no matter what.
This stuff was going to change, anyway, regardless of Sandra Cano or not.
Doug,
So you have no problem with Cano, pregnant with her 4th child, an uneducated, abused woman seperated from her husband and desperate to get her children out of foster care, being lied to and used by advocates of abortion to overturn abortion laws. Cano did not want an abortion and even opposed abortion.
Whether you think Georgia laws were “onerous” or not, the people of Georgia had a right to pass them. Certainly if there was such overwhelming support for abortion, laws would have changed without the devious tactics of pro-abort lawyers.