Who was the Jane Roe of the infamous 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision, legalizing abortion on demand?
She was Norma McCorvey, and according to Catholic News Agency she has made “her first-ever television commercial to lament her role in the case.”
There are things you may not know about McCorvey. Find out by viewing the ad, produced by Virtue Media:
[HT: moderator MK]
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
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.
Excellent!
Awesome!! Go Norma!!
That is a great ad!
What is the purpose of life?
One of the answers is given in Norma’s testimony; knowing God.
By doing this vidoe she fulfills the other two purposes; loving and serving Him.
He is the answer to legalized abortion through those who are willing to obey Him.
Joshua 24:15
But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.
A few years ago, Ms. McCorvey was present at the rally before the Life Chain in my city. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend. I think 99% of prolifers were so glad when she became prolife. And I am glad she emphasized the MILLION part when referring to how many babies have died from abortion.
Plaintiffs have regrets all the time, I don’t see what is news about this? Sometimes in the course of winning rights for others you feel defeated yourself. I wonder, does she have a book deal that she is trying to plug?
YoLaTango,
Plaintiffs have regrets all the time? How many plaintiffs do you know that hold themselves responsible for millions of deaths as McCorvey does?
Yes, I think that a ninth-grade dropout and carnival barker who eventally lost custody of all of her children due to her heroin and alcohol habits should be a role model for us all.
I think you should all tell your children to be a proud out-of-the-closet lesbian like Norma, and raise them to stay unemployed and milk the antiabortion community for cash just as she does:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/011206dnnatroe.173d7e86.html
Laura,
Norma is changed. Totally changed by the grace of God.
Why do I bother??
Originally reported at http://www.lifenews.com/nat3983.html
I notice that before (when she was actually DOING all these things Laura brings up) when she fought for abortion, she was a champion of women’s rights, and only just now do they bother to drag her name through the dirt. Now that she no longer serves our purpose, let’s defame her. Did you ever stop to think for a moment that abortion was just another HUGE part of a downward spiral, as it is for MANY women? “Women’s rights” my @$$. You’re deplorable.
Laura,
I’ve never heard McCorvey or anyone on the PL side make any claims to sainthood where she is concerned.
Abortion advocates and attorneys Sarah Weddington and Sara Coffee had no problem exploiting this troubled, addicted woman for their own purposes and obviously had little concern for her background. They didn’t pass up the opportunity to exploit her situation for their own cause. They didn’t even care enough to determine if she was lying, which she was, about being the victim of a gang rape. If they had no issue with her background, why should you?
What drove McCorvey to the PL side was the PC side treating her with so little respect or acknowledgement. Like it or not they did have her to thank. Apparently the little white trash had served her purpose.
Yo La Tango
You can read Norma’s book Won By Love. She’s not plugging it. She wrote it years ago.
I met Norma in April. She is an amazing woman with an amazing story and couldn’t be any sweeter.
So, she wants an abortion when she has an unwanted pregnancy but now that she’s not pregnant, doesn’t want anyone else to?
They say “where you stand depends on where you sit”
Mary,
Abortion advocates and attorneys Sarah Weddington and Sara Coffee had no problem exploiting this troubled, addicted woman for their own purposes
Exploiting? All they did was take her statement and go to court with it. They even kept her identity secret. And obviously it wasn’t for their own purposes, but for the rights of all women. Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee weren’t in need of abortions at the time.
They didn’t even care enough to determine if she was lying, which she was, about being the victim of a gang rape.
Ha! So the liar is not to blame for lying? Those who are lied to are responsible for making sure they aren’t lied to? Which part of the Bible did you get that from?
What drove McCorvey to the PL side was the PC side treating her with so little respect or acknowledgement.
With this, I absolutely agree. Norma McCorvey went “pro-life” for the attention and profit it could bring her.
Laura,
A bigot against under?educated women, and the entertainment industry wrote;
“I think that a ninth-grade dropout and carnival barker who eventally lost custody of all of her children due to her heroin and alcohol habits should be a role model for us all.”
Why shouldn’t a person employed in the entertainment industry not be a role model for people? Seems many women in the entertainment industry are just as good a role model, as any other form of work. True or false Laura?
Give us the reasons why Norma’s employment are even mentioned in your ad hominem of McCorvy, Laura. Except to diminish her humanity and worth as a human being. And your voting for Obama right Laura?
I want to know what here children think about this. Where are they? Shouldn’t they be the ones speaking out saying they are glad they got a chance to live? She never even had an abortion. Maybe here life would be different for the better if she did.
I’d just really like to hear her kids views on this. I’m guessing they really must hate their Mom not to ever be seen with her or at her protest or other events.
Reality 12.29PM
All they did was take her statement and go to court with it.
McCorvey lied, you don’t blame those who are lied to.
Please Reality these were lawyers, they could have had a private detective check out her and her story. I don’t think they gave two hoots if the “rape” story was true or not. It made a great sympathy ploy. After all, admitting McCorvey was pregnant by an adulterous affair would not generate much sympathy, certainly not like a “gang rape”. I hardly see them as any “victims” of McCorvey’s lie and I did not at anytime, and do not now, excuse McCorvey for lying.
I meant they were happy to exploit her situation. It apparently mattered little to them that this woman was uneducated, not mentally stable, and abused drugs. If PC people have such an issue with McCorvey’s background, they should take it up with these two lawyers. The lawyers needed a plaintiff to press their case and McCorvery filled the bill. I don’t care who they supposedly did this for and I’m well aware they were not pregnant, they exploited this woman’s situation, with her consent, for their own purpose. They kept her name a secret? Maybe because McCorvey so requested.
Since you think McCorvey’s conversion to the PL side was so profitable, perhaps you can give some facts and figures to back this up, like McCorvey’s income, her assets, her luxurious lifestyle.
Live with it Reality, this is who you and other PC people have to thank.
“Amazing” people can still be shills, can still be hacks. I’m sure George Stephanopoulous is amazing, but that doesn’t make HIM any less a hack. Same is true with Norma. She’s turned herself into a political talking head. No cred.
YL Tango,
Why would she have no cred? This woman certainly knows her life story and what she did better than anyone, and how she feels about it now.
Do the celebrities who boast about their abortions have no “cred” since they are also pushing a political agenda?
Anyone want to answer my question about what Norma’s kids think about all this?
Does it really matter? The case wasn’t just about one woman, but about all women. If she wasn’t “Roe” soneone else would have been and the result exactly the same.
She would’ve been responsible for the deaths of millions of babies, and eventually come to regret the actions which made her partly responsible for those deaths once the time to dwell on her actions and their repercussions had passed? Yeah, most likely. I agree with you, Hal.
She’s not responsible for anything. Roe v. Wade was coming whether she participated or not. Her paticipation in the process was meaningless. It was a test case. The actual people are irrelevent
Well that’s something nice for her to tell herself to ease at least a little guilt, but it doesn’t change the fact that it was her person being represented, and for all intents and purposes, she DID play her part. It also doesn’t change the message of what I said.
Well, I’m just glad abortion is legal, and will remain so. Blame her, praise her, doesn’t matter
Yes, it must be nice to lack the basic human decency to be able to keep yourself from killing your own baby whenever you don’t feel like accommodating them.
What drove McCorvey to the PL side was the PC side treating her with so little respect or acknowledgement. Like it or not they did have her to thank. Apparently the little white trash had served her purpose.
Posted by: Mary at June 20, 2008 12:06 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well yeah…
It’s kind of like the way pro-lifers hold up Britney Spear’s little sister as a hero for having her baby even though that situation reeks of white trash trainwreck. Where will those pro-lifers be when that situation turns ugly?
Hal 1:38PM
Please, she was a participant and was responsible. Live with it. Her lawyers get the credit, why shouldn’t Norma? I know you PC people would have much preferred someone other than Norma.
Yes, it must be nice to lack the basic human decency to be able to keep yourself from killing your own baby whenever you don’t feel like accommodating them.
Posted by: xalisae at June 20, 2008 1:52 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course, you support that birth-control baby-killing, as well as endorse John McCain – the man who wants to slaughter the poor, frozen “snowflake babies.”
OH THE HUMANITY!
http://homepage.mac.com/barthold.van.acker/realbasic/ohthehumanity.jpg
FIne, whatever, who cares.
Laura 1:52PM
I really don’t see the connection.
Hahahaha. Now I’m doing something right, because I’m taking flack for not being pro-life enough, or just not being pro-life on religious grounds. You people crack me up, and I can’t wait until McCain is president.
You people crack me up, and I can’t wait until McCain is president.
Posted by: xalisae at June 20, 2008 2:10 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s IT, X-
That little comment is going on your PERMANENT RECORD!
Speaking of records:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/01/mccain_playing.html
*taking flack from pro-choicers for not being pro-life enough
No, I don’t care about those poor, blessed little snowflake babies, and the birth control thing reminds me of a sketch from Upright Citizen’s Brigade, of a woman who made scrapbooks of everything:
(picks up a scrapbook and looks inside)
HUSBAND: used tampons?
WIFE:(sadly) It’s to remind me of all the babies we never had.
The more I think about it, the more I love McCain, because he’s more moderate, like me. Thanks for that link, Laura, it kinda made my day. :)
Reality: Norma McCorvey went “pro-life” for the attention and profit it could bring her.
Can you really blame her, though? She has had a tough life.
…..
Laura: Yes, I think that a ninth-grade dropout and carnival barker who eventally lost custody of all of her children due to her heroin and alcohol habits should be a role model for us all.
I think McCorvey’s been a fairly sad case all along.
…..
I think you should all tell your children to be a proud out-of-the-closet lesbian like Norma, and raise them to stay unemployed and milk the antiabortion community for cash just as she does
Laura, I imagine she feels she’s doing what she’s gotta do. If anything, I’d say she shows that two people of one sex can love each other and that it can sustain as long as for people of opposite sexes.
At one point she did claim to no longer be a lesbian – have to laugh – I wonder what her partner of 22 or 23 years thought about that….
I think it was in 1992 or thereabouts that they stopped being a “couple” in that way, but there she was, apparently taking care of her former partner, in 2006, so years later she still cared.
It is absolutely amazing to me that some people will actually fight tooth and nail for the right to kill innocent children in the womb.
This is beyond understanding.
It’s a sign of how far down the slippery slope we have fallen.
Apart from a great revival and repentance of men and woman back to God, we will never return to the higher (not perfect) standards this country use to live by.
And Hal, if you would be so kind my friend, I’d like to use you as an example…..on this site, we pro-lifers try to changes the hearts and minds of those who are for the right to have an abortion.
Hal, I assume your value system is based on your life experiences and upbringing. Also, by your own admission you are an atheist. So, apart from an encounter with the living God, i.e. via a dream, an experience, a life tragedy, an epiphany, I can’t see where you would change your pro-abortion views. I mean, where’s the motivation to change?
Hence, as a Christian, Jill and all the other pro-lifers on this site could talk to you and Laura and Amanda and Doug, until we are blue in the face and until God decides to have mercy on your souls, nothing will change as far as your vales are concerned.
Keep in mind that prayer does change things and I am sure that all the pro-lifers on this site and those that just visit are praying for a mighty move of God to move the pro-abortion mountain. I believe God is going to act and sooner than we think separate from whether or not pro-aborts change their views. You see, it’s not up to pro-aborts as to whether abortion stays legal, it’s up to us believers.
So Jill, I am going to propose that each day, that you post a prayer against abortion that all pro-lifers the pro-lifers that post and visit this site can be reminded to say.
Here’s a sample:
Heavenly Father, your word will not return to you void but will accomplish the purpose for which is was sent. So, my Lord, I proclaim your word against legalized abortion and humbly ask You to end it in the name of your Son, Jesus Christ. Amen.
“Where will those pro-lifers be when that situation turns ugly?
Posted by: Laura at June 20, 2008 1:52 PM”
—————————————
Laura..where were you when abortionists maim, molest, kill their patients (and am not talking about the babies)?
“So Jill, I am going to propose that each day, that you post a prayer against abortion that all pro-lifers the pro-lifers that post and visit this site can be reminded to say.”
I love it, HisMan!
Bobby – go check your mail.
Amen, HisMan!
Hey Stud:
Make sure Jill reads that post about a daily prayer against abortion.
Every pro-lifer can send in a prayer as the Spirit leads.
Wonderful suggestion, Hisman….
…maybe we could add a line, too, in the prayer, for a “change of heart” for all those who support, defend and practice abortion and another for all the victims…
Doug, 3:07PM
Since you and Reality maintain that Norma McCorvey found being PL very profitable would you please list her income, assets, and examples of the luxurious life style she enjoys thanks to her profits. How much has she gotten from the PL movement?
While you point out this woman’s many failings, which are not in dispute here, you overlook the fact that it was YOUR side that was only to happy to exploit her situation to their advantage, with absolutely no regard to the character flaws you are only too happy to point out now. If you have such an issue with Norma’s character bring it up to Roe v Wade lawyers Weddington and Coffee.
By the way, do you know if the attorneys who argued Roe v Wade knew or even cared that Norma was lying about being a gang rape victim?
Like I said Doug, Norma McCorvey is the lady you have to thank for helping bring down abortion laws.
None of you PC people seem very grateful.
Per Jess:
“She never even had an abortion. Maybe here life would be different for the better if she did.”
Jess,
Whaaaatt? Please explain where you are going with this.
The abortion movement was based on a LIE and these pro-abort folks don’t care… As long as they get what they want. And millions of souls were lost and are still being lost because of this lie.
Pretty soon, they WILL get what they deserve…in this life or in the next…there WILL be a lot of “grinding and gnashing of the teeth” when that time comes.
…I am reminded of Sr.Faustina’s dream about the narrow and wide roads…
..The faithful must be in the rocky stretch of the narrow road right now..
“Hal, I assume your value system is based on your life experiences and upbringing. Also, by your own admission you are an atheist. So, apart from an encounter with the living God, i.e. via a dream, an experience, a life tragedy, an epiphany, I can’t see where you would change your pro-abortion views. I mean, where’s the motivation to change?”
I think you’re basically correct, except that I can imagine changing my views on abortion(I don’t expect it, but I can imagine it) I cannot imagine changing my views regarding a belief in God. So, if I ever do change my views, I would become a secular pro-lifer, not a religious one. Don’t hold your breath, however.
By the way, do you know if the attorneys who argued Roe v Wade knew or even cared that Norma was lying about being a gang rape victim?
Like I said Doug, Norma McCorvey is the lady you have to thank for helping bring down abortion laws.
None of you PC people seem very grateful.
Posted by: Mary at June 20, 2008 4:30 PM
QUESTION!!!
I didn’t look at the video…I have always been under the impression that Norma’s lawyers manufactured the story about rape without out her knowledge, and basically “used” her for their gain. Does anyone know if this is true? Carla, you read her book, right?
I notice that before (when she was actually DOING all these things Laura brings up) when she fought for abortion, she was a champion of women’s rights, and only just now do they bother to drag her name through the dirt. Now that she no longer serves our purpose, let’s defame her. Did you ever stop to think for a moment that abortion was just another HUGE part of a downward spiral, as it is for MANY women? “Women’s rights” my @$$. You’re deplorable.
Posted by: xalisae at June 20, 2008 12:02 PM
Excellent points!
“The abortion movement was based on a LIE and these pro-abort folks don’t care.”
The movement wasn’t based on a lie, perhaps that one part of that one case was. But, as I stated, it didn’t matter at all. The case didn’t turn on the facts of this one woman’s case, it was decided in much more universal terms.
Norma lied about the rape but the lawyers used her and her story for their gain. When “the law of the land” was handed down they dropped her like a hot potato. She was too much of an unsavory character for them.
I highly recommend Norma’s book. I’ll plug it!! :)
There are graphic descriptions of the mill where she worked, which at times was hard for me to get through but the changes that God made in her life are amazing.
“The movement wasn’t based on a lie, perhaps that one part of that one case was. But, as I stated, it didn’t matter at all
———————————
Which part was that, Hal? The testimony of their STAR witness or the part where they made up the number of Illegal abortions?
Why won’t it matter, Hal? The CORNERSTONE of the abortion industry doesn’t matter?…maybe we could overturn ROE V. WADE cuz it doesn’t matter.
RSD,
What Hal’s getting at is that it doesn’t matter who was the star witness. The time was ripe, and sooner or later there would have been someone in that position who would have testified and passed a law legalizing abortion.
Edyt, 12:03PM
It doesn’t matter who the star witness was? Perhaps you should tell that to the PC people on this thread who seem to have a real issue with McCorvey’s character.
RSD 10:12am
Dr. Bernard Nathanson does indeed admit the leaders of the movement to legalize abortion deliberately distorted the illegal abortion rate and death rate. The illegal abortion death rate had been steadily declining for years, though that was not mentioned as it would hardly have furthered their cause. They merely made up the number of illegal abortions.
Go Mary!!!
Mary,
I suppose you could say that yes, it matters now. But it very easily could have been someone else in a similar or even different situation who wanted to have an abortion for whatever reason, and she could have been used as a star witness.
Sooner or later, someone would have had to be that witness, and it was only a matter of time before they chose one. Unfortunately, it was this woman. But, had things played out differently, it could have been someone else, like one of the women from the website imnotsorry.com, who would not have regretted having an abortion to this day.
Edyt,
Possibly. But the fact remains the PC crowd has Norma McCorvey to thank and instead viciously attacks her character, a character they seemed to have few qualms about when she served their purpose. Do you know if these lawyers have ever been seriously questioned about McCorvey’s claim to rape? Did they know she was lying? Did they investigate her background?
By the way Sandra Cano, the plaintiff in Doe v Bolton, which accompanied Roe in overturning abortion laws, has
charged that she was tricked into being part of the lawsuit.
She went to the ACLU lawyer with the understanding she would get a divorce from her abusive husband and get her three children out of foster care. She was pregnant but did not want an abortion.
She did not know the lawyers used her case to overturn abortion laws, and would never have supported their efforts if she did. They were only too happy to take advantage of her lack of education and desperate circumstances.
Seems like lawyers in both Roe and Doe had to set ethical standards aside to get abortion legalized and had few moral qualms about doing so.
Mary,
You have done your homework!! Keep it up!!
Carla,
Thank you. I have old age, a great longterm memory,(I couldn’t tell you what I did yesterday) oh and Google to thank! :)
FYI
Sandra Cano and Norma McCorvey are clients of The Justice Foundation. Operation Outcry is their project. Collecting declarations from those that have been hurt by abortion.
http://www.operationoutcry.org
Oh, I am sure you have heard me talk about it before!! :) You never know though, someone might be reading that could use that information right now.
Since you and Reality maintain that Norma McCorvey found being PL very profitable would you please list her income, assets, and examples of the luxurious life style she enjoys thanks to her profits. How much has she gotten from the PL movement?
Mary, uh, “very profitable”? Those are your words. Do you have access to her tax returns? ; )
…..
While you point out this woman’s many failings, which are not in dispute here, you overlook the fact that it was YOUR side that was only to happy to exploit her situation to their advantage, with absolutely no regard to the character flaws you are only too happy to point out now. If you have such an issue with Norma’s character bring it up to Roe v Wade lawyers Weddington and Coffee.
I see McCorvey as a sad, often lonely woman, certainly struggling financially. I don’t have an issue with her character – her actions all along the way are quite believeable to me. That it was her case that eventually led to the Supreme Court isn’t a big deal – Hal is correct that it was coming anyway. I imagine she eventually saw a market in pro-lifers, and has made considerably more money from books and appearances aimed at them than she could reasonably have been expected to make otherwise.
David Reardon is another one; outright purchase of a “doctorate” and then trying to sell books written by “Doctor Reardon.” Hey, it certainly worked for him. This is by no means limited to pro-lifers or “conservatives.” Heck, tons of people will do it if there are no better ways to go in their eyes.
Sort of along those lines – what justification is there for Ashley Simpson to be a “celebrity”?
…..
By the way, do you know if the attorneys who argued Roe v Wade knew or even cared that Norma was lying about being a gang rape victim?
I’ve heard different versions of the story there. Weddington wrote a book titled ‘A Question of Choice.’ I haven’t read it but it’d be interesting to compare it to McCorvey’s version. That said, if the lawyers wanted to bring a case, I imagine the rape claim was in no way detrimental in their eyes. In the beginning, McCorvey wanted a safe and legal abortion, and that was why she went to the two lawyers in the first place.
……
Like I said Doug, Norma McCorvey is the lady you have to thank for helping bring down abortion laws. None of you PC people seem very grateful.
No, it’s not to her, it’s to the lawyers that pursued the case. She fully admits that she wasn’t aiming toward doing things for all women, she just wanted an abortion. For a while she was mad at Weddington, who in McCorvey’s words wanted a pregnant plaintiff and thus didn’t help McCorvey get an illegal abortion.
The case itself certainly was not about McCorvey, per se (she’d already given birth long before), but about all women. Years later I think McCorvey was frustrated that the pro-choice movement didn’t get her more attention (and perhaps money), further incentive for her to “switch sides.”
Doug 6:27PM
Reality: Norma McCorvey went “pro-life” for the attention and profit it would bring her.
Doug: Can you really blame her though? She has had a tough life.
Those are your and Reality’s words.
I addressed this question to both of you and I ask again, what proof do you have of the “profit” i.e. income, assets, luxurious living. I certainly don’t have access to her tax returns but I never claimed I knew anything about her income or what she “profits” from. Perhaps you should check with Reality about the tax returns since she spoke of McCorvey’s “profit”.
Yes McCorvey was long a pathetic soul, no one has disputed that. Again Doug, some quotes, facts and figures to back your statement that she saw a market in pro-lifers and has made considerably more money from books and appearences aimed at pro-lifers than she would otherwise have made.
You and other PC people on this thread make this claim but I have yet to see a source to back it.
I remember when Norma McCorvey admitted to Carl T Rowan that her claim of a gang rape was a lie. Up until that time that was the story, and no one questioned or disputed it, including the lawyers.
Of course the rape claim wasn’t detrimental, it was made to order. Maybe that’s why the lawyers made no effort to check out the story of a mentally unstable drug addicted woman’s claim of gang rape. Do you think McCorvey’s pregnancy resulting from an adulterous affair was going to generate any support or sympathy?
Sorry Doug, but you do have her to thank right along with the lawyers. They were only too happy to exploit her situation, and she was only too ready to let them. Weddington wanted a pregnant plaintiff so she wouldn’t help McCorvey get an illegal abortion? Perhaps there wasn’t such an abudance of potential clients made to order like McCorvey after all.
The PC movement leadership treated her like bothersome white trash Doug, barely worthy to enter their exalted presence. She had served her purpose and she could rot for all they cared.
Her switch to the PL side was very gradual, it was not an overnight decision.
If my memory serves me correct she got a lot more media attention as “Jane Roe” than she ever did as a PL convert.
Doug,
I well remember when the TV movie Roe v Wade came out. I believe actress Amy Madigan played McCorvey. See, Norma was getting more media attention as “Jane Roe”.
However, this was around the time she admitted her lie about the gang rape and being I never watched the movie, which I understand was a flop, I have no idea how this rather embarassing and inconvenient fact was handled. Talk about timing!
I addressed this question to both of you and I ask again, what proof do you have of the “profit” i.e. income, assets, luxurious living. I certainly don’t have access to her tax returns but I never claimed I knew anything about her income or what she “profits” from. Perhaps you should check with Reality about the tax returns since she spoke of McCorvey’s “profit”.
Mary, you’re the one saying “luxurious.” That she got income is not in doubt.
……
Yes McCorvey was long a pathetic soul, no one has disputed that. Again Doug, some quotes, facts and figures to back your statement that she saw a market in pro-lifers and has made considerably more money from books and appearences aimed at pro-lifers than she would otherwise have made. You and other PC people on this thread make this claim but I have yet to see a source to back it.
I said I imagined that she “has made considerably more money from books and appearances aimed at them than she could reasonably have been expected to make otherwise.”
I think that’s a valid assumption. No way to prove it, either way, without knowing what she did make. We could probably arrive at a figure for yearly income based on her education, experiences, etc., and then we’d compare it to what she’s made, if we knew it.
……
If my memory serves me correct she got a lot more media attention as “Jane Roe” than she ever did as a PL convert.
I don’t know – maybe. But like they say, follow the money…. Attention without some money isn’t the same for a lot of people.
I well remember when the TV movie Roe v Wade came out. I believe actress Amy Madigan played McCorvey. See, Norma was getting more media attention as “Jane Roe”.
Heh, Mary, I wouldn’t say you “well remember” it.
Holly Hunter played Jane Doe. Madigan played Sarah Weddington.
……
However, this was around the time she admitted her lie about the gang rape and being I never watched the movie, which I understand was a flop, I have no idea how this rather embarassing and inconvenient fact was handled. Talk about timing!
The timing was 1989, almost 20 years after McCorvey’s pregnancy. 16 years after Roe versus Wade was decided by the Supreme Court. Are you still “blaming” the lawyers for not knowing McCorvey was lying about the rape if it didn’t come to light until 16 years later?
Doug,
I’m being facetious. I just want evidence of this woman’s profits, be it income from the pro-life movement or luxurious living.
Doug, there’s no such animal as a “valid assumption”. That’s an oxymoron. Assumptions can be very dangerous and make us look very foolish. I speak from having learned the hard way.
Follow the money? Gladly, just show me the evidence of it.
How right you are about the movie! Holly Hunter did indeed play Jane Roe. I knew Amy Madigan figured in it somewhere. I remember the TV movie well though and the controversy it generated. If I recall correctly it flopped, in fact I can’t find it on Amazon anywhere though correct me if I’m wrong about this.
The point is McCorvey certainly did get media attention as “Jane Roe”.
Honestly Doug I’m not convinced the lawyers were that blissfully ignornant. I’ll give them this, they had a client made to order and didn’t want to know if she was lying. As I said, any private detective worth his/her salt could have well informed these lawyers about their client’s background and checked into the rape story. PIs certainly have their sources on the street. I would not consider a mentally unstable, drug and alcohol addicted woman the most reliable and truthful person, though that in itself is not proof she was lying.
If you or I were to go to a lawyer claiming we had been victims of some kind of criminal assault, don’t you think the lawyers would demand proof of some kind or have an investigator look into it?
Doug,
Based on their “evidence” of a gang rape and knowledge of their client, I don’t think Weddington and Coffee would have lasted 5 minutes in Judge Judy’s courtroom!
I’m being facetious. I just want evidence of this woman’s profits, be it income from the pro-life movement or luxurious living.
Heh – Mary, no problem. I like talking with you.
……
Doug, there’s no such animal as a “valid assumption”. That’s an oxymoron. Assumptions can be very dangerous and make us look very foolish. I speak from having learned the hard way. Follow the money? Gladly, just show me the evidence of it.
There are innumerable valid assumptions. She’s had two books and many engagements for pro-lifers. Granted there is no way to know what she made, exactly. I did say that I imagined she made considerably more from those than from what she’d likely be doing otherwise. Do you think she really did not?
……
How right you are about the movie! Holly Hunter did indeed play Jane Roe. I knew Amy Madigan figured in it somewhere. I remember the TV movie well though and the controversy it generated. If I recall correctly it flopped, in fact I can’t find it on Amazon anywhere though correct me if I’m wrong about this. The point is McCorvey certainly did get media attention as “Jane Roe”.
How much media attention do you think McCorvey got from the movie? There was no Jane Roe in it, but rather a Jane Doe. I believe you that the movie was a flop, and that’d be all the less peripheral publicity.
……
I would not consider a mentally unstable, drug and alcohol addicted woman the most reliable and truthful person, though that in itself is not proof she was lying.
If McCorvey was admitting she lied about the rape around 1989, as you said above, then that was many years later than when the lawyers were involved, so why worry about what they knew? Being a rape victim may have added more of a sympathy factor, but in no way was it essential or even material to the Roe case.
……
If you or I were to go to a lawyer claiming we had been victims of some kind of criminal assault, don’t you think the lawyers would demand proof of some kind or have an investigator look into it?
Different deal. Norma went in because she wanted an abortion, not because she was just claiming she’d been raped. If our lawyer saw that our case hinged on our claims, they you bet the lawyer would want to be on sure ground, but it was no big deal in McCorvey’s case.
Based on their “evidence” of a gang rape and knowledge of their client, I don’t think Weddington and Coffee would have lasted 5 minutes in Judge Judy’s courtroom!
Again, rape wasn’t the deal, really. A client lied about an issue that wasn’t material to the case – big deal. What if she’d said that she’d never done drugs? Neither affect the Roe decision.
As for Judge Judy, it’d be interesting to see people tell her that women have no right to a legal abortion.
Doug,
I enjoy talking to you as well.
I would wonder how much she made on that movie. I don’t have a clue if she’s made money or how much from the PL movement. Again, proof is needed and so far has not been forthcoming.
Well the movie was made, and generated much controversy, so obviously that’s going to get her attention. Someone is interested enough in this chapter of her life to make a movie and sponsors were willing to pay for space to advertise during the movie. She was interviewed on TV by journalist Carl Rowan, who wasn’t exactly small potatoes. She was getting plenty of attention.
If the claim of gang rape was not essential or material why was it ever made? I don’t for a minute believe the lawyers couldn’t have discovered this was a fallacy had they made any effort to do so. I will be charitable and say I believe they preferred not to know the truth since this was made to order, the gang rape victim who can’t get an abortion. Sure beats the adulterous woman who can’t get an abortion.
Yes it does matter Doug. McCorvey claimed she was gang raped and the lawyers used her and her alleged circumstances to further their own agenda. Again, why tell this lie if its so unnecessary?
Judge Judy would demand every kind of legal document and documentation these two could produce if a claim of rape was being made. Ever see how she reacts when people in her court are unable to do so? You lose! That’s why I made that little quip about JJ. They wouldn’t last 5 minutes going solely on allegations. I don’t agree the issue of rape wasn’t material to this case. If that was so, the lawyers would have insisted on the absolute truth of her circumstances and would have had her investigated. After all, if the circumstances did not make a difference then why lie about them?
Mary: I would wonder how much she made on that movie. I don’t have a clue if she’s made money or how much from the PL movement. Again, proof is needed and so far has not been forthcoming.
Agreed that you and I don’t know the amount, but I’d say it’s silly to think she didn’t make anything from all the appearances and the two books.
……
Well the movie was made, and generated much controversy, so obviously that’s going to get her attention. Someone is interested enough in this chapter of her life to make a movie and sponsors were willing to pay for space to advertise during the movie. She was interviewed on TV by journalist Carl Rowan, who wasn’t exactly small potatoes. She was getting plenty of attention.
Wonder how much Rowan’s interviewees get paid…. ; )
…..
If the claim of gang rape was not essential or material why was it ever made? I don’t for a minute believe the lawyers couldn’t have discovered this was a fallacy had they made any effort to do so. I will be charitable and say I believe they preferred not to know the truth since this was made to order, the gang rape victim who can’t get an abortion. Sure beats the adulterous woman who can’t get an abortion.
Yes it does matter Doug. McCorvey claimed she was gang raped and the lawyers used her and her alleged circumstances to further their own agenda. Again, why tell this lie if its so unnecessary?
Ask Norma. I imagine she felt it would add weight to her claim for having an abortion.
Above, you say the movie in 1989 was around the time she admitted her lie about the gang rape
So which is it – 1989 or in the early 1970’s? What motivation would the lawyers have not to believe Norma?
……
Judge Judy would demand every kind of legal document and documentation these two could produce if a claim of rape was being made.
A claim of rape wasn’t being made. The claim was that Texas law was unconstitutional.
……
Ever see how she reacts when people in her court are unable to do so? You lose! That’s why I made that little quip about JJ. They wouldn’t last 5 minutes going solely on allegations.
The rape was not presented as material to the case. It was not the allegation. If it was a rape trial, you’d have a point.
…..
I don’t agree the issue of rape wasn’t material to this case. If that was so, the lawyers would have insisted on the absolute truth of her circumstances and would have had her investigated.
No, the lawyers would have investigated more if it was material. It wasn’t.
……
After all, if the circumstances did not make a difference then why lie about them?
IMO Norma originally felt it might make a difference, and that’s why she made the lie up.
If I’m a lawyer and you come to me saying your sister is dying of cancer and that you need to sell your house to pay for her care, but local law says you can’t sell it, then if I think you have a case I’m going to take it to court. You have a case IMO because the law is unjust, not because of your sister.
Let’s say we win our case, and later on somebody asks me, “Why didn’t you make sure her sister really was dying of cancer?”
The answer is because it didn’t make any difference; wasn’t material to the case. Your motivation didn’t matter, there, and neither did Norma’s.
Doug,
I would have no idea how much Rowan’s interviewees would be paid or if they were. However, the media attention from being on his show and interviewed by him was worth plenty.
Also, it was PC Hollywood who would have had to cough up the money to make the movie, the actors, writers, and movie crews certainly weren’t donating their services, and pay her the royalities, which could have been well into the thousands if the movie hadn’t flopped, which mercifully it did. Not to mention advertisers buying time during the movie.
Sorry Doug, but the attention and money from the PL movement doesn’t hold a candle to what the PC side was ready to shell out.
I don’t argue Norma concocted the rape story. I agree it added weight to the story. I maintain it was the responsibility of her lawyers to get to the truth, not help perpetuate her lie because it so nicely served their agenda. Why wouldn’t the lawyers believe her? Doug, this was a mentally unstable drug addicted woman. Any halfway decent lawyer would investigate anything she claimed. A good PI could have done the job for them. If they were determined to get to the truth they could have.
The lawyers would have investigated it more if it was material. Don’t be naive Doug, this was made to order!
I never said Norma admitted her lie in the early 1970’s, I said she lied then and the lie was ongoing until around 1989.
As I said, I will be charitable and say the lawyers didn’t want to know the truth and I don’t know if they’ve ever admitted if they did or not. I would think they would be adamant about their innocence and ignorance if indeed they did not know.
The case was brought on behalf of a lying client. Good luck in JJ’s courtroom with that one!
If I truly have a case there’s no need to lie and you as the attorney should firmly and angrily inform me of that when, in the course of your investigation into my claim, you discover I have lied to you. You would insist on complete honesty or I can find another lawyer.
This would likely make you very wary of anything else I tell you, which of course you will have investigated.
Sorry Doug, but the attention and money from the PL movement doesn’t hold a candle to what the PC side was ready to shell out.
Mary, that contradicts what Norma has said herself – that the PC side wasn’t paying enough attention to her; that she felt “abandoned.”
….
I maintain it was the responsibility of her lawyers to get to the truth, not help perpetuate her lie because it so nicely served their agenda. Why wouldn’t the lawyers believe her? Doug, this was a mentally unstable drug addicted woman. Any halfway decent lawyer would investigate anything she claimed. A good PI could have done the job for them. If they were determined to get to the truth they could have.
There was no responsibility on the part of the lawyers, any more than there would be with you claiming you needed money from the sale of a property in the example I gave above. The rape was immaterial to the case – it’s not like anybody was going to say “unconstitutional, but only in cases of rape.”
……
The lawyers would have investigated it more if it was material. Don’t be naive Doug, this was made to order!
No, it wasn’t relevant to the case the lawyers proceeded with. The lie came from Norma’s desire for an abortion, not from the lawyers’ desire to proceed with the case against Texas law.
……
The case was brought on behalf of a lying client. Good luck in JJ’s courtroom with that one!
JJ would say, “You lied and you didn’t even need to. That was silly. You win the case, however.”
The lawyers weren’t saying that TX law was unconstitutional because Norma was raped. If they were, you’d have a point.
Doug,
In fact they did ditch her. The examples I pointed out were of the PC media homage, not that of the PC leadership, who treated her like white trash.
Sorry Doug but if a lawyer is going to promote a client as a rape victim, or the relative of a cancer victim, then they have the responsiblity to get to the truth. Again Doug, why if the rape was irrelevant, didn’t the lawyers check it out, just to cover themselves if nothing else? Why didn’t they tell their client it would be better for her and them if she were completely honest?
Why didn’t they tell her they have a strong case and she has no reason to lie?
Because the lie was made to order. The gang rape victim who can’t get an abortion. What a great sympathy ploy. I believe this caused some problem when making the movie. Norma’s timing wasn’t the best. It certainly didn’t promote much sympathy to have to say she was pregnant from an adulterous affair when a gang rape was a much better storyline. I don’t recall what they did about that.
By the way Doug, do you recall if her lawyers expressed any shock or outrage or if they had an issue with a client lying to them?
You still haven’t told me why I would need to lie about the cancer part if I have a strong case already.
I personally would not want to be at the receiving end of JJ’s tirade over a stunt like that.
I know they weren’t saying it was unconstitutional because Norma was “raped”. Saying she was raped and couldn’t get an abortion was a great ploy to generate sympathy toward overturning the laws.
>>Sorry Doug but if a lawyer is going to promote a client as a rape victim, or the relative of a cancer victim, then they have the responsiblity to get to the truth.Again Doug, why if the rape was irrelevant, didn’t the lawyers check it out, just to cover themselves if nothing else?
There was no need to “cover themselves” since the rape wasn’t material to the case. If the lawyers had suspicion about the rape, a reason they didn’t check it out could be because it’s irrelevant.
…..
Why didn’t they tell their client it would be better for her and them if she were completely honest?
That’s speculation on your part – that they knew Norma had lied.
……
Why didn’t they tell her they have a strong case and she has no reason to lie?
Again, we don’t know what the lawyers knew. I’m not saying they didn’t know – I haven’t heard either way. Given the practical application of Texas law at the time, for all I know the rape scenario might have added weight to Norma’s claim, but as far as the Roe case it didn’t really pertain, so no reason to worry about the rape claim either way.
……
You still haven’t told me why I would need to lie about the cancer part if I have a strong case already.
That’s the point – you wouldn’t need to lie, and neither did Norma. She might have felt she needed to, but she didn’t. And when it came to the constitutional question it didn’t matter.
Doug,
If the rape is immaterial then the lawyers should have advised the client of the need for complete honesty if they were going to represent her.
Doug, come on. They likely didn’t check it out because this was made to order. What a great sympathy ploy! What a fantastic case to go after abortion laws with, the gang rape victim who is further victimized by the state. Doug, you certainly know how lawyers will attempt to portray their clients, as victims of abuse, helpless, etc. Why do you suppose they do that? Right, a sympathy ploy. How do you think the Mendendez brothers escaped the death penalty?
Doug you’re the one who argues claiming rape wasn’t necessary to win the case so I just want to know why they didn’t advise her to be completely honest? I only speculate what the lawyers knew? Doug, I don’t speculate they could have found out the truth easily enough if they really tried, I know they could have!
If you’re right there is no need to lie then I’m sure you’ll agree its the lawyer’s responsiblity to advise the client as such if in the course of their investigation, which lawyers doing their research entails, they discover the client is lying.
If the rape is immaterial then the lawyers should have advised the client of the need for complete honesty if they were going to represent her.
Mary, you’re presuming they thought Norma was lying.
…..
Doug, come on. They likely didn’t check it out because this was made to order. What a great sympathy ploy! What a fantastic case to go after abortion laws with, the gang rape victim who is further victimized by the state. Doug, you certainly know how lawyers will attempt to portray their clients, as victims of abuse, helpless, etc. Why do you suppose they do that? Right, a sympathy ploy. How do you think the Mendendez brothers escaped the death penalty?
“Sympathy” for the rape wasn’t what the Roe case was about, though. You’re right that being a rape victim could certainly make a difference in some cases, but this was not one of them. The lie from Norma came about because she wanted an abortion. When that was no longer on the table, it didn’t matter and neither the judges nor the lawyers had any reason to care about it within the context of the Roe case, since it was about all women, the Constitution, and rights, whether raped or not.
……
Doug you’re the one who argues claiming rape wasn’t necessary to win the case so I just want to know why they didn’t advise her to be completely honest?
They didn’t know and/or it didn’t matter. The case was about whether the Texas law was okay under the US Constitution.
…..
I only speculate what the lawyers knew? Doug, I don’t speculate they could have found out the truth easily enough if they really tried, I know they could have!
So what? Why worry about this when it did not matter?
…..
If you’re right there is no need to lie then I’m sure you’ll agree its the lawyer’s responsiblity to advise the client as such if in the course of their investigation, which lawyers doing their research entails, they discover the client is lying.
Not if it doesn’t make any difference. I don’t know if or when the lawyers knew or suspected that Norma was lying, but it was a moot point either way.
Doug,
They could have easily found out if Norma was lying! Did they ever investigate the background of this mentally ill drug addicted client? Did they use her story to further their agenda and win sympathy and support?
I’m well aware that rape was not central to this case, however the lie was perpetuated. What the lawyers knew and when they knew it is relevant. Did they publicly state it was absolutely unnecessary for her to lie and they are outraged at her admission?
If the rape story is irrelevant, discourage the client from lying. Why bother lying? If they knew she was perpetuating this lie should they have spoken out and condemned her doing so?
I maintain they didn’t want to find out the truth since this was a case made to order. The gang rape victim further victimized by the law.
If the rape story is irrelevant, then adivse the client she need not use it and do not involve yourself in perpetuating it.
Mary, you seem to be worrying about it while few if any others are.
It was the principle of the Constitution against Texas law that was the issue, not Norma’s story.
Doug,
I’m not worried at all.
Where in the Constitution is there anything about abortion and what specific principlw was against Texas law?
I maintain the the lawyers preferred not to know the truth. This case was made to order.
That “truth” didn’t matter for the case, any more than what Norma had for breakfast. You don’t know what the lawyers knew or felt.
The Constitution is really about limiting the powers of government over the people, and the court found that indeed the Texas law was government intruding too much on the freedom of people.
Doug,
Of course the truth didn’t matter. End results did. But I have to wonder why the lawyers wanted Norma to maintain her pregnancy and not abort(according to you) if it was not relevant how she became pregnant. They were going to win anyway, right?
The action of the Supreme Court has been viewed by some scholars as “raw judicial power” in overturning state laws on a sweeping basis. Can you tell me where in the Constitution the Supreme Court is given this authority/
Doug,
Come to think of it you make a great point. The truth didn’t matter. When has it in the effort to legalize abortion?
The public was lied to about the number of illegal abortions and illegal abortion deaths. They were lied to about the Roman Catholic Church being the common enemy in the struggle for legal abortion. Sandra Cano (Doe v Bolton) was deceived into being part of a lawsuit legalizing abortion, though she never would have knowingly been part of it. So what if McCorvey lied? You’re absolutely right. What is one more lie and why should it matter?
Concerning Roe v Wade and “raw jucicial power”, what else is new? This is after all the Supreme Court that sanctioned segregation and putting American citizens into concentration camps. One could say they have overstepped a few times.
The truth didn’t matter. When has it in the effort to legalize abortion?
Oh please, Mary. Not “the truth,” but Norma’s lie about being raped, which is what you had mentioned. That didn’t matter.
The truth is that abortion became illegal largely due to doctors wanting more money – they felt that midwives were encroaching on what was the docs’ “rightful” territory.
The real truth is that the gov’t doesn’t have a good enough reason to ban abortion nor restrict it prior to viability. Should the doctors’ wishes have stood in 1973? I sure don’t think so, and I doubt there was much sentiment among doctors as far as being worried about it.
The Constitution is not about enumerating rights, of people or of gov’t. It’s really about keeping the gov’t off people’s backs and Roe is a good example where, thank goodness, that principle was upheld.
Doug,
Abortion became illegal because it was viewed as murder of the unborn by the medical profession. Also laws were enacted by the elected representatives of the people. You still haven’t told me where the Constitution gives the Supreme Court this power to overturn such laws.
Why would doctors make it illegal if they could profit so handsomely from it themselves?
The sad fact is that time and again abortion advocates had to resort to lying and deceit to get abortion legalized. Norma is just the next in line with lawyers who for whatever reason didn’t care about the truth. I wonder why that was the case? Why not let the American people speak through their elected representatives if abortion was truly supported by the vast majority of the people??
Mary: Abortion became illegal because it was viewed as murder of the unborn by the medical profession.
Nope, it was never viewed as “murder.”
….
Also laws were enacted by the elected representatives of the people. You still haven’t told me where the Constitution gives the Supreme Court this power to overturn such laws.
:: laughing ::
Mary, while I was tempted to say that if you can read and get on the internet, you should know this.
I’ll give you a clue, though. Article III.
…..
Why would doctors make it illegal if they could profit so handsomely from it themselves?
Midwives were being used by many people, and the docs sought to prevent that. The docs themselves were not prohibited from performing abortions in cases of sufficient need, and that was determined by the docs.
…..
Norma lying wasn’t germane to the case. There’s no rational reason the lawyers on either side of the Roe case nor the Court would care about it.
You’re just trying to impugn the lawyers, but it didn’t matter. It wasn’t about whether she got raped or not.
…..
Why not let the American people speak through their elected representatives if abortion was truly supported by the vast majority of the people??
Because this is a case of individual freedom under the Constitution. Lincoln went to war versus allowing majorities in some southern states to make for slavery. By your logic, some Alabama and Mississippi localities would likely have legal slavery to this day.
Doug,
9:53PM The truth is abortion became illegal largely due to doctors wanting more money-they felt the midwives were enroaching on what was the docs’ “rightful territory”.
What did this have to do with abortion becoming illegal? If the docs wanted the money, they should have made it legal.
I’m well aware doctors wanted the power and control and took over from midwives, resulting in a skyrocketing maternal death rate.
Check some of the old medical texts and you will see abortion referred to as killing and it was opposed by doctors for this reason. Our feminist foremothers vehemently opposed abortion for the same reason.
Doug, please give me the exact clause that authorizes the Supreme Court to overturn a state law as it sees fit.
Doug, also get your history straight. The Civil War was not about slavery, there is debate if Lincoln even opposed slavery and some say he would have left slavery intact to save the Union.
This is a case of individual freedom under the Constitution? Please tell me where the Constitution addresses the issue of abortion. In fact I’ll do that for you. The justices in their brilliance found the “right” to abortion in “emanations arising from the penumbra(a shadow cast by an eclipse) cast by the 14th Amendment”. In other words they found it in steam or vapors arising from the shadow cast by the 14th Amendment. They apparently found this right in steam.
Speaking of slavery, our revered Supreme Court ruled that people of African descent imported into the US as slaves, or their descendents, could never be citizens of the US, that Congress could not prohibit slavery in federal territories, and that slaves, being they were “property” could not be removed from owners without due process.
Oh, and if the Supreme Court had not reversed itself, segregation, which was also sanctioned by the Supreme Court, would still be alive and doing well in Mississippi and Alabama.
Well thank heavens the Supreme Court couldn’t have its way. You’re right, blacks likely would still be slaves, or at least still riding in the back of the bus.
Doug,
These lawyers did a better job of impugning themselves than I could ever hope to.
What did this have to do with abortion becoming illegal? If the docs wanted the money, they should have made it legal.
Mary, doctors still performed abortions, it was just that then they were the only ones allowed, not midwives.
…..
Doug, please give me the exact clause that authorizes the Supreme Court to overturn a state law as it sees fit.
You have got to be kidding me.
…..
Doug, also get your history straight. The Civil War was not about slavery, there is debate if Lincoln even opposed slavery and some say he would have left slavery intact to save the Union.
You’re stretching things a long, long way there. The states that seceded did so because they wanted slavery to remain legal. Lincoln wasn’t having that.
…..
This is a case of individual freedom under the Constitution? Please tell me where the Constitution addresses the issue of abortion.
Once again, the Constitution is about keeping gov’t off people’s backs, not about enumerating specific rights.
In principle the Constitution protects our rights, among them liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and making abortion illegal impacts those. And with the Roe decision, there is provision made for protecting the life of the woman, as well.
…..
These lawyers did a better job of impugning themselves than I could ever hope to.
They did a good job and won the case, and millions and millions of women have benefitted from it. Whether Norma was raped or not didn’t matter to the case.
Doug,
I know doctors still performed them, but did so discreetly. The PL movement pointed out that for years most illegal abortions were done in doctor’s offices and not “back alleys”, and that this, and advances in medicine made for a steady decrease in the death rate from abortion, legal and illegal.
However, legal abortion would certainly have been far more profitable after pushing aside the midwives.
Please Doug, the clause. If its there you should have no trouble finding and quoting it.
Doug, please research the Civil War a little more intensely. It was far more complex and involved any number of issues, mainly economic and cultural. Slavery was incidental though the abolishment of slavery was certainly one of the more positive outcomes. Are you aware both Black and Native American troops served in the Confederate as well as Union armies? This was obviously not a black/white slavery vs freedom war.
Yes the Constitution is about keeping the gov’t off people’s backs and it does so by enumerating certain rights. I gave examples of how our revered justices have distorted the Constitution by reading into it what doesn’t exist i.e. that blacks could not be citizens, and “seperate but equal” to permit segregation. Roe is just another example. They literally had to find this “right” in steam!
By the way Doug, along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Constitution also mentions the right to life, which you neglected to mention, without which other rights are moot.
About the lawyers, you’re right, the truth really didn’t matter. When did it ever in the course of legalizing abortion?
About the life of the woman, abortion was always legally permitted when necessary to save a woman’s life or preserve her health. Roe was not needed to permit this.
Doug, please research the Civil War a little more intensely. It was far more complex and involved any number of issues, mainly economic and cultural. Slavery was incidental though the abolishment of slavery was certainly one of the more positive outcomes. Are you aware both Black and Native American troops served in the Confederate as well as Union armies? This was obviously not a black/white slavery vs freedom war.
Mary, I hear you, but still, slavery –> North says no slavery –> southern states say “screw that” –> Lincoln says “Oh no you don’t.”
…..
About the lawyers, you’re right, the truth really didn’t matter.
No, the fact of Norma having been raped or not was what didn’t matter.
……
When did it ever in the course of legalizing abortion?
All the time. The truth is there wasn’t a good enough reason to have abortion be illegal before viability, though I know you don’t like that.
……
Please Doug, the clause. If its there you should have no trouble finding and quoting it.
Article III.
Doug,
Like I said, please research a little more. Slavery was incidental in the big picture. One account I read said ending slavery was tacked on later in this immensely unpopular war, which was a wholesale slaughter, to give it some “noble” cause.
That’s what I said Doug, the truth was irrelevant. It was lie after lie concerning illegal abortion rates, death rates, and the Catholic Church. Norma was just next in line.
I’ve read Article III. I can’t find anywhere that gives the Supreme Court the right to overturn state laws as it sees fit. Please give me a direct quote, a clause, anything.
Like I said, please research a little more. Slavery was incidental in the big picture. One account I read said ending slavery was tacked on later in this immensely unpopular war, which was a wholesale slaughter, to give it some “noble” cause.
First, let me agree with you – that was a bloody war, to say the least. 600,000 – 700,000 dead, more than all other American wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam. It’d be like having a war today and having 6,000,000 casualties.
My dad was a History major in college, and we grew up with this stuff. At least 9 battles with over 20,000 dead. Antietam, Spotsylvania, Chancellorsville, Chickamauga, Gettysburg (over 50,000 dead there)….
Mary, “one account”? The war was directly due to the secession of some southern states, and that was due to Lincoln and the Republican party campaigning against slavery in the 1860 elections, and then winning. Those states were in effect saying, “Screw this….” and before Lincoln could take office they tried to opt out.
Other than the disagreement over slavery, what do you think is the reason the states seceded?
…..
That’s what I said Doug, the truth was irrelevant. It was lie after lie concerning illegal abortion rates, death rates, and the Catholic Church. Norma was just next in line.
No, those issues are really irrelevant. It doesn’t matter exactly how many women had illegal abortions – society had no compelling reason to have abortion illegal to viability, whether zero women had abortions previously, or many – that is a separate concern. While some people were obviously worried about illegal abortions, they are not what the Supreme Court based its decison on.
The Supreme Court did not say, “abortion should be illegal because women died from illegal abortions.” It said that what is compelling is the right of the woman, to viability.
Catholic Church or no Catholic Church – wouldn’t have mattered. Same for whether Norma had been raped or not. The principle is women’s constitutional rights, and the compelling interest of the states (if any) after viability.
…..
I’ve read Article III. I can’t find anywhere that gives the Supreme Court the right to overturn state laws as it sees fit. Please give me a direct quote, a clause, anything.
Okay, that’s pretty reasonable.
The Supreme Court is like the head referee. The President, the legislatures, the police, etc., are the players. On the playing field they can make laws and enforce laws, but the field is only as large as is compatible with the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s job is to tell the other parts of gov’t when they are out of bounds. The “checks and balances” of our gov’t is set up that way.
I would say that here are the applicable parts:
Article III: Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court…
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States…
So the Supreme Court is the judge, the final judge, and it’s authority extends to US law and state law.
Doug,
Many of the accounts I have read concerning the Civil War concerned economics and culture. Problems had been festering for years before war erupted. The North was more industrialized, the south wanted to maintain its own culture, economy and independence. They were two different cultures and economies inside one border. The south very resentfully viewed the federal gov’t as a “dictator”, and a”foreign” one at that. Most Southerners didn’t own slaves, in fact black freedmen and Native American tribes owned many. I understand up to 12,000 black slaves were owned by black freedman.
As I said, the Civil War will remain a matter of debate until the end of time. Did Lincoln oppose slavery, was he in fact a racist? Opinions vary. Was Lincoln’s only intention to keep the union together even if it meant the continuation of slavery? Again this is debated. Why did he issue the Emancipation Proclamation? To give the war some “noble” purpose, to free up blacks to serve in the Union Army, to create havoc in the south, or because he really opposed slavery? Again its debated.
That’s why I argue that slavery was incidental in the entire picture. It was very complex.
I understand Native American tribes also served the Confederacy, along with blacks. My guess would be the Native Americans likely hoped for autonomy in the Confederacy and had an intense dislike for the federal gov’t(union), if you can imagine.
Honestly Doug, the more I read and hear of this war, my brother and a good friend of mine are Civil War fanatics, the less sure I am about any of the “facts”. Its sure not what they taught us in school!
Then there’s the late friend of ours from the south who was a great admirer of John Wilkes Boothe………….., this will just go on forever!
Doug for whatever reason abortion advocates lied time and again. Whether they “had” to or not does not change the facts. They promoted bigotry against the RCC. This was done to win over the American public and according to Dr. Nathanson, leaders of the abortion movement viewed the end as justifying the means. Abortion leaders did not forsee Roe v Wade and knew American public opinion had to be worked on.
What better way than lying and the promotion of bigotry?
Bingo Doug, the key word is the Constitution. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution, not read into it what isn’t there or legislate from the bench.
I gave 2 examples of that with Dred Scott and the SC ruling sanctioning segregation. Where was anything about segregation or black people being denied citizenship mentioned in the Constitution?
That’s why the SC has overturned and reinstated the death penalty time and again, there is a clause against cruel and unusual punishment, which has been interpreted according to the whim of SC judges.
History teaches these judges can have too much power and won’t hesitate to abuse it.
Roe is another example of judicial abuse. Where did the Constitution say anything about abortion? The judges literally had to concoct this “right” out of steam, just as they had to conconct “seperate but equal”.
Doug,
Another thing about the Civil War. To think what Americans would do to each other is beyond comprehension.
Did Lincoln oppose slavery, was he in fact a racist? Opinions vary.
Well, he campaigned against it and spoke against it, as did the Republican party members in general.
…..
for whatever reason abortion advocates lied time and again.
Ahem, at the most that would be “some legal abortion advocates.”
And some pro-lifers lie time and again now. It doesn’t really go to the issue.
…..
Bingo Doug, the key word is the Constitution. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution, not read into it what isn’t there or legislate from the bench.
It’s all part of the judging, and the Court is the supreme judge, whether a given person agrees with the finding or not. If the Court was really out of control, enough votes in Congress and it could be abolished, so it’s not all-powerful.
There are principles of liberty and freedom, including privacy when the state has no compelling interest to invade it, that are understood if not specifically stated in the Constitution.
Again, the Constitution is first and foremost about keeping government off the people’s backs.
…..
I gave 2 examples of that with Dred Scott and the SC ruling sanctioning segregation. Where was anything about segregation or black people being denied citizenship mentioned in the Constitution?
(Lincoln hated the Scott decison and soke out publicly against it.)
Again, you’re missing the point of the Constitution by asking about “anything being denied..” there. It doesn’t specifically deny citizenship to sheep, but it’s understood.
The Constitution at the time did not guarantee citizenship and certain rights to slaves. Years later the 14th Amendment did that. Times change and so does the Constitution.
Maybe sheep have hope….
……
That’s why the SC has overturned and reinstated the death penalty time and again, there is a clause against cruel and unusual punishment, which has been interpreted according to the whim of SC judges.
The judges are people too, and people don’t always agree on just what “cruel and unusual” is.
I didn’t know the death penalty had been “turned on and off” by the court time and again….
Doug,
True, Lincoln did campaign and speak against it but the problems between North and South ran deeper and slavery, according to some historians, was not his main concern, preserving the union was. Some say it was no concern at all. Again, who can know what was in the man’s heart and I’m sure the slaves freed didn’t give a fat flying either way. Ironically, Andrew Johnson who succeeded Lincoln was an avowed racist determined to send the newly freed slaves back to the plantation.
Doug I’m referring to the abortion leadership of which Dr. Nathanson was a very dedicated member. Deceiving the American public was a deliberate and very well planned strategy. They also had the help of a very compliant media who spread the lies without question. Dr. Nathanson was very pleasantly surprised the RCC would tolerate such blatant bigoted attacks as he could think of no other group that would.
Doug, the SC is supposed to interpret the Constitution, not read into it and certainly not find “rights” in steam. Unfortunately judges are as human as we all are and have their biases.
Yes the Constituion is clearly about keeping the government off people’s backs and specifies how that is to be done.
I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers visualized an all powerful Supreme Court with the power to read into the Constitution what it wants as it did with Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson which found segregation to be Constitutional.
By the way, Dred Scott applied to black Americans who were NOT slaves, freed or born free. Where did the Constitution deny citizenship to black people at all? Where did it say anything about “seperate but equal”?
Concerning the death penalty, it was declared unconstituional in 1972 and suspended until 1976, and such sterling characters as the Manson Family and Richard Speck were spared. Executions resumed in 1977. You can check Wikipedia for the sequence of events leading to its reinstatement.
Mary, yes indeed – Lincoln wanted to keep the country together. The main reason those southern states seceded was over the slavery issue, though there were some other issues, certainly. I’ve just never heard that anything else was as important as slavery or that it “ran deeper.”
……
Doug I’m referring to the abortion leadership of which Dr. Nathanson was a very dedicated member. Deceiving the American public was a deliberate and very well planned strategy. They also had the help of a very compliant media who spread the lies without question. Dr. Nathanson was very pleasantly surprised the RCC would tolerate such blatant bigoted attacks as he could think of no other group that would.
What of it? Norma lied, and neither the stuff you’re talking about nor Norma’s “rape” mattered when it came to the Roe decision. If the rape, for example, had mattered then the opposing lawyers would have been all over it.
……
Doug, the SC is supposed to interpret the Constitution, not read into it and certainly not find “rights” in steam. Unfortunately judges are as human as we all are and have their biases. Yes the Constituion is clearly about keeping the government off people’s backs and specifies how that is to be done. I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers visualized an all powerful Supreme Court with the power to read into the Constitution what it wants as it did with Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson which found segregation to be Constitutional.
The Founding Fathers didn’t have much if any problem with slavery, and I think it’s absurd to say they’d worry about the Plessy or Scott decisions. Does the gov’t have the right to forbid a woman from having an abortion, prior to viability? The Supreme Court said no. It simply is the entity which interprets the Constitution.
SoMG and others have mentioned a “Freedom of Choice” act which would make Roe not required for the protection of the legal rights women now have, and while I don’t think it’s probable in the next four years, say, it’d be nice to settle things that way.
…..
By the way, Dred Scott applied to black Americans who were NOT slaves, freed or born free. Where did the Constitution deny citizenship to black people at all? Where did it say anything about “seperate but equal”?
Well, Dred Scott was a slave. Yet again, the Constitution isn’t about denying things to people, but rather about denying the gov’t if it tries to mess with people too much.
The “separate but equal” came from the segregated society we had for a long time. After the Civil War, though slavery wasn’t permitted any longer, the country wasn’t ready to not be segregated. Finally, it was the Supreme Court itself that did away with it – Brown versus Board of Education, right?
Doug,
Slavery as a cause of the Civil War is a common misconception. While it certainly was an issue, it was but one of many and not the cause. Economic and cultural differences were the major factors and Lincoln’s biggest concern was preserving the Union. I don’t think some poor schmuck that barely scraped by cared about slavery as he certainly wouldn’t own one, but he might have bitterly resented the Federal gov’t and have intense loyalty to the culture and economy of his native southern state. I understnad southern general Robert E. Lee fought only out of loyalty to his southern roots, not because he supported succesion.
If you have no issue with the abortion leadership promoting lies and bigotry that’s fine with me.
While I am aware the Founding Fathers owned slaves its irrelevant to these rulings. The denying of citizenship to black people and segregation were NOT in the Constitution.
On what did the justices base these rulings?
The same with Roe, where they literally had to find justification in steam.
That is not the job of the SC justices. They are to uphold or overturn laws on the basis of the Constitution, not their personal biases.
All of our rights are endangered if they do not.
FOCA’s been around a long time. Clinton never did get it through the Democratic congress and senate and I’m not certain he even tried. Why not legislate to begin with? That is the job of the people’s representatives, not the Supreme Court.
Southern Democrats took over the south and were determined to keep the newly freed black slaves in their “place”. The KKK was founded as the terrorist arm of Southern Democrats for just that purpose. Seperate but equal was no where in the Constitution and the justices likely sanctioned it based more on their own biases.
Black Americans none the less proved themselves a remarkably resilient and resourceful group of people and overcame incredible barriers to build schools, businesses, colleges, and thriving communities.
Yes indeed this disgraceful decision was reversed by Brown v Board of Education.
Slavery as a cause of the Civil War is a common misconception. While it certainly was an issue, it was but one of many and not the cause. Economic and cultural differences were the major factors and Lincoln’s biggest concern was preserving the Union. I don’t think some poor schmuck that barely scraped by cared about slavery as he certainly wouldn’t own one, but he might have bitterly resented the Federal gov’t and have intense loyalty to the culture and economy of his native southern state. I understnad southern general Robert E. Lee fought only out of loyalty to his southern roots, not because he supported succesion.
Mary, nothing you’ve said refutes the Issue of Slavery –> Lincoln and Republicans being against it –> Lincoln wins the Presidency –> some southern states secede progression or explanation. I have never before heard that it was not the main cause of the Civil War, regardless of how many other issues there may have been.
…..
If you have no issue with the abortion leadership promoting lies and bigotry that’s fine with me.
What is that? There are any number of lies put forth by many in the pro-life leadership these days. The point with Norma’s rape, etc., is that it wasn’t germane to the case, and it wasn’t only Norma’s lawyers that knew that, it was also the lawyers on the other side of the Roe case. You’re acting like it’s a big deal, but it wasn’t true then nor is it true now.
……
While I am aware the Founding Fathers owned slaves its irrelevant to these rulings. The denying of citizenship to black people and segregation were NOT in the Constitution. On what did the justices base these rulings?
For the manyeth time, the Constitution is not about “denying” to people. This was in the pre-14th Amendment time, and the Dred Scott decision basically said that slaves couldn’t be citizens in reference to the Constitution, regardless if the states wanted to deem them citizens for the purpose of state law. The Constitution is about “denying” the gov’t unless demonstrable need to take away or restrict people’s rights is presented. Scott was partially about upholding the rights of slaveowners.
…..
The same with Roe, where they literally had to find justification in steam. That is not the job of the SC justices. They are to uphold or overturn laws on the basis of the Constitution, not their personal biases. All of our rights are endangered if they do not.
Nope, Roe came after the 14th Amendment, and if anything I’d say the parts about “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges… of citizens…” and “nor shall any state deprive any person of… liberty… without due process of law..
The point of the Constitution is to protect the people from the government, and the court rightly found that the gov’t is not justified in legally denying women the right to have abortions to viability, and that the Texas statute in question was not a “due process of law.”
The Founding Fathers wanted citizens to have privileges and rights unless there was a compelling need on the part of the state to restrict them, and that is not there with respect to abortion.
Doug,
Just like the historical debate the issue is never really settled. I in no way refute the issue of slavery as AN issue. I argue it was not THE issue but one of many. I’ve even read that slavery was tacked on later in the Civil War to give it some “noble” cause. As I said the poor Southern schmuck that fought in the Confederate army wasn’t fighting to preserve slavery for rich whites, black freedmen, and Native American tribes. He more likely did so out of loyalty to his birthplace, culture and heritage and viewed the federal gov’t. as a dictatorship, as well as feeling no bond with those in the North.
Doug, even if there are lies put forth by PLs that does not justify the lies and bigotry the abortion leadership promoted. Norma was just part of the pattern.
For the manyeth time the Constitution enumerates and specifies our rights and in doing so keeps the gov’t off our backs. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution nowhere stated that black people, especially free black people, could not be citizens. I’m well aware Dred Scott was about upholding slaveholders “rights”, as well as denying rights to a whole race of Americans.
By the way, Chief Justice Roger Taney who ruled against Scott referred to abolitionism as “Northern aggression” and his attitude toward slavery had been hardening for years, even though he had freed his own. He hoped his ruling would put an end to the issue of slavery.
Not exactly an unbiased judge, wouldn’t you say?
I’ve reviewed the 14th Amendment and I see no reference to abortion or even the unborn. Please tell me exactly on what, other than “emanations arising from the penumbra cast by the 14th Amendment” the justices found the “right” of abortion. I wonder if this was the same steam that “seperate but equal” was found in.
Doug,
My mistake when discussing the 14th Amendment in regard to Dred Scott. I was getting ahead of myself. The Dred Scott decision came before the 14th Amendment as you stated. I meant “the Constitution no where stated that black people, especially free black people, could not be citizens. My apologies.
Just like the historical debate the issue is never really settled. I in no way refute the issue of slavery as AN issue. I argue it was not THE issue but one of many. I’ve even read that slavery was tacked on later in the Civil War to give it some “noble” cause. As I said the poor Southern schmuck that fought in the Confederate army wasn’t fighting to preserve slavery for rich whites, black freedmen, and Native American tribes. He more likely did so out of loyalty to his birthplace, culture and heritage and viewed the federal gov’t. as a dictatorship, as well as feeling no bond with those in the North.
Doug, even if there are lies put forth by PLs that does not justify the lies and bigotry the abortion leadership promoted. Norma was just part of the pattern.
For the manyeth time the Constitution enumerates and specifies our rights and in doing so keeps the gov’t off our backs. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution nowhere stated that black people, especially free black people, could not be citizens. I’m well aware Dred Scott was about upholding slaveholders “rights”, as well as denying rights to a whole race of Americans.
By the way, Chief Justice Roger Taney who ruled against Scott referred to abolitionism as “Northern aggression” and his attitude toward slavery had been hardening for years, even though he had freed his own. He hoped his ruling would put an end to the issue of slavery.
Not exactly an unbiased judge, wouldn’t you say?
I’ve reviewed the 14th Amendment and I see no reference to abortion or even the unborn. Please tell me exactly on what, other than “emanations arising from the penumbra cast by the 14th Amendment” the justices found the “right” of abortion. I wonder if this was the same steam that “seperate but equal” was found in.
Mary, it just seems so farfetched that slavery was “tacked on later.” It’s fact that Lincoln and the Republicans in general were campaigning against it, and that many southerners were against Lincoln because of it. Then he wins, and they secede. Granted that there were other issues, but until you, I’ve never heard that any others were even in the ballpark with slavery.
I’m sure you’re right about many “average Joe” soldiers fighting out of loyalty to birthplace, culture, etc. Heck, I know some good old boys in the south that’d fight, now, and they don’t have any slaves.
On Norma and lies by the leaders of movements – I’m not saying they’re “justified.” I’m saying they really didn’t matter, and that not only do I feel that way, the lawyers on both sides of the Roe case knew they didn’t, as well.
The Constitution didn’t rule out slaves from being citizens way back then, no, not in specific language, but of course the same is true for sheep and lemmings too. The Constitution doesn’t work that way.
You’re right that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to the unborn. If you want chapter and verse for the reasoning behind the Roe decision, I’d say read the text of it.
The whole deal with the Constitution is that government has a tendency to get bigger and more powerful, and the Founding Fathers knew that. So they tried to make provisions for keeping it in check, and the document is part of it, along with the Supreme Court, etc. The Court can tell gov’t when it’s out of line. While not stated, there certainly is the implied right to privacy for people, for one thing. The principle that some searches and seizures can be unreasonable isn’t really challenged, and it’s similar thinking that led to Roe. Does the gov’t have a demonstrable need to search and seize without due process of law, etc? Is it due process of law to do so? No, most certainly not. Likewise, it’s not due process of law for the states to invade people’s privacy with respect to willfully continuing pregnancies or ending them without a demonstrable need.
Doug,
The slavery “tacked” on later was just yet another opinion expressed in the ongoing debate. There was also the claim Lincoln was a racist. I was shocked to learn freed blacks owned thousands of slaves and that the only Native American general in the Civil War served the Confederacy.
I’m glad you’ve learned there are other historical perspectives on the Civil War from me.
I hear Pat Buchanan has written a different perspective on WW2 that is generating some backlash and debate.
I’m not tackling that one!
We also had a friend from the South. Idolized John Wilkes Boothe and loved to talk about the North’s drunken generals and how it took us 4 years to defeat them. Quite a character.
The judges read into the Constitution that blacks, slave or free, could not be citizens. I told you Taney was hardly the most unbiased person concerning slavery and I have no doubt this influenced his “find”.
I’ve already pointed out the justices found this “right” to abortion in steam, that’s how hard they had to look for something they were obviously desperate to “find”.
The people have their elected representatives through whom they speak and pass laws. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, it does not legislate or find “rights” where they don’t exist.
If the people objected to the Texas laws banning abortion they had a legislature to address this grievance.
Doug,
I would recommend the book “Brother Against Brother” from Time-Life Books. It goes extensively into the economic, cultural, and yes slavery issues leading to the Civil War.
I would google time-life books, amazon, or Time magazine to see if it is still available.
Doug,
Great news. I found the book on Amazon. The author, William C. Davis seems to have written extensively on the subject. The book is listed under(search) “Brother against Brother”. Then look for this title followed by “The War Begins”.
The slavery “tacked” on later was just yet another opinion expressed in the ongoing debate.
Mary, okay, that makes sense.
…..
There was also the claim Lincoln was a racist.
Earlier on, he did say some things that are still frequently quoted today. From 1858:
Doug,
I would agree that Lincoln could well have opposed slavery but still viewed blacks as inferior. I’m sure it mattered little to freed blacks what truly motivated their release from bondage, be it political or humanitarian.
Doug, the Dred Scott decision declared that FREE blacks as well could not be citizens. Anyone of African descent either slave or descended from slave. Who of African descent wasn’t descended from a slave? That certainly drastically narrowed the field of black people who could be citizens!
The point is this was no where in the Constitution.
Doug, it was found in “emanations arising from the penumbra cast by the 14th Amendment”. We’re talking shadows and steam here. Where was there some solid statement that one can quote pertaining to abortion?
Sorry Doug but I see the last paragraph as ambiguous. Search and seizure and abortion? Even privacy? Citizens’ rights pertaining to proper search and seizure are addressed in the Constitution and the justices could certainly rule on that. They made a connection to abortion with shadow and steam. Like I said, likely the same steam the “seperate but equal” ruling was found in.
There was something called a legislature and the people’s representatives in the state of Texas, as well as every other state, to address the issue of abortion.
Doug, the Dred Scott decision declared that FREE blacks as well could not be citizens. Anyone of African descent either slave or descended from slave. Who of African descent wasn’t descended from a slave? That certainly drastically narrowed the field of black people who could be citizens!
The point is this was no where in the Constitution.
Mary, agreed, but the Constitution is about denying government, not about denying to the “people,” and slaves had never been citizens in the first place.
…….
Doug, it was found in “emanations arising from the penumbra cast by the 14th Amendment”. We’re talking shadows and steam here. Where was there some solid statement that one can quote pertaining to abortion?
I don’t know whose words those were, but the right to privacy is a big part of the Roe decision, and there’s no question that without a good enough reason, the gov’t is not supposed to intrude on our privacy.
……
Sorry Doug but I see the last paragraph as ambiguous. Search and seizure and abortion? Even privacy? Citizens’ rights pertaining to proper search and seizure are addressed in the Constitution and the justices could certainly rule on that. They made a connection to abortion with shadow and steam. Like I said, likely the same steam the “seperate but equal” ruling was found in.
Yes, search and seizure and abortion – if the gov’t doesn’t have a good enough reason, then the privacy of the individual is to be kept. If a given woman wants an abortion, to viability, does the gov’t have a good enough reason to affect her “liberty” in the matter and her “pursuit of happiness” if she wants an abortion? The Court said no, and that is right in line with the purpose of the Constitution – to limit the power of gov’t over the people.
……
There was something called a legislature and the people’s representatives in the state of Texas, as well as every other state, to address the issue of abortion.
We really don’t vote on rights, though, and that’s a good bit of the principle behind the 14th Amendment.
Doug,
The Constitution is about enumerating the rights of citizens and limiting the power of government.
It said nothing about denying citizenship to black people, free or slave.
The Constitution says nothing about privacy. It does discuss search and seizure and the guidelines that must be met. It says nothing about abortion. I can’t see the connection between search and seizure and abortion. Apparently our justices had a little problem as well since they had to find the “right” to abortion in shadow and steam.
We don’t vote on rights, we have legislative bodies to make laws. The court can overturn laws based on what is IN the Constitution, not what particular justices think they see in the Constitution. Like “seperate but equal” the “right” to abortion was found where in fact it never existed.
Personally Doug, I am very fearful of justices who think they can rule based on what they “see” in the Constitution and not what is written. Gun owners especially had better be wary.
The Constitution is about enumerating the rights of citizens and limiting the power of government.
Except it’s not really about enumerating the rights of citizens. Very little is covered in the Constitution, there. There are principles of freedoms that are mentioned, however.
……
It said nothing about denying citizenship to black people, free or slave.
Nor to dogs. Do dogs have constitutional rights? The point is that blacks were not covered under the Constitution for a while.
…..
The Constitution says nothing about privacy. It does discuss search and seizure and the guidelines that must be met. It says nothing about abortion. I can’t see the connection between search and seizure and abortion. Apparently our justices had a little problem as well since they had to find the “right” to abortion in shadow and steam.
Freedom and liberty are in there, though, and it comes down to either the gov’t has a good enough reason to abridge them or not. In some cases it does, and in some, as with abortion, it does not. Abortion was legal when the constitution was written. It did not become illegal on constitutional grounds, and the Court rightly ruled that the Texas law was unconstitutional.
…..
We don’t vote on rights, we have legislative bodies to make laws.
And the laws need to pass constitutional muster, or they’ll likely be struck down.
…..
The court can overturn laws based on what is IN the Constitution, not what particular justices think they see in the Constitution. Like “seperate but equal” the “right” to abortion was found where in fact it never existed.
No – abortion was a right when the Constitution was written. It later became illegal, but not because of anything in the Constitution. The Court didn’t come up with anything “new,” it just restored rights where they had unjustly been taken away.
Were slavery to be voted on, and passed in the affirmative in some states, those laws would be struck down in the same manner. To avoid any confusion over this, a “Freedom of Choice Act” would be a good thing.
…..
Personally Doug, I am very fearful of justices who think they can rule based on what they “see” in the Constitution and not what is written. Gun owners especially had better be wary.
Well, Mary, just recently gun rights were upheld, even though the verdict was based not on what the Constitution really says, but rather on the concept of individual freedom and the gov’t not having a compelling reason to abridge that freedom.
Doug,
Yes it does list the rights we enjoy as American citizens, among them gun ownership, freedom of speech, etc.
Come on Doug. Dogs? The Supreme Court ruled black people could not be citizens. They did not make this ruling on the basis of what was IN the Constitution. Where did it specify black people could not be citizens or that only white people could?
Where did the Consitution ever designate “seperate but equal”? That’s my point Doug, justices will rule based on their own prejudice instead of what is clearly written or not written. A very frightening prospect.
Abortion was legal when the Constitution was written? So was slavery. Slavery didn’t become illegal until after a civil war and a Constitutional amendment in 1865. Until then it wasn’t illegal either.
Doug, of course slavery would be voted down by the Supreme Court today. Prohibition of slavery is IN THE CONSTITUTION. The 13th Amendment.
With Roe the Supreme Court did not restore a “right” since a “right” to abortion was never listed in the Constitution. It overturned state laws after finding a “right” to abortion in penumbras and emanations.
Yes recently gun rights were upheld by one vote. What is unsettling is that four justices did not agree with the Second Amendment rights.
Again this is another argument. Individual rights? Yes. Rights codified by our Founding Fathers into the Bill of Rights to protect us from a tyrannical gov’t. The Heller ruling stated “the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unrelated to service in a militia I wonder if that applies to Supreme Court dictators as well.
Oh blast it Doug I posted accidentally while I was editing. I’ll continue from….
The Heller ruling stated “the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearem unrelated to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self defense within the home”
It sounds to me like our Justices upheld individual freedom to bear arms based on the Second Amendment which is IN the Constitution.
Mary, the right to keep and bear arms is predicated on the need for a “militia,” etc., a thing which is not in evidence today. So there too, it’s not a decision based on “what the Constitution says.” The Heller ruling is a matter of interpretation, and there is plenty about freedom, liberty, and “to promote the general Welfare” of the people, etc., in the Constitution to support having abortion be legal. Abortion was a right before the Constitution was written, during its writing, and after its writing. It was not made illegal on any constitutional grounds.
I don’t have a problem with the Supreme Court going with the idea of people having the right to have guns. Same for having the right to have abortions.
Doug,
The 2nd Amendment protects the pre-existing individual right to keep and bear firearms. This was codified into the Constitution since there was a fear a tyrannical gov’t would disarm the people and maintain power through a militia or standing army, a not uncommon practice of tyrants.
The Heller ruling protected this individual right which is in the 2nd amendment.
Abortion was legal, not a “right” and was never codified in the Constitution, just as slavery was legal but not a codified “right”. Since abortion, unlike slavery, is never mentioned in the Constitution, there was no Constitutional basis, except what some justices had to search for in odors and shadows, to overturn state laws outlawing abortion.