Roe Goes Back to Supreme Court
Posted 1/18/2005

McCorvey Appeals To Overturn ‘Grave Injustice’

WASHINGTON, January 18, 2005 – Norma McCorvey, the former “Jane Roe” whose case first legalized abortion on demand 32 years ago, today announced she is formally asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take her case and to reverse Roe v. Wade, or at least, order a trial on the merits. McCorvey’s case cites the sworn testimony of more than 1,000 women hurt by abortion.

''This is the day I''ve longed for,'' said McCorvey, who deeply regrets her role in legalizing abortion. ''Now we know so much more, and I plead with the Court to listen to the witnesses and re-evaluate Roe v. Wade. It was a dreadful day in America when the Supreme Court allowed a woman to kill her own child.”

''With each child aborted, there is another tragedy: the harm to the mother,” McCorvey said. “I''ve worked in abortion facilities, and I''ve seen firsthand the horrific nature of abortion and its devastation to women and girls.''

Allan Parker, president of The Justice Foundation, and lead attorney on the case, said much has changed since the high court’s 1973 ruling.

“We’re asking the Court to find, based on the changed legal and factual conditions, that it would be a grave injustice to continue Roe v. Wade,” Parker said.

The Foundation filed a petition for writ of certiorari on January 14, 2005, which reached the Court today, January 18, asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. It was first filed in a district court in Dallas in June 2003. Federal rules allow an original party to request a ruling be vacated when factual and legal changes make the decision no longer just. A legal summary and other documents can be viewed at www.alarryross.com or at www.operationoutcry.org.

“Norma has presented over 5,300 pages of significant, sufficient, and compelling evidence of substantial changes in factual and legal conditions,'' Parker said, noting the evidence includes sworn testimony by women who suffered from their abortions as well as testimony from scientific and medical experts and abortion facility workers.''

After reviewing this substantial evidence in McCorvey’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit last year, Judge Edith Jones stated that she “fervently hoped that the Court would someday acknowledge such developments and re-evaluate” the Roe case accordingly. [emphasis added]

“McCorvey presented evidence that goes to the heart of the balance Roe struck between the choice of a mother and the life of her unborn child. First, there are about a thousand affidavits of women who have had abortions and claim to have suffered long-term emotional damage and impaired relationships from their decision. Studies by scientists, offered by McCorvey, suggest that women may be affected emotionally and physically for years afterward and may be more prone to engage in high-risk, self-destructive conduct as a result of having had abortions.” [i] McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846, 853 (5th Cir. 2004).

Judge Jones makes a compelling case for Supreme Court review of its Roe decision.

“In sum, if courts were to delve into the facts underlying Roe’s balancing scheme with present-day knowledge, they might conclude that the woman’s ‘choice’ is far more risky and less beneficial, and the child’s sentience far more advanced, than the Roe Court knew.” [emphasis added]

''The aftermath of abortion is horrendous,'' said Joyce Zounis, director of women''s outreach for Operation Outcry: Silent No More – a national movement empowering women to speak out about how abortion harmed them. ''I was told it would be over ''real quick'' – it lasted 27 years!''

Zounis, who had the first of seven abortions beginning at age 15, shares, “not once in eleven years was I told of the emotional complications an abortion can bring -- personality changes, numbness, rage, never-ending mental anguish, the exhaustive effort of balancing my fragile state of mind, the tormenting silence of guilt and shame, the constant dissatisfaction with life and the absolute need to grieve the loss of my children.

“Nightmares and suicidal thoughts are common, especially around the anniversary of the abortion or the date when the baby would have been born,” said Caron Strong, who is a witness in the case and has had four abortions. “Everyday sounds or events can act as a trigger.”

Other women stated in sworn testimony for the case:

--“It devastated me. I had nightmares, flashbacks, fits of rage, uncontrollable crying, trouble sleeping, and could not look at pregnant women or children without feeling hurt, anger, and guilt.” (Amy Marie)

--“No one told me that I would hear cries in the middle of the night.” (Brandy)

--“Twenty-five years later, I still cannot talk about it without tears and pain in my heart. It all looks simple on paper and seems like an easy way out of a bad spot, but no one tells you that the easy way out will cost you later in emotional damage and physical problems.” (Scherrie)

Dr. Alveda King, the niece of slain civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., has had two abortions – one of them involuntarily.

“My uncle … once said, ‘The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety,’” Dr. Alveda King said. “Tragically, millions of babies have been aborted since Dr. King said this. So, we must ask, how can the ‘Dream’ survive if we murder the children?”

A significant change in most state laws now provides a better and safer alternative to abortion, allowing a woman to take her newborn to a “safe haven” anonymously and with no questions asked if no harm is done to the baby. These laws relieve women from an unwanted responsibility of raising a child.

The Justice Foundation is a San Antonio-based non-profit, public interest law firm.



Legal summary for Roe Vs. Wade
http://www.alarryross.com/LEGAL%20SUMMARY%20FOR%20ROE.pdf

Supreme Court petition
http://www.alarryross.com/15116%20pdf%20Dudley%20(2).pdf