Monday, May 23, 2005

Roe No More!!!

It is easy to understand the importance of President Bush's judicial nominees. With the pending retirement of conservative Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, the nominees become even more crucial.

The United States is the only country in Western Civilization that currently holds a law that was passed not by representative government, but by an activist court that illegally seized control of the powers of the legislative branch and went against the will of the the majority of its citizens.

The case: Roe vs. Wade, legalized abortion in 1973, but can't be rationally justified based on the Constitution of the United States. The activist court attempted to cover their actions by falsely claiming a link between the ruling and the 14th amendment (guaranteeing equal protection under the law)???!!!! I hope you're as confused as I am. Fortunately...the majority of citizens didn't buy it, and still don't today!

Jane Roe or (Norma McCorvey), the woman used by abortion advocates in the 1973 landmark decision has since denounced her actions, admitted to lying about her situation and has asked the courts to reconsider their decision. The courts have since rejected the request.

1973 Abortion Decision Stands as US Supreme Court Rejects Roe v Wade Challenge

WASHINGTON, February 22, 2005 ( - The US Supreme Court refused today to hear an appeal of the court’s 1973 Roe v Wade decision which permitted abortion in the United States. The appeal was launched by Norma McCorvey, the same woman who, over thirty years ago, was used by pro-abortion forces as the “Jane Roe” which led to abortion’s legalization.
In response to the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case, McCorvey’s attorney, Allan Parker, president of The Justice Foundation, said “It is tragic and disappointing that the Court is not willing to consider the aftermath of 32 years of abortion and its devastating affect to women, their families, and our culture.”

McCorvey’s attempted appeal brought a thousand more witnesses than did the original Roe case in 1973. They submitted over 5,000 pages of evidence, including expert testimony of which the Court had none in 1973.

“This year alone, 100,000 women will be in abortion recovery programs across the nation. We find it sad and tragic that their voices have been rejected,” said Parker. “It is also disturbing that the highest court in the land is not willing to consider the compelling and significant scientific and medical evidence and at least formally re-evaluate its far-reaching decision.”

Parker noted that the Supreme Court’s denial does not reflect its views on the merits of the case. “The denial order merely expresses the Court’s discretionary refusal to give appellate review to a lower court decision,” he said. “A denial is not a reaffirmation of Roe v. Wade. We believe this decision sends an important message that the High Court needs compassionate judges who care about the pain and suffering of women hurt by abortion.”

The case is McCorvey v. Hill, 04-967.


'Jane Roe' appeals to Supreme Court - Plaintiff in landmark abortion case seeking to overturn 1973 decision

The woman known as "Roe" in the landmark case that struck down all state laws restricting abortion is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its 1973 decision.

As WorldNetDaily reported, Norma McCorvey began a quest in 2003 to reopen the case, based on changes in law and new scientific research that make the prior decision "no longer just." She cites the sworn testimony of more than 1,000 women who say they were hurt by abortion.

At a news conference at the Supreme Court tomorrow at 11 a.m. Eastern, McCorvey will announce she wants the high court to reverse Roe vs. Wade, or at least, order a trial on the merits.

"This is the day I've longed for," she said in a statement issued by her legal representation, the San Antonio-based Justice Foundation.

"Now we know so much more, and I plead with the court to listen to the witnesses and re-evaluate Roe vs. Wade," McCorvey said. "It was a dreadful day in America when the Supreme Court allowed a woman to kill her own child."

McCorvey's lead attorney, Allan Parker, president of the Justice Foundation, filed a petition for writ of certiorari Friday that will reach the high court tomorrow, asking it to hear the case.

It was first filed in a district court in Dallas in June 2003.

Parker's argument relies on federal rules that allow an original party to request a ruling be vacated when factual and legal changes make the decision no longer just.

He believes a significant change in most state laws has solved the issue of women being burdened with the unwanted responsibility of raising a child. The new laws allow a woman to take her newborn to a "safe haven" anonymously, providing a safer alternative to abortion.

McCorvey said each aborted child represents another tragedy, the harm to the mother.

"I've worked in abortion facilities, and I've seen firsthand the horrific nature of abortion and its devastation to women and girls," she said.

'Raw judicial power'

In September, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, saying the issue was moot because it did not present a "live case or controversy."

However, one of the three judges on the panel criticized the Supreme Court that handed down the original ruling, saying it was an "exercise of raw judicial power."

In her concurring opinion, Judge Edith Jones lamented the case was moot, which prevented McCorvey's evidence from being heard: "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."

Jones wrote, "The perverse result of the Court's having determined through constitutional adjudication this fundamental social policy, which affects over a million women and unborn babies each year, is that the facts no longer matter. This is a peculiar outcome for a Court so committed to 'life' that it struggles with the particular facts of dozens of death penalty cases each year."

Among McCorvey's 5,437 pages of evidence are affidavits from more than 1,000 women who testify having an abortion has had devastating emotional, physical and psychological effects.

McCorvey announced in 1995 she had become a Christian and later launched a pro-life ministry called Roe No More. She told WorldNetDaily four years ago she was "used" by abortion-rights attorneys in their quest to legalize the procedure.

'Nightmares, flashbacks'

Among the women who testify of the harm done by abortion is Joyce Zounis, director of women's outreach for Operation Outcry: Silent No More, a national movement that encourages women to speak out on the issue.

"The aftermath of abortion is horrendous," said Zounis, who had the first of seven abortions at age 15. "I was told it would be over 'real quick' – it lasted 27 years!"

Zounis said "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.

A witness for McCorvey's case, Caron Strong, who has had four abortions, said: "Nightmares and suicidal thoughts are common, especially around the anniversary of the abortion or the date when the baby would have been born. Everyday sounds or events can act as a trigger."

Other women providing sworn testimony stated:

"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

More Testimonies From Silent No More:

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Did you see Howard Dean get ripped apart on his flip flopping Sunday? Check out some of the transcript:

Sunday, May 22, 2005 9:58 p.m. EDT

Tim Russert Rips Howard Dean Apart

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean insisted on Sunday's "Meet the Press" that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay should be treated more harshly than Osama bin Laden.

In a pointedly embarrassing interview with NBC's Tim Russert, the DNC chairman spent almost the entire program under withering attack as Russert demonstrated Dean's hypocrisy on past comments he made about abortion, his criticisms of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and the way he has tried to explain away his party's fundraising woes since he took the DNC helm in February.

The Republican National Committee was quick to seize on Dean's debacle Sunday.

"Howard Dean's unfocused performance today is emblematic of the larger problems facing the party he leads," RNC press secretary Tracey Schmitt said Sunday. "Sadly, Chairman Dean and the Democrats on Capitol Hill have become singularly focused on obstructionism and negativity, which is why they have become the country's minority party."

But Dean's performance on the top-rated Sunday talk show suggests that he may not have overcome initial concerns about his ability to handle the national leadership post.

Dean had been strongly backed for the DNC post by the party's hysterically anti-GOP left – notably Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Al Gore. The liberal troika had seen Dean as a counterweight to Hillary Clinton's growing power and her and her husband's desire to move the party to the center.

Rather than using the national program as a platform to launch broadsides against the Bush administration and aggressively tout the Democrats' agenda, Dean appeared mired in his own past.

During the show, Dean claimed, "Hypocrisy is a value that I think has been embraced by the Republican Party," and he vowed to Russert that "I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy."

Ironically, Russert played the hypocrisy-exposing role as he repeatedly unmasked Dean's integrity on key issues, including:

Tom DeLay

Dean defended his declaration last week that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay should begin serving a jail sentence.

"I think Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston, where he can serve his jail sentence down there courtesy of the Texas taxpayers," Dean said on May 14.

Dean stuck to his guns, telling host Tim Russert: "He hasn't been convicted yet, but ... I think there's a reasonable chance that this may end up in jail."

Asked if his harsh rhetoric toward DeLay wasn't hypocritical given his comments during the 2004 presidential campaign, when Dean said he didn't want to prejudge even Osama bin Laden, the top Democrat told Russert:

"To be honest with you, Tim, I don't think I'm prejudging [DeLay]."

Dean then ticked off several unproven allegations against the House majority leader.

When Russert noted that the top Republican had yet to be charged with even a single crime, Dean countered, "Three of the things I've mentioned he has already done and been admonished for by the House Ethics Committee."

Russert noted how little support Dean's position has, even among top Democrats, quoting Congressman Barney Frank, a liberal Democrat, who said: "That's just wrong. I think Howard Dean was out of line talking about DeLay. The man has not been indicted. I don't like him, I disagree with some of what he does, but I don't think you, in a political speech, talk about a man as a criminal or his jail sentence."

Russert asked if it was appropriate that Dean has Ok'd the posting of a bogus mug shot of DeLay on the DNC Web site, suggesting that the Republican has already been charged with a crime.

Dean sidestepped the issue, saying that DeLay should not be serving in Congress. In his answer, Dean then claimed, incredibly, that the Democrats are "not going to stoop to the kind of divisiveness that the Republicans are doing."

Abortion Claims

On the hot-button issue of abortion, Dean said he was against the procedure in one breath, but in the next he defended the far more gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion.

Noting that "there are significant numbers of pro-life Democrats in the South," the DNC chief said he wanted "to strike the words 'abortion' and 'choice'" from the Democrat lexicon.

Instead, Dean advised, "The way it ought to be framed ... is 'Do you want Tom DeLay and the boys to make up your mind about this, or does a woman have a right to make up her own mind about what kind of health care she gets.'"

Moments later, however, the top Democrat was defending partial-birth abortion, insisting, "I don't think that there is an ethical doctor in America who will do a third-term abortion without there being a reason like the health and life of the mother."

Russert countered by noting that "several heads of the American Medical Association endorsed banning third-term abortions because they said life of the mother is one thing but the health is a much different issue. It can be defined in so many different ways, it was a major loophole."

A deflated Dean responded: "It is an incredibly difficult area. It is an area which is conflicted."

Dean also insisted that both pro-choicers and pro-lifers could work together on "common ground” – that both sides wanted to greatly reduce the number of abortions in America.

Despite Dean's claims, Russert noted that at almost every turn the Democrats oppose efforts to restrict abortion.

"But, Governor, the problem for Democrats has been that many request abortion on demand, "Russert said, adding, "When there are attempts to say that there should be parental notification for children under 18 – to be notified with a judicial bypass, if there's a spouse, a parental abuse situation – many Democrats oppose it. Third-trimester abortion, 'partial-birth' abortion, Democrats opposed it. ... President Clinton vetoed it. Every time there's a vote to restrict abortion, the majority of the Democrats seem to vote against it."

Mocking Limbaugh and O'Reilly

Dean claims the Democrats are taking the political high road.

But Russert asked the DNC chief about his questionable rhetoric.

"January, [you] mentioned that 'I hate the Republicans, what they stand for, good and evil, we are the good.' In March, you said, 'Republicans are brain dead.' You mentioned you're a physician – and this is April – "[Dean] did draw howls of laughter by mimicking a drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh. 'I'm not very dignified,' Dean said."

Confronted, Dean quickly admitted: "Well, that's true. A lot of people have accused me of not being dignified."

Russert pressed him on suggesting that Rush Limbaugh had snorted cocaine. "But is it appropriate for a physician to mock somebody who has gone into therapy and the abuse for drug addiction?" Russert asked.

But Dr. Dean seemed unrepentant about his comments, instead placing the blame on the top conservative talk hosts.

"Rush Limbaugh has made a career of belittling other people and making jokes about President Clinton, about Mrs. Clinton and others. I don't think he's in any position to do that," Dean complained. "Nor do I think Bill O'Reilly is in a position to abuse families of survivors of 9/11, given his own ethical shortcomings."

Dean concluded: "Frankly, my moral values are offended by some of the things I hear on programs like 'Rush Limbaugh,' and we don't have to put up with that. Our problem in this party is we didn't stand up early enough and fight back against folks like that who thought they were going to push us around and bully us, and we're not going to do it anymore."

Socialist Bernie Sanders' Endorsement

Russert caught the one-time presidential candidate off guard when he asked about his recent endorsement of self-professed socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders to replace retiring Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords. "Well, first of all, he's not a socialist, really," Dean protested. When Russert noted that Sanders had acknowledged in writing: "Outside or in the House, I am a Democratic socialist," Dean offered meekly, "Well, a Democratic socialist – all right, we're talking about words here."

Russert also revealed that until recently Dean had fiercely opposed Sanders.

"In 1996 you said you would never have voted for Bernie Sanders," Russert said. "Instead, you opted in recent years to leave the ballot blank."

Dean, once again cornered, flip-flopped.

"Bernie and I have had our difficulties over the years," Dean said. "We've had our strong disagreements."

"We're fighting for the future of America, and a Bernie Sanders in the United States Senate is going to be a whole lot better than somebody who will vote to confirm right-wing judges, somebody who will vote to undo minority rights, somebody who will vote to kill Social Security. This is a battle where personalities and differences have to be put aside, and we have to do what's right for America."

Caught in one change of opinion after another, Dean's greatest vulnerability among top Democrats is that he has not won over the party's leadership – and that may be hurting the party's bottom line: raising money.

"The Political Hotline published by National Journal [said] of the 17 states that you went to, a Democratic governor or Democratic senator has not appeared with you in those states," Russert said, asking, "Are people running from you?"

Apparently, Democratic donors are. The Republicans National Committee reports that during the first quarter of 2005 it raised $32 million. Dean and the DNC have raised just half of that amount.