Roe v. Wade challenged by "Jane Roe"

[blissfish.livejournal.com]

I kn ow this is political and divisive, but so far CNN etc aren't touching it. So, those who wish to keep an eye on it:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1154&slug=Scotus%20Abortion

Comments

[bkmichele.livejournal.com]

Actually CNN covered her motion to the 5th Circuit last fall, which was denied. This is merely a further appeal of that denial.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/14/roe.v.wade/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/14/roe.v.wade/index.html)

[blissfish.livejournal.com]

She has the 5th circuit's strong concurrence this time. Just saying it is worth keeping an eye on.

[bkmichele.livejournal.com]

Jones' concurrence admits the case is moot.

"I agree that Ms. McCorvey's Rule 60(b) case is now moot. A judicial decision in her favor cannot turn back Texas's legislative clock to reinstate the laws, no longer effective, that formerly criminalized abortion."

She goes on to express the irony that the appeal is being dismissed for mootness, "It is ironic that the doctrine of mootness bars further litigation of this case. Mootness confines the judicial branch to its appropriate constitutional role of deciding actual, live cases [**10] or controversies. Yet this case was born in an exception to mootness n5 and brought forth, instead of a confined decision, an "exercise of raw judicial power."

However, McCorvey has no "live" legal controversy and is not being personally injured by the decision. The federal courts recently dismissed a suit from a man attempting to injoin Bush from reciting a Christian prayer during his inauguration because he is not being personally injured by the recitation of a prayer". The statutes she is arguing about is moot. They no longer exist and therefore there is no case to begin with.

The Supreme Court will not hear this argument either. They'll issue a brief statement agreeing with the 5th Circuit and that will be the end of it for awhile.

[inky-g.livejournal.com]

I always found the anti-choicers' use of her as a figurehead as kind of funny. Yes, she was Jane Roe, but she never had that abortion and I think the antis are kind of counting on the fact that most people don't realize that. The case took way too long for her to be able to have an abortion and she gave birth and gave that kid up for adoption.
Wouldn't it be fabulous if that kid emerged and was proudly pro-choice?