Roe vs. Wade left unchallenged for now
The Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to Roe vs. Wade today.
Without comment, justices declined to hear the appeal from Norma McCorvey and thus dodged a highly charged political debate for now. McCorvey's protest of Texas' abortion ban led to the Roe v. Wade ruling establishing a constitutional right to abortion.
McCorvey, who says she now regrets her role in the decision, argued in court filings that the case should be heard again in light of evidence that abortion harms women.
The high court's move Tuesday wasn't surprising. A decision to reopen a case based on so-called "changed circumstances" is rare, and two lower courts had already refused to reconsider the ruling.
I'm not surprised that they don't want to waste their time. If they had to hear this, they would probably end up holding up Roe vs. Wade anyway, so what's the point? The time to worry is if Bush gets some anti-choice people into the Supreme Court.
Norma McCorvey is an interesting character. She's the original "Jane Roe" and is now a pro-lifer who wants abortion rights revoked because she's had a religious conversion. Like many on the Christian right, she has missed out understanding that the laws just can't be tailored to her benefit. Granted, she felt that way when she was trying to obtain an abortion and couldn't. The one factor in her life is the belief that the law and the rights of others should be tailored to her current needs.
Supreme Court decisions are about a lot more than the person who brought forth the initial lawsuit, but are hand-picked to settle sticking Constitutional issues. McCorvey's current feelings are irrelevant--if it's a right, it's a right, whether the real Jane Roe wishes to avail herself of that right or not.