Activism Change

More on Baby Moses and Roe v Wade

Question:

<<<Here we go again.  More on the attempt to use Baby Moses to overturn Roe and Doe.  This is from the Eagle Forum’s Court Watch project.  BTW, I’d like love to hear the Morriseys’ opinion on Roe and the use of SH to destroy it. And, of course, if they are fans of Phyliss’.  I am–naturally. First of all, just for the record, and from a personal prospective, we are both pro-life.  My belief is that life begins at conception, and that that every unborn child deserves dignity and respect

But a name,,,nah and medical records,,nah,,,,(I don’t see dignity or respect in your,,,beliefs,,,) only insults,,, and half thoughts,,, with ill-formed legislation formed with little to no respect for what the adoptee would want,,,(ask I think most would like to know bparents names,,,and to see medical records),,,,as far as the at least its alive argument would it really have died? (you sacrifice OUR dignity all the time you will never have my respect until you try to at the least keep stats make provitions for stats, and try to see it from a adoptee point of view instead of from a baby hungry pap point of view,,,, IMHO) .  With all that said, other than the – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – church we attend we are not connected with any pro-life groups or organizations. We also do no advocacy for pro-life groups or organizations. We’ve previously been involved with pregnancy loss rights, which is very separate from pro-life groups, and is the choice of the woman who keeps her pregnancy and chooses all rights and respects for her child after death, even in the womb. The connection of Baby Safe Haven laws to overturning Roe v. Wade is very low on the agenda of what those pro-life groups are trying to submit. For women going through an unwanted pregnancy I do not want to see women get an abortion, but rather counseling in order to seek the help to keep the baby. Proper adoption may be the next possible solution, safe haven has to be there as an option and might only be the last resort for women in a crisis who have hidden their pregnancies. I cannot believe that Baby Safe Havens can be used to "destroy" Roe v. Wade, and actually SH is an option that everyone can live with. Marley, what do mean by, are we fans of Phyllis?  It would help if I knew what Phyllis you were talking about.  It couldn’t be Phyllis Diller?????? Jean

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <<<Here we go again.  More on the attempt to use Baby Moses to overturn Roe and Doe.  This is from the Eagle Forum’s Court Watch project.  BTW, I’d like love to hear the Morriseys’ opinion on Roe and the use of SH to destroy it. And, of course, if they are fans of Phyliss’.  I am–naturally. First of all, just for the record, and from a personal prospective, we are both pro-life.  My belief is that life begins at conception, and that that every unborn child deserves dignity and respect.  With all that said, other than the church we attend we are not connected with any pro-life groups or organizations. We also do no advocacy for pro-life groups or organizations. We’ve previously been involved with pregnancy loss rights, which is very separate from pro-life groups, and is the choice of the woman who keeps her pregnancy and chooses all rights and respects for her child after death, even in the womb.

I think your pregnancy loss advocacy is very admirable, Jean, and as I’ve said before, what happened to you was absolutely wrong. The connection of Baby Safe Haven laws to overturning Roe v. Wade is very low on the agenda of what those pro-life groups are trying to submit.

Maybe for some, but you’ve got oranizations like Operation Outcry and The (Texas) Justice  Foundation who are doing just that.  I think their argument is really false, and I think (though don’t know for sure) that you probably agree as well–that the enactment of the laws to NOT constitute the plaintiffs contention that they abbrogate the individual parents’ responsiblity to rear their children. Here’s an article from Cybercast, August 26, 2003 entitled Second Landmark: Abortion decision challenged by  lead plaintiff about the attempt to overturn Bolton .  It contains the bizarre sentence http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5C%5CCulture%5C%5Carchiv… "Cano’s second argument involves a Georgia law enacted last year plaing the responsiblity for raising unwanted children on the state rather than the mother." The McCorvy suit is more explicit in this bizarreness.  (And since when does the state force people to keep kids they don’t want?)    I don’t have the URL handy tonight due to my computer problems, but I"ll dig it up and post it tomorrow so you can read the appropriate section.  Bizarre or not, this is the radical view of SH and one of the uses it’s being put to.  For women going through an unwanted pregnancy I do not want to see women get an abortion, but rather counseling in order to seek the help to keep the baby. Proper adoption may be the next possible solution, safe haven has to be there as an option and might only be the last resort for women in a crisis who have hidden their pregnancies. I cannot believe that Baby Safe Havens can be used to "destroy" Roe v. Wade, and actually SH is an option that everyone can live with.

I think Roe is already destroyed.  It should never have even been heard. The historical agument was always repeal not reform, but that was a long time ago and nobody seems to remember the voice of Women’s Liberation.  They only know about reformist feminism for the part-of-the-pie priviledged. Marley, what do mean by, are we fans of Phyllis?  It would help if I knew what Phyllis you were talking about.  It couldn’t be Phyllis Diller?????? Jean

Well, hyllis Diller some might call her,but I meant Phyllis Schfflay–Eagle Forum,  author of None Dare Call It Treason, scourge of women who single-handedly killed ERA.  I’m very fond of Phyllis  in my perverse way.  She hates bio-engineered food, Bill Clinton, and judicial activism–things I generally agree with.  Then there’s all that other stuff that  make her certifiable.  I saw her in Washington last year.  She looked like a morticians dummy or something.  At least she kept within her alloted time when speaking, unlike Tom DeLay and Donna Rice Hughes and her powerpoint presentation on Internet porn. . Marley

Response:

The connection of Baby Safe Haven laws to overturning Roe v. Wade is very low on the agenda of what those pro-life groups are trying to submit. For women going through an unwanted pregnancy I do not want to see women get an abortion, but rather counseling in order to seek the help to keep the baby. Proper adoption may be the next possible solution, safe haven has to be there as an option and might only be the last resort for women in a crisis who have hidden their pregnancies.

But the evidence seems to be that some women are using Safe Havens as a more expeditious, "no mess, no fuss", form of relinquishment, *after* being counseled to relinquish to adoption. The first baby dump in New Jersey comes to mind.  The unnecessary folding of boarder babies also speaks to an expanded use of baby dump laws in ways in which they were not intended, or at least sold. And it’s only the "last resort" because Safe Haven advocates have narrowly defined the issue to their programs. A woman in crisis could call Project Cuddle, or other crisis intervention organizations, even if she lived in a state with legalized baby dumps. I cannot believe that Baby Safe Havens can be used to "destroy" Roe v.

Wade, As a legal argument, no. But as a political argument it has legs. Look for it to crop up more. and actually SH is an option that everyone can live with.

Don’t be presumptuous. Legalized baby dumps are not an option that Governor Lingle, for one, was able to live with. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Marley, what do mean by, are we fans of Phyllis?  It would help if I knew what Phyllis you were talking about.  It couldn’t be Phyllis Diller?????? Jean

Response:

<<<Here we go again.  More on the attempt to use Baby Moses to overturn Roe and Doe.  This is from the Eagle Forum’s Court Watch project.  BTW, I’d like love to hear the Morriseys’ opinion on Roe and the use of SH to destroy it. And, of course, if they are fans of Phyliss’.  I am–naturally. First of all, just for the record, and from a personal prospective, we are both pro-life.  My belief is that life begins at conception, and that that every unborn child deserves dignity and respect.  With all that said, other than the church we attend we are not connected with any pro-life groups or organizations. We also do no advocacy for pro-life groups or organizations. We’ve previously been involved with pregnancy loss rights, which is very separate from pro-life groups, and is the choice of the woman who keeps her pregnancy and chooses all rights and respects for her child after death, even in the womb. The connection of Baby Safe Haven laws to overturning Roe v. Wade is very low on the agenda of what those pro-life groups are trying to submit. For women going through an unwanted pregnancy I do not want to see women get an abortion, but rather counseling in order to seek the help to keep the baby. Proper adoption may be the next possible solution, safe haven has to be there as an option and might only be the last resort for women in a crisis who have hidden their pregnancies. I cannot believe that Baby Safe Havens can be used to "destroy" Roe v. Wade, and actually SH is an option that everyone can live with. Marley, what do mean by, are we fans of Phyllis?  It would help if I knew what Phyllis you were talking about.  It couldn’t be Phyllis Diller?????? Jean

Response:

Here we go again.  More on the attempt to use Baby Moses to overturn Roe and Doe.  This is from the Eagle Forum’s Court Watch project.  BTW, I’d like love to hear the Morriseys’ opinion on Roe and the use of SH to destroy it. And, of course, if they are fans of Phyliss’.  I am–naturally. Marley http://www.eagleforum.org/court_watch/alerts/2003/aug03/Roe-and-Doe-8… Eagle Forum’s Court Watch . . .      "Roe" and "Doe" Return to Court: "Stop the Carnage!" Virginia C. Armstrong, Ph.D., National Chairman, Court Watch The U. S. Supreme Court’s elevation of abortion-on-demand to the status of a "fundamental constitutional right" was accomplished with two decisions on January 22, 1973. The more famous of the two cases is the Texas case of Roe v. Wade. But of immense significance also is the neglected step-sister of this devastating decisional duo-the Georgia case of Doe v. Bolton. Now, after the passage of thirty years and the murder of over forty million unborn children, the original plaintiffs are asking the courts to correct the fatal constitutional flaws of the two 1973 decisions and stop the carnage. Both women reveal in their sworn affidavits that they were manipulated and duped by their attorneys and had no intention of trying to legalize abortion. The former "Roe," Norma McCorvey, on June 17, 2003, asked U. S. District Judge David Godbey in Dallas to reconsider her case and rule the 1973 decision no longer valid. With almost blinding speed, Judge Godbey denied McCorvey’s motion. That denial will soon be appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, the former "Mary Roe," Sandra Cano, is asking for her day in court, petitioning the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to reconsider the 1973 constitutionalization of abortion-one of the most barbaric of all medical procedures. The Georgia law which was originally thrown out by the U. S. Supreme Court in Doe was significantly different from the Texas law invalidated in Roe. The Texas law, basically a "prohibitive" type of legislation, prohibited an abortion except when "necessary to protect the life or the health of the mother." The Georgia law also criminalized abortion, but included several exceptions which were "permissive"-i.e., permitted abortion under much broader circumstances than in Texas. Two differences in the Roe and Doe rulings are fundamental.   *  Timing of the abortion. The "trimester" scheme for      determining the time limits on a woman’s "right to an      abortion," which was central to Roe, was almost ignored in      Doe. The latter decision thus expanded "abortion rights" to      encompass virtually the entire pregnancy.   *  Choice to abort. In Doe, the Court voided the Georgia law’s      requirement of approval of an abortion by multiple physicians.      The Court instead permitted a pregnant woman to choose an      abortion upon the advice of a single physician. And this      physician needed to justify his judgment to perform an      abortion upon no ground other than "his best clinical judgment      that an abortion is necessary because continuation of the      pregnancy would seriously and permanently injure [the      mother's] health." Into the wide-open spaces of this extremely      indefinite permission eagerly marched the seven-member      majority of the Court, further expanding the law’s indefinite      permissiveness by authorizing the doctor in exercising "his      best clinical judgment" to do so "in the light of all      factors-physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the      woman’s age-relevant to his patients well-being." Such      permissiveness left the choice to abort with no fixed limits. The San Antonio attorney now representing Roe and Doe, Allan Parker, is employing an unusual legal vehicle to reach the U. S. Supreme Court-a "Rule 60 Motion." A Rule 60 motion asserts that the continued application of an existing judgment is "clearly erroneous" and/or will be productive of a "manifest injustice" due to a change in law or factual circumstances. Parker’s procedure is in line with the 1997 U. S. Supreme Court decision in Agostini v. Felton, an establishment of religion case. In that case, the Court granted the Rule 60 motion and over-turned two decisions it had made twelve years earlier. McCorvey and Cano now present to the courts a massive array of evidence documenting fundamental changes in both law and fact-evidence not available in 1973. Because of these changes, the continued application of the original Roe and Doe ruling will wreak severe injustice, they contend, and the original rulings should be voided.      Relevant changes in factual circumstances include       *   A massive body of evidence never before presented to           an American court that abortion hurts           women-physically, mentally, and emotionally;       *  Proof that abortion is often not a voluntary, informed           decision of the patient, but the result of pressure by           others on the woman;        *  Proof of the humanness of the unborn child provided by           such technology as ultrasound, in-utero surgery, DNA           technology, and neo-natal care advancements.      Relevant changes in law include        *  Court redefinition of a "fundamental right," which           excludes the right to an abortion;        *  The direct undermining of abortion-on-demand by           abortion decisions since 1973;        *  The passage by the Texas Legislature (1999) and the           Georgia Legislature (2002) of laws providing state care           for children so that no mother has to bear the burden of           an "unwanted child" about which the Supremes           seemed to be so concerned in 1973. Because of the recent emergence of much of this evidence, the motions for reconsideration of the two 1973 decisions are timely and should be granted. Denial of the motions would perpetuate the injustice of current law and the deception under which this law was framed. The most vulnerable members of society-the unborn child and, very often, their unprotected mothers-will continue to be abandoned by the justice system. Well should the courts reflect on the fact that pregnancy is for nine months; abortion is forever.             FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT:               http://www.blackstoneinstitute.org                http://www.operationoutcry.org National Chairman: Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D. Read this ALERT online: http://www.eagleforum.org/court_watch/alerts/2003/aug03/Roe-and-Doe-8… Eagle Forum PO Box 618 Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-5415 Fax: 618-462-8909 — http://www.eagleforum.org/misc/subscribe.html Click this link, or copy and paste the address into your browser.

Response:

Filed under: Internet activism

Related Posts

• Does anyone know 'hoffman'?
• BIRTH OF A BASTARD NATION Conference
• Tickle-me ELMO for sale
• Freedom of college hosted web sites?
• Angizia
• Punk/activist gatherings.
• "DO BLACKS HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE US?"
• BATTERED MEN, NCMen, on MAURY POVITCH, 1/22!
• only cute animals should be saved??
• Executions in Africa - Amnesty International report