Supreme Court rejects challenge to [Roe Vs. Wade] abortion ruling

**gilliam** · #1 Feb 22, '05, 8:26 am

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a challenge to its landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion by the woman once known as "Jane Roe," who was at the center of the historic U.S. case.

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.findlaw.com ...

Lilyofthevalley · #2 Feb 22, '05, 8:31 am

I wonder why they refused to hear the case??

**Tantum ergo** · #3 Feb 22, '05, 8:32 am

So nine people who were appointed, never elected, to an office can decline to address the wishes of Americans on a law which has affected some 150 million people (including all the babies aborted as well as the mothers and fathers involved) over the last 30 years?

**gilliam** · #4 Feb 22, '05, 8:33 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilyofthevalley

I wonder why they refused to hear the case??

It takes 5 justices to agree to hear a case. They obviously didn't have 5.

**Tantum ergo** · #5 Feb 22, '05, 8:33 am

It takes justice to hear a case.
Obviously there was no justice available.

I can believe that.

**gilliam** · #6 Feb 22, '05, 8:36 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tantum ergo

So nine people who were appointed, never elected, to an office can decline to address the wishes of Americans on a law which has affected some 150 million people (including all the babies aborted as well as the mothers and fathers involved) over the last 30 years?

Unless the elected officials make changes in the law or the people make changes in the constitution, your only choice is to elect a president and Senate that will put people on the bench that will not add words to the Constitution that are not there.

If there was ever a time for Catholics to pressure their senators now is the time.

NYT: REHNQUIST'S COURT FAREWELL JUNE, IF NOT EARLIER...

smeeko · #7 Feb 22, '05, 8:43 am

I am going back to my thought about collecting signatures of regular Americans asking for the same thing: The case to be re-heard. I will contact the Thomas More Law Center as somebody already suggested to see how this can be done properly.

Any other idea out there?

God Bless,

Enrico in CO

TPJCatholic · #8 Feb 22, '05, 8:49 am

I wonder how many Justices wanted to hear the case? how far away was it from being heard? Was it 5-4 against?

**gilliam** · #9 Feb 22, '05, 9:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by TPJCatholic

I wonder how many Justices wanted to hear the case? how far away was it from being heard? Was it 5-4 against?

CORRECTION: Only 4 justices need to agree to hear it.

http://www.catea.org/grade/legal/scotus.html

Scott_Lafrance · #10 Feb 22, '05, 9:27 am

tcay584 · #11 Feb 22, '05, 9:32 am

This is so infuriating! I don't understand how they can just say "Nah...we don't want to deal with that" and get away with it!!!! Isn't this their JOB???

**gilliam** · #12 Feb 22, '05, 9:33 am

I really don't know what constitutional grounds they had in rehearing the case. The last time they refused to readdress the case O'Connor said , "When the constitutional invalidity of a state's abortion statute actually turns on the constitutional validity of Roe vs. Wade, there will be time enough to re-examine Roe. And to do so carefully."

sweetchuck · #13 Feb 22, '05, 9:34 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

my thoughts exactly. Tyrants dressed in black have a long history of dishing out injustice in this country.

ToddC · #14 Feb 22, '05, 10:35 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilliam

Unless the elected officials make changes in the law or the people make changes in the constitution, your only choice is to elect a president and Senate that will put people on the bench that will not add words to the Constitution that are not there.

If there was ever a time for Catholics to pressure their senators now is the time.

NYT: REHNQUIST'S COURT FAREWELL JUNE, IF NOT EARLIER...

CA is starting a new campaign to put pressure on the President and the Senate to appoint such justices. There is a possibility of up to 4 new justice appointments for President Bush during his next term. Stay tuned to CA and support CA with your time and money to get this campaign underway.