by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
January 18, 2005
Washington,
DC (LifeNews.com) -- Norma McCorvey is heading back to where it
all began for her – at the United States Supreme Court.
The former Roe of Roe v. Wade is asking the nation's
top court to overturn its 1973 decision legalizing abortion. She says
new information showing abortion hurts women should compel the court
to reconsider its ruling.
In an interview with FOX News' "Hannity & Colmes" on Monday,
McCorvey said attorneys filed an appeal Monday on her behalf asking
the high court to overturn a federal appeals court's decision throwing
our her case.
"I would like to see children stop being killed and women maimed and dead themselves," McCorvey said on the program.
Host Sean Hannity asked McCorvey if she feels a special burden as the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade. She said she had experienced guilt for a long time but not longer does because of her Christian faith.
"I've been saved by the blood of the lamb through Jesus Christ, and so I'm just here," she replied.
Last year, a three judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected McCorvey's so-called Rule 60 motion that allows original plaintiffs in a case to ask a court to overturn a previous decision if significant facts in the case have changed.
That new information consists of 5,347 pages
of affidavits submitted by women who had abortions and say they regret
their decisions. They cite a host of emotional and medical problems
associated with the abortions.
McCorvey is receiving legal help in the case from the Justice Foundation,
a pro-life law firm based in Texas.
Lead Justice Foundation attorney Allan Parker told Hannity and Colmes, "Under Rule 60, Norma, as a party [to the original case], can ask the court to vacate her judgment – set it aside as if it never was – on the grounds that it's no longer just."
He said he would be required to show that both medical and legal circumstances have changed.
McCorvey became pro-life during the mid 1990s, but decided to challenge the Roe v. Wade ruling recently as a result of new technology dramatically increasing the chances that unborn children can survive at earlier stages of viability than before.
The Supreme Court has not yet determined if it will take the case.
