Roe and Doe: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Shouldn’t Praise Roe Decision

National   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Sep 18, 2003   |   9:00AM   |   WASHINGTON, DC

Roe and Doe: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Shouldn’t Praise Roe Decision

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
September 18
, 2003

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — With a Senate vote yesterday moving the ban on partial-birth abortion forward, the next step in the process is to remove an amendment from the bill affirming Roe v. Wade. The former plaintifs in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases that legalized abortion say the bill should not contain a provision backing Roe.

"First and foremost, Roe v. Wade should not be reaffirmed," Norma McCorvey said in a statement.

"Abortion should be illegal as there are over 1,000 affidavits on file at The Justice Foundation and the Dallas Federal Court now from women whose lives have been disrupted from legal abortion, not to mention the lives of women who have died from legal abortions over the past thirty years. Their families are still in grief to this day for their child and the mother who was with child," McCorvey explained.

Sandra Cano, the Doe in Doe v. Bolton, the case that took Roe’s legalization of abortion and expanded it throughout pregnancy, agrees with McCorvey.

"My case was based upon a fraud upon the Court," Cano said. "I did not want abortion. I would not want to kill babies. Partial birth abortion is wrong and it should be called murder since they are killing the baby with part of its body already outside the mother’s womb. It is murder in my opinion."

Both women have filed legal cases to overturn their decisions. They say are using a Rule 60 motion that allows original plaintifs in lawsuits to sue to overturn the court decision if the facts of the case have substantially changed.

Cano and McCorvey say the facts have indeed changed as the public and courts now know more about how abortion hurts women and the damage it does to unborn children.

They also say ultrasound technology allows for a better understanding of the development of the unborn child than was available in 1973.

"With the 3-D ultrasounds we know it is a baby not a fetus," McCorvey says.

McCorvey’s new case was dismissed only days after it was filed, leading her to believe the Dallas judge never read the materials filed from women who regret their abortions. The decision is on appeal. Cano’s lawsuit has yet to be considered.

While in the Senate, members voted in favor of an amendment to the bill by pro-abortion Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) that encourages the Supreme Court not to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Pro-life lawmakers are expected to remove the pro-Roe provision during a conference committee. Both the House and Senate must vote on the conference committee report before the bill can go to President Bush for his signature.