Since you argue that the women were dupes, I’m not sure how I twisted your words. I simply don’t see this on the evidence. The fact the women themselves later felt victimized doesn’t really change this. Some might say they were used by the pro-life side.

Given reality dictates that they wouldn’t have had an abortion given the time lag of the lawsuit, the duping was esp. hard to understand. They were apparently duped in supporting the rights of other women to make choices they themselves might not want to make. Ok. Again, it was a class action.

The right to choose includes not being forced to have an abortion, sterlized, and so forth. I respect your understanding of “respecting life,” though it is contra to the beliefs of major religions and so forth. Again, the rulings gave women the right to honor their own moral choices in this greatly disputed issue.

This includes, “abortion on demand” canards aside, physicians. Thus, Doe v. Bolton notes: “a physician or any other employee has the right to refrain, [p198] for moral or religious reasons, from participating in the abortion procedure.”

Such reasoning is now in part used by pro-life supporters to argue pharmacists need not sell morning after pills and so forth. A tad bit ironic.

While there will always be women who “celebrate” their “right to choose” to kill their unborn children, there is also a sinister force at work in our culture which has succeeded in convincing poor women that this “right to choose,” this “right” to allow a tiny, developing child to be sucked into a jar or ripped limb from limb, is for their benefit when, in reality, it is nothing more than a ruse to keep the poor from reproducing. (See pages 61-64 of the “Clinton RU-486 Files” where Attorney Ron Weddington, co-counsel in “Roe v. Wade,” wrote to a newly elected President Clinton, urging him to use “persuasion” to promote birth control and abortion among the poor because “. . .we don’t need more poor babies.” http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/jw-ru486-report.pdf).

Finally, your bizarre conclusion that these two lawsuits actually defended Norma McCorvey’s and Sandra Cano’s right to CHOOSE LIFE makes me believe that you would make a great swamp salesman. This gator isn’t buying!

In fact, it is clearly on the record “Roe” even went to the degree of lying and saying she was raped in the hope it would help her have an abortion. But, Texas only had a life exception, though the state’s atty admitted they sometimes looked the other way in such cases.

One or the other might have been at some point conflicted, but this is somewhat besides the point. They were names in a class action and the ultimate claim was the right to choose. This includes choosing not to have an abortion.

Needless to say many women, sometimes in various lawsuits, clearly wanted to have the right to choose. This includes some women from Texas and Georgia.

The two new Justices have already shown that they’re *procedurally* conservative. They will wait to express their views in a case that reaches the Court in the usual way.

My prediction, for what it’s worth, is that at least one of the two new Justices, if not both, will adopt Justice Kennedy’s position — namely, that Roe remains good law for stare decisis reasons, but that reasonable restrictions on the procedure are Constitutional. To put it another way, the Scalia/Thomas position will attract, at most, one new vote.

Some years ago, in fact, I read that Doe’s daughter was pro-choice, in contra to her mother. She was pro-choice even though in theory she would not exist if her mother had the option to abort at the time. I wonder if there is a more up to date statement of the daughter’s views.

["Roe" too had her child.]

Still, this surely is not supportive of a good policy: revisiting rulings years after they were handed down by the plaintiffs themselves getting involved.

Agnosti is not really directly comparable. For one thing, the schools/parents harmed by not allowed gov’t services are different from Doe here — she is not deprived of a right not to have an abortion. And, her childbirth decision, again was not affected since the SC didn’t hand down its ruling until after she made it.

Second, it was argued that the law changed after the original ruling. The law changed somewhat here, but Casey overall accepted the “core” of Doe, so did not change it in a way that would warrant this sort of review.

A reading of the evidence and Roe itself suggests there is simply no relevant new “evidence” either that would justify a new result. [Others in a past thread disagreed, but simply put, I don't buy it.] But, if so, the proper way to go about it I would think is a new lawsuit in support of some local law (SD? Miss?) that limited abortion rights in the fashion sought here.