Three decades, still fighting same battle
Norma McCorvey, a woman best known as Jane Roe, regrets her decision 30 years ago to wage a court fight to earn the right to an abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, perhaps its most well known case, came too late for McCorvey to abort her child. She was a carnival worker at the time she gave her child up for adoption. The infamous decision that legalized abortion has remained a constant source of contention as society remains split between those who firmly believe a woman has the right to decide what will happen to her body and those who believe just as fervently that killing a fetus is murder.
McCorvey who began her crusade on the one side switched about a decade ago and joined the ranks of the anti-abortionists. This past week she filed a motion in a federal district court in Dallas asking that the court reopen the case and look further into the scientific and anecdotal evidence that she claims shows abortion hurts women. The court refused, saying 30 years was far too long to wait before revisiting the ruling.
The district court is right. McCorvey as Roe had her day in court even if she now believes her win was a loss for humanity.
But this in no way signals that the courts have had the final word on abortion. In fact the maneuvering in Washington, D.C., over an appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court – even though there isn’t yet a vacancy – shows how this one issue could shut down any nominations.
Most of this court’s term has been ripe with speculation that 78-year-old Chief Justice William Rehnquist and 73-year-old Justice Sandra Day O’Connor are considering retirement. Neither has announced, yet the president has already said he would fill vacancies with conservative justices, who are presumed to favor abolishing Roe v. Wade.
Meanwhile, Democrats are already protesting and Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said that he is prepared to filibuster any Supreme Court nominee “who would turn back the clock.”
Extreme political posturing on a court appointment holds makes as much sense as extreme anti-abortionists bombing clinics and killing doctors to prevent murder.
A consensus-building approach is needed should one of the justices retire. Several Senate Democrats have requested that President Bush meet with leaders from both parties to talk about nominations with the aim of heading off a showdown that could potentially make the Clarence Thomas nomination process look like a pre-schooler’s birthday party in comparison.
Although this is all premature, if the time comes, the president would be wise to listen to counsel from both parties’ leaders in finding a well-rounded, qualified jurist who can withstand not only the abortion test but one who possesses the wisdom to know now that 30 years hence a decision will remain valid.