« Stewed Tomatoes | Main | Bloggle »
September 04, 2003
Roe and Doe Reconsidered
But does anyone care?
Both McCorvey and Cano, neither of whom ever had an abortion, claim they were used by lawyers on fraudulent grounds. Cano says she never even sought an abortion. An impoverished mother of three whose husband was in jail at the time, she went to a legal-aid office for a divorce and wound up an unwitting and unwilling activist. McCorvey was a drug abuser living on the streets, easily manipulated by her ambitious lawyers, she says.Whatever these women did or didn't do, they surely were used by savvier sorts for the purpose of securing reproductive control for women. Those of us who were around during those heady days of free love and narcissistic thrall were convinced that the Second Coming could bring no greater news.
The fact that many now think otherwise - based on experience and new evidence provided by advanced technology - is surely worthy of discussion. And of reporting.
The fact that the mainstream media have decided to ignore Cano's case suggests that the media, at least, have made up their collective mind. Once again, it seems, Cano and McCorvey are irrelevant to the larger social "goal" as determined by an elite few.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d834203daa53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Roe and Doe Reconsidered:
» This makes me sad, too. from kill as few patients as possible
Kathleen Parker's column Media, darlings, your abortion bias is showing again is worth checking out. I mean did you know that Sandra Cano, the "Doe" in Doe vs. Bolton case, which expanded Roe vs. Wade's first trimester abortion ruling to [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 4, 2003 1:30:18 PM
Comments
What a racket the press would make if these motions were granted by the US District Court! I fervently hope they will be. However, as a lawyer, I know that the odds are slim. Very slim. It's very hard to set aside a judgment after the passage of so much time. In fact, it's nearly impossible. In addition, the issue before the Court will not be abortion itself but the "procedural" question of whether the Court can set aside the original judgments. Although the press is guilty of bias--no question about it--it needs to be considered whether, in this instance, the extremely remote possibility of success isn't also affecting the press' reporting (or lack thereof).
Posted by: Mike Benz at Sep 4, 2003 2:43:52 PM
Cano’s legal motion is frivolous and has no chance of being granted. McCorvey’s similar motion was dismissed back in June. If there’s a newsworthy story here, it is simply the fact that these two women have now become pro-lifers, which is ironic but not particularly meaningful in terms of the abortion debate itself. And it’s not true that the media have ignored the story. The McCorvey motion was covered by CBS News and other “liberal” national media.
Posted by: J.B. at Sep 4, 2003 9:58:28 PM
