Justices reject request to review Roe v. Wade

By Tom Strode - Feb 28, 2005 - comment

The Supreme Court declined Feb. 22 a request to reconsider its 1973 opinion legalizing abortion.

Without comment, the justices refused to grant a review in a case involving the woman whose challenge of a Texas law resulted in all state laws against abortion being overturned. Norma McCorvey, who was identified as “Jane Roe” in the Roe v. Wade opinion that legalized abortion, had asked the high court to accept her appeal and overturn the ruling that has produced about 45 million legal abortions in the last 32 years.

The rejection of McCorvey’s appeal was expected, though hundreds of affidavits from post-abortive women were provided to demonstrate the harm they had incurred from legalized abortion. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the 1973 opinion and maintains a 6-3, pro-_Roe_ majority among its current justices.

A federal judge in Dallas, Texas, rebuffed McCorvey’s request in 2003. In September, a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously dismissed her case, though one of the judges criticized the Roe opinion

After working for an abortion rights organization, McCorvey became a Christian in 1995. She also became a pro-lifer and later converted to Catholicism.

The high court’s Roe opinion, decided by a 7-2 vote, overturned all state laws prohibiting abortion. In combination with the Doe v. Bolton decision released at the same time, the ruling had the effect of permitting abortion for any reason throughout pregnancy.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Life, Abortion, Citizenship, National, Social Issues

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com