When reading another diary (cannot remember which one, unfortunately), I stumbled upon The Smoking Gun, where I found the linked affidavit.

This is ranty and this is long.

I cannot express how presumptuous and sickening I find this case.

First, McCorvey asserts that she was not clear on the definition of "abortion." Excuse my lack of eloquence, but what a load of bullhockey. Regretting her decision some 30 years later is not the same as claiming she did not know what it meant. She states that she thought it meant "going back to the state of not being pregnant." Sounds like she knew exactly what it meant to me. She knew damn well what it meant. McCorvey knew that when a woman walked out of the doctor's office, she would no longer be pregnant. Claiming ignorance now makes her look beyond stupid, as if one "accidentally" aborted their fetus, because they did not realize that to become UNpregnant, the fetus would have to be removed from their body, the same body that sustains the fetus' growth.

Second, not only is McCorvey claiming responsibility for every abortion that has ever happened, she is also presuming that SHE is the reason the courts ruled as they did. No, dear, you had nothing to do with it. You happened to be the catalyst, but if not you, then it would have been someone else. That case WOULD have happened, despite who the claimant was.

She is playing herself a martyr at this point and that angers me. She acts as though because she and other women feel regret for their mistakes, then all women must necessarily agree. It reminds me of a mother who refuses to allow their child to learn from their own mistakes, choosing to prevent them from doing ANYTHING, lest they repeat the mother's mistakes. Yes, some women will regret their decision years later. Some will not. Either way, McCorvey, that decision is NOT yours to make.

I have to hand it to her lawyers, though. Their affidavit does a damn good job at insulting the courts, thereby ensuring that the courts will eagerly render a decision in their favor. /sarcasm

They actually go so far as to tell the courts that even though she was physically and sexually abused, that abuse was minor in comparison to the abuse inflicted upon her by the courts. I am not lying, either.

I have to wonder how much research this woman has really done on the constitutional history of this precedent. Her case is not the first asking to overrule Roe. The most recent was Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833 (1992)). That case definitely confirmed that Roe is not to be overturned anytime soon (unless Bush, in his idiocy, decides to appoint a bunch of Scalias (devildevildevil) to the court and disrupt the delicate balance of politics within the court).

What bothers me the most about this petition is her delusion idea that she is responsible for the fate of all women and their abortions. As I already stated, if it had not been she, it would have been another. She cannot morally claim responsibility for the choices other women have made. The chilling irony is that she feels she was exploited by two self-interested attorneys when Roe was originally decided, but she somehow thinks that the conservative group hanbdling her case is not self-interested.

I find McCorvey's behavior contemptible. She is trying to make choices for every woman based on what SHE feels is in their best interest. Tell me, how can this woman know what is best for ME? Or for you? Or your neighbors? Or hers? How can she know what is best for anyone other than herself?

Sure, I find it sad that in her old age, she regrets her decision to act as the plaintiff in the original case. I find it sad when any woman regrets their reproductive decision. I am sorry, though, but that is the price one pays for having choices. Should you decide late in life that you did not like who you voted for in the 2000 election, should we then determine that women are incompetent to vote and take away their choice to do so?

Perhaps the most idiotic part is in her affidavit where she testifies that when she was pregnant with the Roe baby, she was also homeless. Though she gave the child up for adoption, she easily seems to forget where she was when she made the decision that not keeping this child was in both of their best interests. It is so easy to preach from her current pedestal, but how soon she forgets her former life.

Regardless of whether McCorvey was used by attorneys trying to landmark a new era in women's reproductive health, the case was rightly decided. Regardless of whether McCorvey regrest her decision, Roe was rightly decided. To be as cold and detached as possible, McCorvey's personal feelings in this matter are completely irrelevant, especially now. Back then, she could have rejected being their plantiff. Now, however, she cannot make that decision anymore. I am sorry she was too naive and ignorant to understand what was happening, but her personal feelings and demons are not the basis upon which the courts rendered their decision.

Her affidavit continues to rely on how she was used, and how her real interests were never a concern. I think she needs someone to instruct her on the way the legal system operates. The Supreme Court is never really interested in the private concerns of one individual. The Supreme Court exists to render decisions on the Constitution, which affects ALL individuals. This was a civil rights case, not a Jane Roe is unhappy and wants justice case.

She also seems to presume that the Justices did not do any research, since she apparently left the case without understanding what abortion is (and since Roe really wasn't decided on the definition of abortion, it does not matter much, anyway - the 9th amendment and the implied right to privacy weighed heavily in the original decision and was later confirmed in PP V. Casey). Just because McCorvey did not see the multitudes of Amicus Curiae and other assorted petitions to the court does not mean they blindly decided these cases. For her to imply as such implicates her own severe ignorance. She even admits not being present at the hearings, and still asserts that no meaningful definition of abortion on both sides was given. Her affidavit demands that the courts have a "trial" and decide the case based on findings of fact and evidence. I say her lawyers are insanely incompetent and should be disbarred for their careless preparation.

Even more grating is that she keeps comparing her work in abortion clinics in the days of yore to the way the procedure is handled in modern times. She laments the lack of counseling, the dirty clinics and the careless attitudes of the doctors, but neglects to remember that times have changed. The restrictions on abortion are more stringent than they were when Roe first hit and counseling is more in depth. As for claiming that abortion doctors are in it for the money, I find that ludicrous and ill-informed. Abortion doctors make nothing (especially those who work in low-cost clinics) in comparison to what they could make if they chose to work strictly as OB-GYNs. Lest we forgethow dangerous their profession is, maybe someone should remind her that many of these doctors fear for their lives every day and often wear protective gear to and from work. No, I would say that most abortion doctors do it because they believe in reproductive choices, not because they believe in money.

The strangest aspect of this is that the decision was rendered after she gave birth and gave the child up. Yet, this woman somehow feels the burden of mentally aborting her fetus. This is really a case of a naive woman who wanted to take an action in the 70s and refused to understand what that action was, mostly because she did not want to know. If she had tried to understand back in 1973, she probably would have talked herself out of it. That was something she was not prepared to do, so instead, years later, she wishes to solve every woman's dilemna by taking their choice away, simply because she feels remorse for refusing to understand the truth of her own situation. The truth is, she did not want to be talked out of it, because she knew that it was probably her best option at the time, given her situation (being homeless, jobless, etc). She suffers because she chose to suffer and now she must live with it. That is the consequence of having choices. You must live with whatever repercussions those choices have upon your life, whether they be emotional, physical or otherwise.

In any event, I am not paying for some stranger's regrets. I refuse to pay the price of her perceieved mistake. I refuse to apologize for someone else's ignorance. That she feels she was deceived is no one's fault but her own. Had she really wanted a second opinion on abortion, she would have gotten one. Had she really felt ready to face her personal demons and own up to the action she was to undertake, she would have eagerly sought out divergent opinions.

I refuse to live by someone else's sense of religious morality, just as I suspect they refuse to live by mine.