Daily News
She is 'Roe' no more
BY NORMA McCORVEY
Posted Sunday, May 6th 2007, 4:00 AM
As the plaintiff in that infamous Supreme Court case Roe vs. Wade, my life has been inextricably tied to the abortion issue. I once told a reporter, "This issue is the only thing I live for. I live, eat, breathe, think everything about abortion."
Thirty-four years later, I am 100% pro-life.
The Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold the federal ban on partial-birth abortion is the first step in overturning Roe vs. Wade. Banning the procedure - an act of infanticide where a scissors is jammed into the base of the infant's skull, a tube inserted and its brain sucked out - is a sign the court has finally come to its senses.
The case of Roe vs. Wade (I took the pseudonym of Jane Roe to protect my identity) took three years to reach the United States Supreme Court, so I never had the abortion. In fact, I have given birth to three children, all of whom were placed for adoption.
The core of the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision is that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable,' that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."
It might bother some that the story of my actual conversion does not mimic the intellectual engagement of Augustine's "take and read," Pascal's wager or C.S. Lewis' famous motorcycle ride. My disposition is somewhat simple.
I became very close to the young daughter of a friend who had considered abortion and I realized that "my law" (as I once fondly referred to Roe vs. Wade) could have snuffed out the life of this amazing little girl whom I had grown quite fond of. That, to me, was unacceptable.
Abortion should be unacceptable to anyone who professes to believe in God. If people pledge allegiance to a certain religion, they must honor all the tenets of their faith; picking and choosing only the rules that are easy to follow is cowardly and serves no one.
There are 4.1 million births in the United States every year; there are 1.3 million abortions annually. Roe vs. Wade is clearly working. But preserving a woman's right to choose continues to allow many women to use abortion as birth control. It has become easy and convenient. For a country that honors life, that is wrong. It is outrageous to me that some women can attest to having several abortions. That also is wrong. And immoral. The Supreme Court is right to have taken a stand for life.
Roe vs. Wade is clearly on its way out. The justices have given me hope that future generations will no longer be victims of this gruesome act.
Still, it will be an uphill battle. In New York, for example, Gov. Spitzer has introduced a bill that would keep abortion legal in the state. While some states, like Missouri, are moving to tighten restrictions on abortion, Spitzer's proposal would decriminalize abortion and make it solely a medical issue. In announcing his push to update New York's abortion law, the governor said, "Even if the Supreme Court does not understand the law, we do. New York State will continue to be a beacon of civil rights and protection of women's rights."
Spitzer is wrong. The ban on partial-birth abortion shows the Supreme Court finally does understand what is at stake. The justices' decision is a small step. But I have hope that in the very near future the Supreme Court will take the huge step necessary to preserve life and overturn Roe vs. Wade. It is the right thing to do. And it is time.
McCorvey is an anti-abortion activist living in Texas.