Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
As expected, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit earlier this month rejected the opportunity to re-open litigation in 1973′s Roe v. Wade abortion decision, basing its ruling on procedural grounds. But the judge who wrote the opinion couldn’t resist taking a shot at Roe v. Wade‘s unusual procedural history — referring to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark opinion as an “exercise of raw judicial power.” In 2003, Norma McCorvey — the plaintiff better known as Jane Roe — filed a motion in McCorvey v. Hill in the U.S. District Court in Dallas requesting that the court vacate Roe v. Wade. The defendant, Bill Hill, is the elected successor to the late Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, who in 1973 was charged with enforcing a Texas law that made abortions illegal in the state. Wade prevented McCorvey, a Dallas resident, from obtaining an abortion. Hill did not file any documents with the 5th Circuit in response to McCorvey’s appeal, leaving the court in the uncommon position of hearing an argument in a highly controversial case from the point of view of only one party. Hill’s lawyers say he is not the proper party in the case because there no longer is a state abortion law for him to defend. U.S. District Judge David Godbey ruled last year that McCorvey’s Rule 60(b) motion for “relief from judgment” was not timely filed because “thirty years is manifestly not a reasonable time” and on Sept. 14, 5th Circuit Judge Edith Jones agreed, finding that McCorvey’s motion was moot. Jones was joined in the opinion by Judges Jacques Wiener and Edward Prado. However, in a unique twist in the appeal, Jones wrote a concurrence to her own opinion, using it to rail against the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. AGREEING WITH HERSELF In her concurrence, Jones was largely sympathetic to much of the evidence that McCorvey presented explaining why Roe v. Wade should be reconsidered. This evidence included 1,000 affidavits from women who’ve had abortions and claim they have suffered long-term emotional damage. It also offered studies by scientists finding that women can be damaged physically and emotionally by having an abortion. “In sum, if courts were to delve into the facts underlying Roe‘s balancing scheme with present-day knowledge, they might conclude that the woman’s ‘choice’ is far more risky and less beneficial, and the child’s sentience far more advanced, than the Roe court knew,” wrote Jones in her concurrence. Jones added that she was not saying that McCorvey would prevail on the merits of persuading the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe. But she wrote that unless the Supreme Court creates another exception to the mootness doctrine, it will never be able to examine its factual assumptions on a record made in court. “The perverse result of the Court’s having determined through constitutional adjudication this fundamental social policy, which affects over a million women and unborn babies each year, is that the facts no longer matter,” Jones wrote. “This is a peculiar outcome for a court so committed to ‘life’ that it struggles with the particular facts of dozens of death penalty cases each year.” In her final commentary, Jones chided the Court for forever denying the legislative and judicial branches the ability to re-open one of the most controversial 20th century decisions. “That the Court’s constitutional decision-making leaves our nation in a position of willful blindness to evolving knowledge should trouble any dispassionate observer not only about the abortion decisions, but about a number of other areas in which the Court unhesitatingly steps into the realm of social policy under the guise of constitutional adjudication,” Jones wrote. Even though the 5th Circuit rejected the appeal, Allan Parker Jr., president of the Texas Justice Foundation, takes solace in Jones’ concurrence. “I believe that will help us get [certiorari] from the U.S. Supreme Court,” Parker says. “I also believe that there are other judges on the 5th Circuit who will agree with her, so we will probably be filing for en banc consideration.” Parker argues that the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade based on a moot issue, as McCorvey had already given birth to her baby by the time the high court decided the case in 1973. “I won’t concede that it’s fundamental procedural rules” that are preventing McCorvey’s motion from being heard, Parker says. “Mootness rules are flexible rules of jurisprudence, as the original Roe v. Wade case demonstrates.” John Council is a senior reporter at Texas Lawyer , where this story first appeared.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.