Didn't the "roe" in roe vs. wade admit she lied about being raped and is now an anti-abortion activist?
2007-10-27 14:59:06 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
yup.
2007-10-28 04:46:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. However, it doesn't matter. A judgment by a Judge has been given, and has been accredited for years! Are we to believe her now, or then? Obviously one of those times she is lying. Which is it? I don't trust either answer, because at both times she had a personal agenda, and more so today, due to the attention abortion, and stem-cell research is getting. She has no voice to me anymore.
2007-10-27 22:13:16 · answer #2 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Supreme Court ruling had to do with a womans right to control her body. So even though she is pro-life now, the ruling is not based on whether she is pro-choice or pro-life now but a womans rights as a whole.
2007-10-27 22:45:26 · answer #3 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes . I hope the replies can look up anacephally and educate themselves on certain facts on this issue .
2007-10-27 22:13:58 · answer #4 · answered by J D 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It doesn't matter, and it doesn't do anything to strengthen the arguments of people who are anti-choice.
2007-10-27 22:58:35 · answer #5 · answered by Alan S 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes she did. And has since become pro-life rather than pro abortion. But the facts are never relevant to the baby killing "demon"crats.
2007-10-27 22:07:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
yes, that is true but the ruling still stands.
2007-10-27 22:06:35 · answer #7 · answered by ContainedCHAOS 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Totally irrelevant.
2007-10-27 22:02:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋