Norma McCorvey never switched sides film doc says

Post Reply New Topic

Los Angeles REUTERS

Norma McCorvey,the woman know as "Jane Roe" in the landmark 1973 US Supreme court case Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion,has said she was lying when she said she switched sides to pro life movement.Saying she was paid to do so.

In new documantary,made before her 2017 death and due to be broadcast friday,McCorvey makes a death bed confession.

She said:I took there money and they took me in front of the camera's and told me what to say and I did do it well.I am a good actress but I'm not acting now,she said.

If a woman wants an abortion it's no skin off my ass,that's what they call choice,she added.

AKA Jane Roe,will be broadcast on FX cable channel on friday but was made available to TV journalists in adavance.

The documentary traces McCorvey's troubled youth,and how she became the poster child of the abortion rights movement,and her about face in the 1990's,when she became a born-again christian and campaigned against abortion.

The doc film was filmed in her last months of her life before her death at age 69 in 2017 in Texas.The Rev.Robert Schenck ,one of the pastors who worked with McCorvey after her conversion in the 90's,looked stunned as he was shown her interview in the documentary.

Schenck said the pro life movement exploited her weaknesses for it's own ends and acknowledged she had been paid for her appearances on the movements behalf.

Schenck said what was done with Norma was highly unethical,Schenck said he hoped people watched AKA Jane Roe.

That says all that needs to be said by anyone.

If antichoicers had a valid case to make they wouldn't need to bribe people to support their barbaric ideology.

Norma McCorvey had a sad and difficult life and everyone took advantage of that.

Indeed. Sort of a tangent, but in general I find people often look at maladaptive behaviours and just dismiss them as the result of being stupid, but in a lot of cases they're effective strategies for dealing with realities that person (or people) face (or at least once faced).

When people see behaviours they judge as stupid or self-defeating or seemingly motivated by short-term profit even with a potential for a high cost in the long term they should probably try to at least understand the actual logic behind it.

To bring that notion back around to this specific topic, I don't believe that Ms. McCorvey was motivated by greed or 'just disloyal' or whatever, instead that the people who helped her in her moment of need also needed her moment of need in order to accomplish what they intended on doing, the relationship was mutually beneficial and it was ended when that ceased to be the case. However, this obviously didn't resolve her ongoing financial needs and depending on her employability and all taking that deal may well have been the best way to secure a future for herself and for whatever offspring she might have. It's a lot easier to judge someone making a decision one finds morally reprehensible when you're not in that person's place.