I hope this isn't true.

June 18, 2000 8:58 AM

I hope this isn't true. Apparently (at least according to this article) Norma McCorvey is in with the Christian Identity folks. You know, these guys. Wow, times do change, don't they?
posted by Ezrael (7 comments total)

Well, I din't know if I read it wrong, but it just seems that she had a speaking engagement at a convention hosted by The Jubilee Newspaper. Even had a picture taken with its editor.

Then it goes on to fill us in on the stupidty and drivel that this rag prints, that no respecable canary or parrot would want their bridcages lined with.

I thought the article was either poorly written, or deliberately done to imply that she was a part of this group; or hang her by "Guilt by association".

I, personally didn't see any indication that she shares Paul Hall's feelings on these matters.
posted by EricBrooksDotCom at 1:20 PM on June 18, 2000

I kind of felt the same way, but I wanted (and still want) to hear others on it. I normally don't doubt my critical faculties, but this is one of those issues that pushes my buttons and gets me to feel before I think. Basically, I'd like to round up Christian Identity and make them travel back in time to 1942, after giving them neat number series tattoos and shaved heads and dressing them in pajamas with a big yellow star or a pink triangle or a gypsy cross.

Let's see them talk their way out of that.
posted by Ezrael at 1:27 PM on June 18, 2000

I heard long ago that she became a goddess to those who are on the side of the right wing lunatic fringe, ever since she said that having an abortion was a "mistake" or something like that. HOWEVER, I swear that I've read in SEVERAL articles that Ms. Roe is a lesbian who came out not too long ago. Go figure. The right wing lunatics seem to ignore that fact when they ask her to be a guest lecturer. If someone wants to look into the lesbian thing to verify my accuracy, it would be greatly appreciated. I'm about 95% sure.
posted by UWliberal at 6:01 PM on June 18, 2000

Here's more hearsay on the topic---I should be working now, the last thing i need is to go on an altavista Mission to back this up---but it's out there, somewhere...

My understanding is that Ms. McCorvey *is* a lesbian but not exactly "out". I've read an article or two that made a great deal of her having a partner but trying *very* hard to keep it low-key, skillfully evading direct questions about "isn't your being a lesbian against everything your new right-wing-freak buddies stand for?" and the like.

I have also heard rumors that she's standing with the anti-choice faction these days because they are, basically, better to her: she became dissatisfied with her visibility/appreciation/reverence as a figure of the choice movement as time went on, and you *know* the anti-choice folks would treat a 'converted' Lady Roe extremely well...

Is she left or right, gay or straight, does she just need a hug? Who the hell ever really knows but I think it's safe to say she's a lady with Issues. Regardless of how many bats are in her attic these days, I'm still really, *really* glad for who she was and what she did in 1973.
posted by Sapphireblue at 8:47 PM on June 18, 2000

Whatever she is, it sounds like she needs therapy. But I'm glad I was right about the lesbian thing. I *knew* I heard something about that. :)
posted by UWliberal at 10:42 PM on June 18, 2000

Imagine yourself in her shoes. There you are. It's 1973. You're just a woman who chose to have an abortion and the entire country goes up in arms about it. You inadvertently become the lightning rod for some of the most polarized views to affect America since the Civil War.

And your lawyers may have told you that after the trial your life can go back to normal, but that can't be further from the truth. Because even though this was tried in the supreme court, the ones who effectively lost the battle refuse to give up the war, and you become a prize to them.

They relentlessly dog you, politely of course. Slowly gaining your favor and tempting you towards their cause. It's totally legitimate of course. They're certaintly not forcing you against their will. However, they slowly court you and tempt you and look for weaknesses in your opinions and defenses, until they break you down, effectively seducing you towards their "pro-life" view much like the serpent must have tempted Eve.

You understand the phrase "bird in a gilded cage" but you're not one really. You're free to do as you like.. you think.. And yet when you do you're chastised for it, or strongly persuaded to look at another way of thinking and doing and being, and it sounds reasonable so you go along with what those who have gathered around you request, because you want to make them happy. It keeps you happy.

And you see a movie like The Truman Show or EDTV and you know it's silly but somehow you understand the movie in a way perhaps even the writer and director never intended.

Then suddenly its over 25 years later. You're not that young influential child who may have made a mistake. You're a middleaged woman who is still a prize to many; a commodity (i.e. OBJECT and not PERSON), and sometimes you question if you've ever been able to really make up your mind for yourself.

When you do, you're constantly questioned by complete strangers, who wonder why your advisors tell you to say one thing when you indicate you're thinking differently.

And you honestly don't know.
posted by ZachsMind at 6:17 AM on June 19, 2000