![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
novapsycheEffort to reopen Roe v. Wade
A federal appeals court has agreed to hear a request from the woman formerly known as "Jane Roe" to reconsider the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.
[...] Dallas County District Attorney Bill Hill, whose predecessor Henry Wade who was named in the original lawsuit, has not filed a response to McCorvey's appeal. That may put the appeals court in the unusual position of hearing arguments from only one side.
Wade was named in the original case because he was charged with enforcing the Texas law that prevented McCorvey from having an abortion. Hill's office has argued that since that law no longer exists, Hill has no authority to prosecute and should not be sued.
More than 20 Texas law school professors concerned about an unbalanced hearing filed a brief Wednesday asking to be allowed to argue the other side of the case.
"It's important that the court hear from somebody representing the position that the district court took, which I think is clearly right," said David Schenck, a lawyer representing the professors. "At this point, the case is moot, and she's presenting at best a political question."
A federal appeals court has agreed to hear a request from the woman formerly known as "Jane Roe" to reconsider the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.
[...] Dallas County District Attorney Bill Hill, whose predecessor Henry Wade who was named in the original lawsuit, has not filed a response to McCorvey's appeal. That may put the appeals court in the unusual position of hearing arguments from only one side.
Wade was named in the original case because he was charged with enforcing the Texas law that prevented McCorvey from having an abortion. Hill's office has argued that since that law no longer exists, Hill has no authority to prosecute and should not be sued.
More than 20 Texas law school professors concerned about an unbalanced hearing filed a brief Wednesday asking to be allowed to argue the other side of the case.
"It's important that the court hear from somebody representing the position that the district court took, which I think is clearly right," said David Schenck, a lawyer representing the professors. "At this point, the case is moot, and she's presenting at best a political question."