***Update***: For some reason, comments were turned off on this posting earlier. They’re back on, now! Sorry for the confusion.
Norma McCorvey was once known as “Jane Roe” in the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court case that legalized abortion throughout the country. For years, she was proud to be pro-choice.
Most of you may know that that’s no longer the case. McCorvey now works with extremely religious pro-life groups.
There was a fascinating article about her transition in The Guardian:
Here’s what McCorvey wrote in 1994, when she was proud to be Jane Roe, a supporter of the women’s rights she helped to attain: “All over the country the anti-choice fanatics are still at work, still trying to inflict their own religious views on others, still trying to hide their anti-woman feelings, still trying to keep us from controlling our own bodies and our own lives.”
Yet here is McCorvey today, on the steps of the supreme court where those rights were laid down: “These steps are covered in blood! ‘Equal justice under the law’ — what crock! If there is no right for a child to be born, there is no justice at all.”
Personally, I was really interested in reading about when exactly she made the change:
When her book came out in 1994 [Operation Rescue members] picketed her signings, shouting at her that she was responsible for the deaths of 35 million unborn babies. Then Operation Rescue took out a lease on the house next door to the abortion clinic where McCorvey worked. They began talking to her, befriending her, offering her lunch.
“I started watching the rescuers and wondering what makes them tick. They were down to earth, they weren’t telling me I was going to fry in hell, though I’m sure they were thinking that. They were very kind to me.”
Slowly, they turned her ideas around. In August 1995 she allowed herself to be baptised in a backyard swimming pool in Dallas. Three years later, she took her first Catholic mass.
My main question wasn’t answered. I feel like there must’ve been some point, some moment, when what they said tipped her thinking to the other side. I don’t know what they said but I’m curious.
It’s possible that her transition happened over time — that’s how it happened for me regarding atheism — but reading the article, she seems very impressionable. One reasonable pro-life argument may have been all that was needed.
When you became an atheist, was it due to one particular thing you heard or read? Or was it due to a collection of several different thoughts going through your mind over a period of time?
(Thanks to hoverFrog for the link!)