In a move that many would have predicted and few would have actually cared about, accidentally-significant Norma McCorvey (a.k.a. Jane Roe) has decided that she thinks the courts should overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that won for women the right to have abortions.
Thirty years ago, McCorvey was a 21-year-old carnival barker who decided she wanted to end her third pregnancy. Now a spokesperson and a ten-year member of the fight against a woman's right to abortion, McCorvey--who, while not with the carnival anymore, still enjoys barking from time to time--cites what CNN's little website calls "scientific and anecdotal evidence" showing the negative effects of abortion, most notably indignation and flabby arms. If there's anything that probably would and probably shouldn't hold up in the Supreme Court, it's anecdotal evidence. I'm sure I could find just as many people who have had abortions who are dang glad they had them. (Dang Glad is not a palIndrome; stop staring at it.) Just picture it: hundreds of child-free or reduced-child women taking to the streets holding signs that read I'm Dang Glad I Had That Abortion!; it makes you want to sob.
But the question remains: why would McCorvey, a lonely, 55-year-old probable-lesbian want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade? What would this at-the-very-least-bi-curious orgasm-starved woman have to gain from that decision being repealed? Wouldn't that make McCorvey's abortion a violation of Texas' anti-abortion law? If so, couldn't she be charged with Grand Abortion and sent away to prison? An all-female prison? A sexy, all-female sex-prison? Oh...
I regret all that masturbating, but I'm not trying to make masturbation illegal. Anymore. Am I?