The only notable thing this woman has done in her life is need an abortion and sue in order to get one. Trading off the fact that the lawsuit was a famous one seems like a pretty lousy way to make a living, particularly if that requires hanging around with fanatics like Randall Terry.

I do find it really interesting that all this theater has focused on this Supreme Court nominee, who is Catholic, in the apparent impression that just because she's female and knows firsthand what being poor is like, she can be presumed to support abortion rights. Actually, nobody has the slighest idea what her opinion is about abortion. Everyone Obama appoints is going to be 'tarred' with liberalism, even though he has selected several conservatives, such as Huntsman.

Sotomeyer has had to rebut criticisms that she is an 'activist' judge by stating that she makes her decisions on the basis of the law and precedents. Since the law is that abortion is legal and Roe v Wade is the precedent, haven't they boxed her in so that she wouldn't be able to say that she wanted it overturned based on her personal beliefs? Catch-22 anyone?

Can't these guys make up their minds what they want? Do they want an 'activist' judge who imposes personal beliefs on other in just this one area but one who upholds the 'precedent' of traditional white male privilege everywhere else?

I seem to vaguely remember reading somewhere that the "Roe" in Roe v Wade switched sides in the ideological fight, so to speak. It reminds me of an anti-drug commercial that Lou Reed did back in the eighties. In it he simply said something like, and I paraphrase, 'Drugs. I tried them. Don't you start.' I remember thinking that was such a bogus argument. He may as well have said: "Drugs. I had my fun. Don't you have any." In both instances, drug use/abuse and abortion, it's hypocritical to get high or determine your own destiny, as the case may be, then try and deny the exact same thing to other people. We the people need to be trusted to know our own moral imperative, mindful that everyone makes mistakes in life, and not weigh-in on judgement of other people, especially those whose trials and tribulations are none of our concern.

Norma McCorvey has been lurching from pillar to post for more than a decade, trying to figure out how to make a living out of having been Jane Roe.

She's been deeply angry at the feminist movement for not lionizing her as she thinks she deserves. At least, she used to think that; who knows what she thinks now.

The anti-abortion movement love-bombed her and wanted to make her a saint, their redeemed Magdalene... until she kept introducing her long-time life partner, a woman, from the stage. Despite their "love" for their new-found "Jane No," the anti-abortionists could not accept that, and eventually, McCorvey bent to suit. Since being baptized by one of the leaders of Operation Oppress-You, she has said she is no longer lesbian.

I don't know her orientation at present. I don't know her real beliefs about abortion. But do I know she's had a hardscrabble life all her days.

I regret that she is now an activist (for whatever reason, vengeful or sincere) against every woman's right to self-determination. And, despite her poverty, I wish McCorvey were seeking some other way of putting food on the table than trying to enhance her marketability as a minor celebrity in the Right's war on women. She's a show pony for a misogynist movement with no real respect for women's lives, not all of us in the abstract, nor hers in particular.