Talk:Norma McCorvey/Archive 1

Bisexual
Is there any reference for this? I'm not suggesting it isn't true, but for something that seems highlighted as it is, there ought to be some reference. Jake b 04:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There's NNDB, but I don't know how reliable it is. WP 04:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * NNDB is often unreliable. Is that the only source? Michael 08:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This information, which has yet to be reliably confirmed, is completely irrelevant to her conversion to Christianity. A new section dealing with "Other" information should be created. Until then, this information needs to be deleted.

The video "Reversing Roe" about her life, mentions, too, that she was bisexual. As I understand it from the video (which I have seen numero two young and ambitious lawyers (including Sarah Weddington) who were looking for a plaintiff whom they could use to challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion. This wording is a little bizarre. Who was the other attorney? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AEton (talk • contribs) 11:42, 5 July 2006
 * According to Roe v. Wade, it was Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington. WP 03:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed...I added mention of Coffee to the article. When one considers the case, though, Weddington is usually presented as being more prominent, due to the fact that she was the lead attorney, delivering the arguments before the Court and whatnot. Michael 08:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I created an article for Linda Coffee last week. If anyone knows a good deal about her, please contribute, as so little is available on her. Michael 08:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, the video mentioned above paints a very negative view of Weddington and Coffee. McCorvey at the time was very bitter that they basically dumped her, went to Washington, and then came back and asked 'How are things going?' McCorvey recounts in the video that it was at this time that she really dove into the drugs, etc. Her response to Weddington was, "I had a baby and you weren't here."

Flipp Benam (sp?) states in the video that the pro-choice side always paraded McCorvey around as their prop, but never talked about her life of drugs, sex, etc. They cared about the 'cause' but not about the person he recounts. This was the turning point in the story in terms of McCorvey's view of the Church. She finally found a place where people cared about her and loved her.

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 21:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Date of marriage
I don't get it. . . she was born in 1947 and divorced in 1960. . . when did she marry? According to this entry McCorvey was 13 at the time she divorced her husband. Are the dates acurate?
 * She married at 16; I don't know when she divorced. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Connie Gonzales
I don't see any source to indicate that she and Ms. Gonzales split up in '92. Furthermore a New York Times review of the movie Roe vs Roe states that the two were together at the time of its 1997 release. Snowforme (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n7_v12/ai_18008962/ (dated 1996) says  "I am not a lesbian. I'm just a child in Christ now," she says. McCorvey, 48, adds that her relationship with Gonzales, 64, has been platonic for the last three years. "We decided we'd rather be friends than lovers. You know, honey, after you pass 40, you don't feel a lot of anything." Elizium23 (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Parents
Is there a cite for her mother's name being Mildred? This source says her parents were Olin and Mary Nelson: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/02/norma-mccorvey-roe-v-wade-abortion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.237.63 (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * People Magazine says it's Mildred. Elizium23 (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME
Should we move this article to "Jane Roe" per WP:COMMONNAME?--71.59.58.63 (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Reverted text June 12
Reverted text called “vandalism” because it did not appear to be vandalism. It was referenced and on topic but not worded particularly encyclopedically. Perhaps someone who has read the book referenced can clean this up a bit. It's the last paragraph of the "Personal Life" section. BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the link to the ex-gay movement appropriate?
I am uncertain whether it's appropriate to connect the McCorvey's declaration that she's returned to a heterosexual lifestyle should be linked to the ex-gay movement. She was heterosexual for an extended period of time, then chose to follow a lesbian lifestyle, and then decided to return to return to the former heterosexual lifestyle. The ex-gay article is a highly-biased article that mainly condemns the admittedly ineffective and hurtful organizations that use bad, often baseless methods to try to change people, and otherwise contains admonitions against trying to change. The main part of the article is irrelevant for her, leaving the main connection to her declaration an assertion that amounts to "once gay, always gay". Even if this is true, you can't simply declare that she's a lesbian denying her sexuality and not a heterosexual who temporarily denied it and then stopped denying it. It seems rather insulting and narrow-minded to connect any individual's declaration of a life decision to an article that denounces that decision. Additionally, there are psychological issues that can cause an individual to question or deny their sexuality, whether this is heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual, and so it can only be said on a case-by-case basis whether changing in either direction is healthy or not. For this reason, I feel that either the link should be removed, or some work should be done on the linked article to balance it out. Again, the main issue on the ex-gay article is rightly controversial, but some work could be done concerning other matters of the sexuality question and the valid possibility of some changes being legitimate and healthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.32.145.62 (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are edits to this article not restricted?
It would seem she is a prominent enough person to rate a restriction to edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.115.172.63 (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Norma McCorvey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040214165636/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/roe.profile/ to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/roe.profile

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

habitual liar?
So she lied about being raped, becoming a Christian, being pro-choice, being pro-life, being a lesbian or not being a lesbian? How many things did she lie about? --2605:A000:1E02:C0F7:47E:8F10:99AC:C92B (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the being a fake "pro-lifer" is true. The only sources one is getting is from the titles of news articles. The news articles are just basing her "opinion" on trailers and extras on the FX website, thinking these are definite proof of what she is saying is "true" and her "deathbed confession". The documentary wasn't released yet so we have to wait and see what she truly says Obelar Zelar (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You don't need to be sure. It only matters what reliable sources say. (You are both aware that this page is not a forum? As in WP:TALK?)
 * Also, new entries go to the bottom, and do not write between another user's text and signature. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

sources differ
It seems un encyclopedic to write « sources differ on whether Texas had » such legal provisions. Surely Texas law is fixed and written, and speculation is not appropriate...2A01:CB08:8BE:AA00:837:E79E:2AB7:1D41 (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

LA Times source is better
Actually,, the LA Times article is better than having a "direct source" because they can do analysis of the documentary that we can't. The reviewer has been provided an advance copy of the film, and while I understand the need to proceed with caution and the lack of urgency before the formal release of the film, let's ensure that we are on the same page regarding sourcing requirements on Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we make it clear that it’s alleged, as it is only an allegation at this moment. People who were close to her throughout her life are challenging the allegation. The sentence or two I removed were worded as a matter of fact. I think transparency is crucial over, as you mentioned, urgency that isn’t there. It’s a key and core aspect of herself as a public figure. I looked over the Wikipedia guidelines on sources and the source provided didn’t seem to meet the criteria listed, but perhaps I overlooked it. It’s stated the material itself (the documentary, in this case) and I figured that would be the best course with such a crucial piece of information. What are your thoughts? Joellaser (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why the double standard? Shouldn't other things also be "alleged" then, such as her becoming anti-abortion? It has been public since 2017 that she faked that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears to me that she had been fairly consistent on her stances on abortion since 1995 (I believe this is the year). This new quote being attributed to her is new information and goes against her very-public, long held stance (literally saying she has been lying for over two decades) while being outright dismissed by those close to her. If you have evidence to support her faking her anti-abortion beliefs, by all means, post it up with accurate sources. No double standards here. I just believe secondhand quotes from a documentary very few have yet seen is flimsy sourcing, especially taking into account the pushback saying it’s incorrect in the first place. Perhaps i’m incorrect. At the very least, I just wish what I removed was more transparent in that it’s not concrete or certain. Joellaser (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe she was "fairly consistent" because the payments were fairly consistent. Anyway, your opinion is not what counts here. It is reliable sources. LA Times is a reliable source, and you did not give any source about what you claim "those close to her" said. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The article cited appears to have been removed from the LA Times. Maybe the link is just broken for me. If not, a new citation is needed. Xevozfighter (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The link works for me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Fringe Left documentary as Credible Source?
Should the alleged deathbed confession really be given credibility here? We're talking edited footage by an extreme left activist that was released 3 years after her death, and whose claims are adamantly denied by those who knew her.

I'm not saying they're categorically untrue, I am however suggesting Wikipedia ought to be very very careful about phrasing as the current form reads political not NPOV. 人族 (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you saying we should regard LA Times as an unreliable source? Then you should go to Reliable sources/Perennial sources and try to get the sentence "Most editors consider the Los Angeles Times generally reliable. Refer to WP:NEWSBLOG for the newspaper's blog" changed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Who is the "extreme left activist" you are referring to? Nick Sweeney, the director of AKA Jane Roe? It's the woman herself who said it. It sounds like you are the one with the POV. Do you have any reliable sources that counter the sources in the article? M.Clay1 (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes Sweeney is the activist in question. Three years provides more than sufficient time to edit and mix content to present a radically different message to what was actually said. Just look at the recent Barr clip which has him saying winners get to write the histories, for which various commentators crucified him, and in the next breath - which wasn't shown, he went on to say that a fair reading of the situation was ... His real view wasn't shown to viewers, and he was attacked for expressing a conventional piece of wisdom. How does this pertain to Roe\McCorvey? She isn't alive to dispute what Sweeney is presenting as the unvarnished truth. Those who knew her do dispute his claims. That most Wikipedia editors consider the LA Times generally reliable doesn't surprise me and isn't particularly relevant - Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger recently said that Wikipedia itself has scrapped neutrality for left-wing politics. The LA Times is left-wing so conforms to that view. Consider the views in these pieces however:
 * https://www.christianpost.com/news/abby-johnson-reveals-norma-mccorveys-lifelong-burden-not-told-in-aka-jane-roe.html
 * https://www.christianpost.com/voices/the-real-truth-about-norma-mccorvey-the-roe-of-roe-v-wade.html
 * https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/alveda-king-jane-roe-claim-paid-pro-life-cause-false
 * I have no doubt you won't agree with their bias, and odds are strong you'll reject these pieces outright. The fact is however that the first two are really no more biased than the LA Times - just leaning pro-life rather than pro-abortion. Not sure Fox has a position - it probably falls in the middle on the issue. Since Sweeney's documentary is disputed, presenting it in the current version - that McCorvey gave a deathbed confession rejecting her pro-life activism, when the truth is the documentary was filmed the year prior to her death, that it was released 3 years after her death, and its claims are disputed, is to abandon Wikipedia standards and embrace activism.  人族 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Those who knew her do dispute his claims. If you had bothered to read the article you'd know that this isn't the full story. Robert Schenck, an Evangelical minister who worked with McCorvey, admits to paying her. Display name 99 (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Except payment is open to interpretation. Payment to cover costs, payment to meet basic living needs, payment to be a celebrity, these are all very different things, and very different rates! Schenck's blog post on the subject says she only received modest amounts from contributions, and that sometimes he gave an additional gratuity because she received so little. I know you called Schenck evangelical but is that classic evangelical, or liberal evangelical? It's not clear in the piece but it seems like Schenck may have gone from being a pro-lifer to pro-abortion, and his position on homosexuality etc also changed. That all being the case payment needs to be qualified. 人族 (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Her later pro-life views.
Does anyone know what period in her life she started going towards pro-life views? Gooballsam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You mean when the Catholics started paying her to say she was pro-life? Check out this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52733886

How about someone who worked with her for the last 22 year? Father Frank Pavone, who had a decades long association with McCorvey, said that she was not on the payroll of his organization, Priests for Life, and said that he did not believe that McCorvey's activism was disingenuous. "I can even see her being emotionally cornered to get those words out of her mouth, but the things that I saw in 22 years with her—the thousands and thousands of conversations that we had—that was real," he said. Flynn, J.D. (May 19, 2020). "The 'painful journey' of Jane Roe and the pro-life movement". Catholic News Agency. Retrieved May 20, 2020. He later wrote, "So abortion supporters are claiming Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, wasn’t sincere in her conversion. She was. I was her spiritual guide for 22 years, received her into the Catholic Church, kept regular contact, spoke with her the day she died, and conducted her funeral."Pro-lifers betrayed their cause by treating Norma McCorvey, 'Jane Roe,' as less than fully human". America Magazine. May 20, 2020. Retrieved May 28, 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morriec13 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

No "pro-choice"
please stop writing "pro-choice". We do not use that term for pro-abortion. Elizium23 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also "revealed" is non-neutral. Please observe WP:WTW. Elizium23 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Tagged... please discuss on the talk page how we will resolve neutrality issues without edit-warring. Elizium23 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. Good of you to post something accusatory of me, without posting anything that you find disagreeable. Please discuss on the talk page how we will resolve neutrality issues without edit-warring. StarHOG (Talk) 01:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the first question that must be resolved in such a discussion is, "Who are you referring to as 'we' ?" Are you suggesting that Wikipedia doesn't use the term pro-choice to refer to people in Abortion-rights movements? And if that is your assertion, can you direct everyone to a policy or editor-consensus which says that?
 * Also, there's a reason that WP:WTW is not titled "Non-Neutral Words." The first line of the WTW article states quite clearly, "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias." Using the words is not inherently failing to observe WTW - in fact, you claiming that the word is non-neutral, without stating why it is being used without a care for neutrality, is failing to observe WTW. CleverTitania (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Talk:Anti-abortion movements in the FAQ. Elizium23 (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm seeing another wrinkle in your methodology, Elizium23 - much like with the WTW page. That FAQ refers to why the articles on the topics of anti-abortion and abortion-rights movements are titled as they are. It does not state any policy at all, nor is it further linked to any policies, which state what kind of terminology needs to be used within other articles, as it regards what are generally referred to as pro-choice and pro-life movements. In other words, it does not represent what terms "we," as Wikipedia editors, should or should not use. It only represents a consensus on the title of two articles.
 * That said, you could have very easily linked to that Talk page in your new topic here, stating that for the reasons provided in that FAQ box, you consider the term "pro-choice" non-neutral and prefer "abortion-rights movement" be used. Given the discussion you also started on StarHOG's Talk page, regarding its use on the Abby Johnson page, it's safe to assume he would've agreed and changed it. But then again, he might have also questioned your use of the term "pro-abortion" given that same FAQ you referred to also calls its usage in this context, and I quote, "wrong."
 * But you accusing StarHOG of disruptive editing and deliberately use non-neutral terms, both here and on their Talk page, making misleading statements about Wikipedia policies, and posting the arbitration alert on both my and his Talk pages, together does look like an attempt at bullying and intimidation. And it certainly does not represent civil discussion aimed at compromise. In the future, please remember the "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow" known as Assuming Good Faith. People failing to so is one of the reasons the discretionary sanctions were applied to the topic of Abortion in the first place. CleverTitania (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In this revision, we have:
 * "However, during an interview shortly before her death—in what McCorvey referred to as her "deathbed confession"—she said she had been paid to speak against abortion and when asked whether it was an act, answered in the affirmative."
 * "although she later said that her religious conversion and renouncement of her sexuality were financially motivated."
 * "In an interview conducted for the film shortly before her death, in what she referred to as her "deathbed confession", McCorvey said her anti-abortion activism had been "all an act", which she did because she was paid, stating that she did not care whether a woman got an abortion."
 * I would entertain any suggestions or objections to the neutral wording I have thus presented. Elizium23 (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "In an interview conducted for the film shortly before her death, in what she referred to as her "deathbed confession", McCorvey said her anti-abortion activism had been "all an act", which she did because she was paid, stating that she did not care whether a woman got an abortion."
 * I would entertain any suggestions or objections to the neutral wording I have thus presented. Elizium23 (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would entertain any suggestions or objections to the neutral wording I have thus presented. Elizium23 (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would entertain any suggestions or objections to the neutral wording I have thus presented. Elizium23 (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm about to watch the doc again, because I've only watched it through twice, and I want to make sure my recollection of what she said is accurate before I offer specific suggestions. But I did want to ask, so I can understand what you view as neutral in this context; are you deliberately removing any reference to who she alleged was paying her? If so, what is the reason for that?
 * Also, what is the POV issue in using the longer direct quote from documentary, as it exists in the current version of the article, and the NPOV benefit in only partly paraphrasing what she said? Because, while it might not be your actual intention, this reads to me like POV you're trying to remove from the article is McCovey's, which is one of the few POVs that should exist in a biographical article - particularly in a section on a documentary on her views. CleverTitania (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't cite the documentary in the article because it is a WP:PRIMARY source. It doesn't matter what you think you heard her say in it. We use the reliable, secondary sources for analysis of her comments.
 * I did not remove any mention of who paid her. This revision which I support mentions Rob Schenck quite clearly. I do not know of anyone who has removed this information. The citation to Reuters verifies this.
 * Wikipedia paraphrases reliable secondary sources. A paraphrased summary of the sources is superior to an extended quote from a primary source. Elizium23 (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia paraphrases reliable secondary sources. A paraphrased summary of the sources is superior to an extended quote from a primary source. Elizium23 (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia paraphrases reliable secondary sources. A paraphrased summary of the sources is superior to an extended quote from a primary source. Elizium23 (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe this has been way overblown. I mistakenly used "pro-choice" when I have been an advocate for pro-life users to use "anti-abortion. " I should have known better. As soon as it was pointed out to me, I visited some other pages, realized my mistake, and then self-corrected my edit. I was even Thanked by Elizium23. Then I used "revealed" instead of "said," which I didn't know we were supposed to be avoiding, but again, I read the article Elizium23 posted and I changed that wording, too. But there are two problems: 1) another user was making edits at the same time Elizium23 and I were, and I *think* Elizium23 may have gotten my edits confused with S@lo's edits and thought I was just reverting and using the same terminology over and over again. The 2nd problem is that I think that Elizium23, if they had an issue with a word or phrase I used, could have made an edit to the article behind me correcting that word instead of reverting my entire edit and then posting harsh criticism on my Talk page. My edits ARE in good faith, I AM willing to compromise, and I do enjoy working WITH other editors to arrive at wording/phrasing that best suits an article. StarHOG (Talk) 13:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * PS I think Elizium23 and I actually agree on the para phrasing of the article and Norma's deathbed confession, it is S@lo that is making the edits that water-down the para phrasing to a point where it is ambiguous as to what she was saying. I also notice that S@lo is not participating in this discussion as of yet. StarHOG (Talk) 13:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi StarHOG: Thanks for pinging me. I've been a Wikipedia user/editor for many years, but certainly not a very prolific one - I just happened to come across this article a couple of days ago and felt that a particular paragraph needed some clarification, with specific WP:NPOV concerns. Please don't get me wrong: I do appreciate your efforts to improve the paragraph; perhaps making changes to the article immediately without consulting here in the talk page first wasn't the best idea, and I apologize.
 * Regarding my concerns, let me take this opportunity to clarify. First of all, I think the way the paragraph is written now is an improvement over the previous version before my first edit, so I'll address my second edit. My intent wasn't to water down Norma's "deathbed confession", but, as mentioned in my edit description, simply to strip it of any interpretation of her personal intent (which is generally hard to infer, and even harder for us to infer now that Norma has passed and there's no opportunity for her clarify her statements). In particular:
 * - The first sentence currently reads, "...and was paid to take part in the anti-abortion movement". There's a few reasons I removed the reference to her being paid in this sentence: (1) First, the same information is already conveyed a few sentences later. The redundancy, I feel, gives a false impression of overemphasis, which can lead to WP:NPOV concerns; (2) Second, Norma claimed to have been paid, but (as far as I'm aware), this claim is itself disputed, as a later section in the article also implies. So I feel that it's best not to make such a definitive statement in the opening; (3) Lastly, as mentioned in my edit description, the anti-abortion movement is not a "single body" - as with many other movements (including, I'm sure, the abortion-rights movement), there are many organizations and groups that work towards similar goals, but their methodologies are vastly different, and some may not even agree with others' methodologies. I just felt that the sentence, and the paragraph as a whole, implicitly makes this assumption, perhaps unintentionally.
 * - The last sentence currently includes the phrase, "...all while continuing to have pro-choice beliefs." My concern here is essentially what I mentioned above regarding interpretation of intent. As far as I'm aware, Norma never explicitly claimed that her pro-life/anti-abortion beliefs were inauthentic, and there's some ambiguity as well in terms of what she affirmed was "all an act" (i.e., Was it the totality of her involvement, or was it the manner in which she spoke against abortion?). Of course, there's also the factor of people being complex in general, and the possibility that she did have authentic beliefs at the time, but decided to revert to her previous beliefs prior to her death. The point is, we can only speculate, which is why I thought it best to simply stick to the raw facts extracted from the interview. If I missed something and she did mentioned that she never had pro-life leanings, then the current sentence is fine, although due to some syntactic ambiguity, I'd probably change it to say, "...she said she had been paid by the movement to speak against abortion, and added that she continued to have pro-choice beliefs." Again, this is contingent on whether she actually did say this (if not, then I'll stick with my original suggestion). S@lo (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * - The last sentence currently includes the phrase, "...all while continuing to have pro-choice beliefs." My concern here is essentially what I mentioned above regarding interpretation of intent. As far as I'm aware, Norma never explicitly claimed that her pro-life/anti-abortion beliefs were inauthentic, and there's some ambiguity as well in terms of what she affirmed was "all an act" (i.e., Was it the totality of her involvement, or was it the manner in which she spoke against abortion?). Of course, there's also the factor of people being complex in general, and the possibility that she did have authentic beliefs at the time, but decided to revert to her previous beliefs prior to her death. The point is, we can only speculate, which is why I thought it best to simply stick to the raw facts extracted from the interview. If I missed something and she did mentioned that she never had pro-life leanings, then the current sentence is fine, although due to some syntactic ambiguity, I'd probably change it to say, "...she said she had been paid by the movement to speak against abortion, and added that she continued to have pro-choice beliefs." Again, this is contingent on whether she actually did say this (if not, then I'll stick with my original suggestion). S@lo (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in. I understand and agree with all your concerns. I changed some of the statements based on the video interview she gave and the comments made by the reporter. But it is still her word against everyone else, and nothing is proven. I like your sentence that you proposed as a solution. Why don't you make the change? Remember, contrary to your first sentence, one should never apologize for making edits, even bold edits, and discussing such edits on the talk page is not a requirement - don't apologize! StarHOG (Talk) 02:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We cannot accept the use of "pro-choice" in Wikipedia's voice. It is against WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. Elizium23 (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide verbatim quotes that you wish to add to the article first on the talk page without making edits. This is how we stay out of edit wars. Elizium23 (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the constructive input StarHOG and Elizium23. I can make the modifications based on all the inputs from this discussion. S@lo (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , so far so good. Now it leaves dangling the question: "she had been paid..." by whom? Elizium23 (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "She said in this [the deathbed confession] that she had been paid to support the anti-abortion movement" ?? or "She alleged she had been paid to support the anti-abortion movement" ?? StarHOG (Talk) 13:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing where anyone denies she was paid. McCorvey says she was, Schenck says she was, tax documents corroborate it. Pavone says he didn't pay her - Priests for Life is one of thousands of anti-abortion orgs. Where is the controversy and denial? Elizium23 (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fr. Pavone's take on it was the one I was referring to regarding a dispute, although to your point, it does seem that Shenck's organization did pay her based on Shenck's claim. I think my point regarding the paragraph's first sentence still stands (especially Points #1 and #3). For the last sentence of the paragraph, it's quite tricky to answer "by whom?" because based on the transcript I'm reading, it doesn't seem like Norma herself specifies. A couple of options I can think of here: (1) We can rephrase the sentence to place more focus on Norma claiming to have received some payment, i.e., "...she said she had received payment to speak against abortion" (although technically, this just switches the question from "by whom?" to "from whom?"); (2) We can also just be explicit about the uncertainty, and say something like, "...she said she had been paid by unspecified anti-abortion groups to speak against abortion." (To be slightly more pedantic, she also didn't specify whether it was a group [singular] or groups [plural], but I think it's pretty standard to use the plural when dealing with unknown numbers) S@lo (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Elizium23, looks like we have three editors here trying to make good language for this article, and it looks to me that you are trying to offer helpful edits as well. But we have some unfinished business in that you placed an inflamatory warning on my Talk page, and I'd like that removed or you post an apology their, and your tagging of this article needs to be removed as well. No one here is trying to assert their POV on this article. IMO you went too far/acted prematurely with your comments on my Talk page and the tagging of this article. StarHOG (Talk) 20:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2020 and 16 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fbshaikh, SkeeballChamp.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable witness
https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/2013/2/the-accidental-activist sets out several points in McCorvey's book that are disputed or do not match the facts. Should we be quoting the book without question, as a source ? -- Beardo (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the Vanity Fair is less reliable than the books. McCorvey's books are-coauthored, which keeps them from being strictly a primary source. A better source would be Praeger's recent works, either the book or the news articles.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Religion
her wikipedia page says a judge sent her to a Catholic boarding school but the reference says the judge sent her to live in state institutions. Since when does a judge rule that a juvenile has to go to a private boarding school? This seems extemely unlikely. here is the quote from the reference. "They took a motel room in Oklahoma City, but were caught when a maid walked in on the two girls kissing and reported them to the police.Norma was made a ward of the court and sent to state institutions. She described this as the happiest time of her life. At 15 she was sent to live with a cousin who abused her sexually. At 16 she left school and was working as a waitress when she met and married a sheet-metal worker, Woody McCorvey. He beat her, before and after she became pregnant." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:100:70:51B9:BB6:5B71:B31 (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how to add a citation, but the mention of being befriended by Flip Benham might cite this: http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/misc/misc/director.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.96.33.102 (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Was McCorvey actually confirmed in the Catholic Church? The statement on her relgious status is a little ambiguous/untechnical. ~ Dpr 05:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe she is now a Catholic. How do you suggest her religious status be less ambigious/untechnical?

I was under the impression that when adults enter the Catholic Church through RCIA, they are both baptized and confirmed.69.181.143.10 00:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A little old to be answering this but for the sake of others: Assuming Norma McCorvey's baptism in the swimming pool was valid then so far as the Church is concerned she was already a Christian and therefore not eligible for the R[ite of] C[hristian] I[nitiation for] A[dults]. So far as the Church is concerened a baptism in such a case would be futile. A valid baptism can theoretically be administered by a non-Christian so long as he or she uses water and baptises in the name of the Trinity. McCorvey would have been received into the Church at a ceremony that would have included communion and confirmation. I know that Catholic parishes always mash the Receptions in with the Baptisms (RCIA) at the Easter Vigil but they ain't supposed to. Stroika 21:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A note about eligibility for RCIA: It is incorrect to say that Norma McCorvey's Christian baptism as an infant rendered her ineligible for the RCIA program, through which aspiring converts are catechized in the doctrine of the Church. I am an RCIA instructor for the Archdiocese of Chicago and can confirm that baptized Christian non-Catholics are required to go through the many months of RCIA instruction before receiving the Eucharist and being Confirmed into the Church on Holy Saturday. Also, Catholic parishes don't "mash" anything improperly as is suggested in this comment. The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults is carried out properly as is stipulated in the clearly stated rubrics of the Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.139.151 (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, Norma McCorvey was baptized as an infant in the Catholic Church, but her family was not practicing. She became a Baptist much later in life.  Yes, the Catholic Church does recognize all previous baptisms under the Trinitarian formula, if "moving water" is used.  So, yes, she would have just made a profession of faith, and received Confirmation and Eucharist.  I believe that she was received (back) into the Church about 10 years ago, when in most dioceses confirmandi and catechumens were still received jointly at the Vigil.  The practice of separating them is clearly preferred and now much more common.  --Vaquero100 00:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You say converted to Christianity. This implies she wasn't a Christian to begin with. What was her faith before converting?
 * Atheist. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The latest stories cast doubt on whether she genuinely converted. She says Catholics paid her up to USD $500,000 at a time to say she no longer supported abortion, and that her relationship with the church was one of convenience and profit.Newzild (talk) 06:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't even confirmed yet. Wait until the documentary comes out. Obelar Zelar (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

False rape claim

 * here is the section you recently removed. As I stated above, McCorvey's books count as a secondary source because they are co-authored. I Am Roe has the most info about the false rape claim. Another good source is Of causes and clients: Two tales of Roe v. Wade in Hastings Law Journal. It extensively looks at the ethical implications with respect to Weddington's professional obligations. Another source I used when writing the section below is Jane Roe Gone Rogue: Norma McCorvey’s Transformation as a Symbol of the U.S. Abortion Debate, an MA thesis by Christianna K. Barnard from Sarah Lawrence College. In particular, Barnard points out on pdf page 37 (print page 19) that in the I am Roe book, she chose to use the false rape claim to Weddington (also Coffee; I Am Roe indicates both were present during this conversation) because of the discomfort she sensed after recounting her sexual history.

You can annotate this text below to explain what exactly is a problem with it, or summarize it to make it smaller. The three ' ' '  for bolding can work if you need to demark a specific area.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Prior to filing the lawsuit, McCorvey claimed to an unidentified lawyer and to Weddington and Coffee that she had been raped.

The complaint submitted by attorneys for plaintiff-intervenor James Hubert Hallford in Roe v. Wade stated that he had one or more prospective abortion patients who had sought an abortion for a pregnancy resulting from rape. Hallford faulted the Texas abortion laws for not making an exception for rape.

"Rape" is not mentioned in the affidavit for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas or the description of merits from the District Court ruling.

During the first oral argument, Weddington stated, "Regardless of the circumstances of conception, whether it was because of rape, incest, whether she is extremely immature, she has no relief." Later during the argument, Justice Stewart asked "Texas doesn't grant any exemption in the case of a rape, where the woman's pregnancy has resulted from rape – either statutory or otherwise – does it?" In response, Floyd said, "There is nothing in our statute about that." Justice Stewart continued, "And such a woman wouldn't have had a choice, would she?" In response, Floyd said, "The procedure – and now I'm telling the Court something that's outside the record – as I understand, the procedure when a woman is brought in after a rape, is to try to stop whatever has occurred, immediately, by the proper procedure in the hospital. Immediately she's taken there, if she reports it immediately. But, no, there is nothing in the statute..."

During the second oral argument, Weddington described that some states permitted abortion for rape, but also stated "that it has not yet been determined whether the State has the compelling interest to uphold even that kind of regulation."

Rape is mentioned twice in the overall majority opinion and the subject of abortion in the case of rape is part of the concurrences by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Douglas.

After learning about the decision in Roe, McCorvey was scared that if her lie about being raped was ever found out, she might go to jail and the decision might be overturned.

In 1983, McCorvey described the rape incident to Lloyd Shearer for Parade magazine. In 1987, she admitted that she had lied about being raped to Carl Rowan during an interview on WUSA-TV. Instead she was impregnated "through what I thought was love".

Although during the 1987 interview McCorvey claimed the purpose of her lie was to exploit what she wrongly thought was an exception in Texas law, in her 1994 memoir written for a pro-abortion rights audience she stated that the initial reason for her lie to Weddington and Coffee was because she felt Coffee and Weddington were uncomfortable with her sexual history and were concerned that McCorvey was too weird, too dangerous, and would end up hurting them. Instead, she wanted to make it seem like she deserved an abortion. Earlier several women had told McCorvey "that the way to get an abortion was to say that I had been raped." This suggestion motivated McCorvey's earlier lie to the unidentified lawyer.

A 1987 news release issued by WUSA-TV quoted Weddington, who said she had never "touched the issue of rape and only emphasized the question of whether the Constitution gives to the state or leaves to a woman the questions of what she can or must do with her body."

In 1998, McCorvey testified before a Senate subcommittee: "The affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court didn't happen the way I said it did. Pure and simple, I lied. Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffey needed an extreme case to make their client look pitiful. Rape seemed to be the ticket; what made the rape even worse, a gang rape. It all started out as a little lie, but my little lie grew and became more horrible with each telling."

In 2003, McCorvey signed an affidavit for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. It stated

"Later, Weddington and Coffee presented the affidavit for my signature at Coffee's office. I told them that I trusted them and that I did not need to read the affidavit before I signed it. I never read the affidavit before signing it and do not, to this very day, know what is written in the affidavit. Both Weddington and Coffee were aware that I did not read the affidavit before I signed it. At no time did they tell me that I had to read it before they accepted my signature."

In 2005, McCorvey testified again before the same Senate subcommittee: "I wanted to justify my desire for an abortion in my own mind, as almost every woman who participates in the killing of her own child must also do. I made up the story that I had been raped to help justify my abortion. Why would I make up a lie to justify my conduct? Abortion itself is a lie and it is based on lies."

do you have further thoughts or responses, or should I assume that silence implies consensus (WP:SILENT)? If you don't respond, I will count McCorvey's books as secondary sources since they were co-authored and improve the article without your input. It would be difficult for the rape claim to be WP:UNDUE due to the volume of the media exposure about it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * As I said in my first reversion of this content: "This section could exist, but should be MUCH smaller (not UNDUEly large) and sourced ONLY to newspapers (secondary sources.)" Her book is NOT an Independent Source WP:IS.  But newspapers are, and I think that they did cover this, so those would be acceptable sources, but not court documents, which are WP:PRIMARY.--- Avatar317 (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Independent_sources says, "Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified." Will you accept in-text discussion of the source for use of the dual-authored autobiographies?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I am still waiting for your response two and a half months later. If you continue to not respond, and I edit the article on the basis of WP:SILENT, will you revert me and state in the edit summary, "Your continued WP:BLUDGEONING of talk pages does NOT indicate consensus." as you recently did with this edit on another article?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)