The woman whose Roe v Wade case liberalised US abortion law in the 1960s wants the ruling reversed, reports Conor O'Clery from New York.
Norma McCorvey, a 25-year-old divorced drifter, became pregnant in August 1969 whilst working with a circus in Georgia. She tried but failed to get an abortion in her home town of Dallas, Texas. Two pro-choice lawyers took up her case.
She told them she had been raped by a crowd of men at the circus and did not want the baby. Fifteen years later she would admit this was a lie and that she had had consensual sex but didn't want to "get into trouble". The lawyers wanted a volunteer to challenge an 1857 Texas law making abortion a crime unless the mother's life was in danger. McCorvey agreed to be a test case, though the process would take so long that in the end she went the full term and gave the child up for adoption.
The case got national attention. The mood of the nation had turned more in favour of abortion in the permissive 1960s, boosted by a scandal over the tranquilliser Thalidomide that produced deformed babies, and an outbreak of rubella, or German measles, which also caused birth defects.
The case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, with McCorvey, known by the pseudonym Jane Roe, and Texas represented by a state official called Henry Wade.
By a majority of seven to two, the Supreme Court declared, on January 22nd, 1973, that abortion was a right - a right of privacy - that could not be prohibited by individual states. A dissenting opinion was written by Judge William Rehnquist, a Nixon appointee, who argued that a right of privacy did not exist under the constitution.
The Roe v Wade verdict meant that total bans on abortion were struck down in 33 of the 50 states and in DC. Predictably, the Catholic Church expressed outrage, but despite various attempts by conservatives to weaken the legislation, it has remained largely intact.
The anniversary of the handing down of the decision has become a catalyst for confrontation in Washington between the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" lobbies. On Tuesday this week a new challenge was mounted from an unexpected source.
Norma McCorvey herself, now aged 56, turned up at the Earl Cabell Federal Building in Dallas to file a motion asking a federal judge to reopen her case and overturn the verdict.
Ten years ago McCorvey underwent a religious conversion, saying she felt responsible for the death of millions of unborn babies, and she is now a Catholic and an ardent anti-abortion activist.
Addressing about 60 women attending an anti-abortion leadership conference in Dallas she said: "You know that saying: 'You've come a long way baby'? Well, we're getting our babies back."
The case will go to a federal judge where, this time, her lawyers will be anti-abortion activists from the Justice Foundation in San Antonio, which promotes "private property, parental rights, limited government and free market". The foundation's lawyers will argue that McCorvey should be "relieved" from the Roe v Wade ruling as it is no longer "fair or just" because of new evidence that abortion destroys a woman's physical and mental health.
They will produce 1,000 affidavits to this effect. The head of the foundation, Allan Parker, said lawyers will also argue that life begins at conception, using what he called "an explosion of scientific evidence on human life".
If the court agrees, there will be an appeal and the case could once more end up in Washington, where Judge William Rehnquist is now head of the Supreme Court.
Legal sources say the case is not likely to succeed, as the court does not readily reopen cases and McCorvey would have to prove that she has been harmed by the 1973 ruling, which, apparently, she wasn't.
Also, six of the nine current Supreme Court justices have said they support the Roe v Wade precedent. The Texas Abortion Rights Action League in Austin dismissed the motion as a publicity stunt and Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt told Reuters: "We don't expect the court to take it seriously."
She added that "Roe v Wade enabled women to participate in the social, financial and political life of this country".
The case, however, underlines the critical importance of any new appointments to the Supreme Court. Many of the justices today are old and there are rumours that two or three will retire. President Bush has promised to nominate anti-abortion justices to fill their place. This might not be easy - it will result in furious scenes and filibusters in the Senate - and Bush will be mindful that the appointment by his father, while president, of the ultra-conservative judge, Clarence Thomas, to the Supreme Court caused a furore and may have contributed to his defeat.
Norma McCorvey may yet get her case overturned, said one legal analyst: the only way she will win eventually is with new justices and new cases coming before the court.