"Jane Roe" speaks: "I was paid to speak against abortion."

[89th]

Hmmmm, I’ll take her word for it, but that doesn’t mean much now I guess

[Copper]

Now she'll have to return the money.

[Mik]

Her words and acts do not move me. None of them. The issue stands on its own and is informed by the damage I have seen done.

[Axtremus]

Roe v Wade: Woman behind US abortion ruling was paid to recant
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52733886

The Reverend Robert Schenck, one of the evangelical pastors who worked with McCorvey after her conversion to Christianity in the mid-1990s, also features in the documentary.

The minister acknowledges McCorvey was paid for her appearances on the movement's behalf. The programme says it was as much as half a million dollars.
"I knew what we were doing," Mr Schenck says. "And there were times when I was sure she knew.

"And I wondered: 'Is she playing us?' What I didn't have the guts to say was: 'Because I know damn well we're playing her.'"

Rev. Robert Schenck’s blog post: https://www.revrobschenck.com/blog/2020/5/18/a-movie-that-bares-the-soul-behind-roe-v-wade-along-with-my-own-

In the film, I admit Norma was for me a kind of trophy—a beloved one—but a trophy none-the-less. We held her up, showed her off, paraded her around. What we didn’t do was listen deeply to her pain and beg her pardon for objectifying her.

[Ivorythumper]

What if she was paid to say that?

[xenon]

@Ivorythumper said in "Jane Roe" speaks: "I was paid to speak against abortion.":

What if she was paid to say that?

Well, now it's just a stack of turtles all the way down.

[Mik]

Why would anyone listen to a woman who we already know will say whatever she is paid to say?

Perhaps we should apply that same principle to elections.

[Axtremus]

@Mik said in "Jane Roe" speaks: "I was paid to speak against abortion.":

Why would anyone listen to a woman who we already know will say whatever she is paid to say?

Ah, but I quoted Reverend Robert Schenck, the guy who paid the woman to say what he wanted her to say.

[Larry]

He's not a Reverend any more. He renounced his faith, and became a radical leftist. So did she. Once that happens you can no longer believe a words they say. Because one has to be mentally ill or evil, or both, to be a Leftist today.

[Mik]

You are not getting it, Ax. What she said had no impact whatsoever on my view on the subject even before I knew she was paid to say it. I've already seen the devastation choice can cause.

Now that we do know that it changes nothing for me and never did.

[Larry]

Never get in the way of a Democrat killing babies.

[Larry]

"My body, my choice!"
"Then why is the dead body not yours?"

[Klaus]

What an ugly story. Both sides used her as a tool, and she was playing along. Nobody gave a damn about her as a person or, for that matter, the fate of other expecting mothers and their offspring. It was all about winning.

[Larry]

We only have the word of a former preacher turned radical to support the claim that she was paid. She obviously doesn't view lying as a problem.

[jon-nyc]

“She was telling the truth when she supported my position, and lying when not. I will need unassailable evidence to convince me otherwise.”

[Jolly]

Bottom line? She was what Carville had in mind when he made his hundred dollar bill comment.

[Mik]

@jon-nyc said in "Jane Roe" speaks: "I was paid to speak against abortion.":

“She was telling the truth when she supported my position, and lying when not. I will need unassailable evidence to convince me otherwise.”

Who is saying that?

[Doctor Phibes]

@Mik said in "Jane Roe" speaks: "I was paid to speak against abortion.":

@jon-nyc said in "Jane Roe" speaks: "I was paid to speak against abortion.":

“She was telling the truth when she supported my position, and lying when not. I will need unassailable evidence to convince me otherwise.”

Who is saying that?

Pretty much everybody.

[Mik]

At the time she made those statements there was no reason to believe she was lying. Now there is. Not seeing any conflict in those two positions.

[Axtremus]

You can go one step further and weight the evidence:

• there is no evidence to suggest that she was paid to say X (the "pro-choice" stuff)
• now there is evidence indicating that she was paid to say Y (the "pro-life" stuff)
• there is no evidence to suggest that she is being paid to say Z (her "deathbed confession" saying that she was paid to to say Y, including collaborating confession by the person who paid her)
• there is no evidence to suggest that the collaborating confessor was paid to do so

None of these need to change your conviction on the underlying pro-choice vs. pro-life issue, of course. Still, the evidence favors her "deathbed confession" being true.

Separately, I am also curious if there are verified cases of former "pro-choice" spokespeople confessed to (or having been exposed) as being actually "pro-life" but merely toed the "pro-choice" line in public in exchange for material gains. Maybe there is zero "pro-life" person ever sold out to toe the "pro-choice" line in public?