Who Was Jane Roe? The Story of the Woman Behind Roe v. Wade

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: Turning now to the United States, where a judge in Arizona has ruled the State can enforce a ban on nearly all abortions. It follows the Supreme Court overturning Roe versus Wade this summer. Now, our next guest has spent a decade researching the life of the woman of the heart of that landmark ruling known as Jane Roe. Author Josh Prager, details it all in his new book. And he speaks to Michel Martin about Roe’s life and her impact.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Joshua Prager, thanks so much for talking with us.

JOSHUA PRAGER, AUTHOR, “THE FAMILY ROE: AN AMERICAN STORY”: Thanks for having me.

MARTIN: I think it’s (INAUDIBLE) to a number of people to find out that Norma McCorvey, the women who came to be known as Roe. Never had the abortion she’s thought. She in fact gave birth three times. That she was in a long term, same-sex relationship, you know, with the women that she — in fact, through most of her life, she was attracted to women. And that her life was tough. I guess the way I would put it is from reading your book, she experienced a lot of pain and she inflicted a lot of pain, you know, in her life. So, as briefly as you can just tell us how Norma McCorvey came to be Jane Roe.

PRAGER: So, you’re right, Norma was a very difficult person. Her life was messy and filled with contradictions, not easy to put her into any little box. In a sense, in my opinion, she, sort of, embodied Roe perfectly. Her story was, sort of, perfect for the telling of the largest story of abortion in America also because the very same things that came to define, in my opinion, abortion in this country or came to make it so fraught also did that for her personal life. Mainly, the sort of seeming irreconcilability of sex and religion. She was in her young years, part of a very, sort of, count and cultural Bohemian community. She was out and proudly in the 1960s in Texas when that was a difficult thing to do. She was, for a time, also having a very difficult life selling drugs and she was a prostitute. All of that is, sort of, set upon the fact also that she was raised in a very religious home, the Jehovah Witnesses. So, as I say, she was exposed to both of these sides. And to answer your question, how she becomes Roe — Jane Roe. Well, she’s given up — she’s already relinquished two children to adoption and had suffered for doing so. It was very difficult for her to do that emotionally. She’s now pregnant and the third time in 1969. She does not want to go through that again. However, abortion is illegal in Texas. She cannot afford to fly to where it is legal, namely, California or to go to Mexico. And she doesn’t know what to do. She goes to her adoption attorney, a man named Henry McCluskey, and he says, you know what? I happen to know a woman I grew up with. We both went to this — we went to a Baptist Church together in Texas. Her name is Linda Coffee. I know she’s trying to fight the abortion laws here in Texas. I can connect you with her. That’s how Norma then gets to know Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington and becomes Jane Roe.

MARTIN: One of the points that you make in your book is that — and this is going to be hard for some people in the pro-choice movement to hear, frankly, as that they — you got the distinct impression — at least, certainly, Norma got the distinct impression that a lot of the leaders of the movement who were closest to her kind of looks down on her.

PRAGER: Her own lawyers, Sarah Weddington, in particular, really marginalize more. Did not want to give her a seat at the table. I can tell you, she doesn’t even tell her that she herself had had an abortion, Sarah Weddington. And that she had worked — she was working at that time for an abortion referral network in Austin. So, even though Norma’s pregnancy was, sort of, nearing the end of a possible window that she could have an abortion, towards the end of that second trimester, there was a flight every Friday that flew from Texas to California. American Airlines to help bring women up to the 20th week of pregnancy to have an abortion. They could have pointed this out to Norma, they did not because she was more valuable to them as a plaintiff. They needed a plaintiff. And even after Norma sees her plaintiffship through, relinquishes her child to adoption, you know, it’s important to say, even after that point she had not wanted actually to fight for a woman’s right that she was at that moment. She just simply wanted an abortion. But even after the case was behind her and years go by, and she then, sort of, wants a seat at the table in the mid to late 1980s, she re-approaches the leaders of the movement, including Sarah Weddington. Even after all of that, they don’t want her there. She doesn’t speak about abortion in terms it’s — that’s are comfortable for them. And it’s a very depressing thing. What ends up happening is the leaders of the pro-life movement want her to hold her as close as the leaders of the pro-choice movement, sort of, pushed her way. And so, she’s very vulnerable to, sort of, being won over. I’ll mention that the other plaintiff of the case that was the companion case to Roe, Doe v. Bolton, Sandra Cano, also is sort of vulnerable in the very same way, also was not given a seat at the table. And both of them ended up becoming sort of pro-life advocates.

MARTIN: It has been reported subsequently that — and this isn’t to, sort of, diminish the sincerity of Norma McCorvey’s views on this or anything about how she felt. But it has been reported subsequently that members of the pro-life movement paid her in part for her advocacy. Is that true?

PRAGER: It’s totally false. I had all of her taxes and everything, and I spoke to her. So, there was a documentary film, a.k.a Jane Roe that made this allegation. What is 100 percent is that Norma knew that in switching to the other side, she would be now paid to give speeches to the half of the country that she had previously alienated, just as she was paid to give speeches to the pro-choice side. But she was not paid a cent to actually convert. To use an important word that you said, sincerity. You know, Norma needed to ring a living out of her plaintiffship, and she did. She did her best. She was paid — she got by, paid to give speeches on both sides. And she would, sort of, say whatever someone wanted to if they paid her. However, she actually did have an opinion on Roe and on abortion. And I know that she was sincere but then she said it several times to very different audiences. In the first interview she ever gave, days after Roe V. Wade, she told a Baptist newsletter that she believed in abortion — in a legal right to abortion only through the first trimester. She said that again to Ted Koppel on “Nightline”. The day after her conversion, which infuriated her new friends on the pro- life movement, and she said it to me at the end of her life from the hospital. So, this is actually which he did believe.

MARTIN: There is a center of gravity around abortion rights in America, and that center of gravity seems to focus on, you know, first trimester, certainly rape, incest, life of the mother. But a number of States don’t even acknowledge those exceptions. One of the things I learned from your book is that those kinds of extremist views have always been part of the movement, but they weren’t policy in the United States.

PRAGER: Yes, in fact, the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest body of the evangelical parishioners of America, they were pro-choice steadfastly so until the 1980. So, you know, to step back, yes, Norma, unbelievably, represented that, sort of, majoritarian middle ground. In terms of ambivalence, what’s amazing is, even the people at the forefront of the various movements, it’s acknowledged that abortion was complicated. Mildred Jefferson, a remarkable person, one of the central characters of my book. First black woman to graduate Harvard Medical School and one of the leaders of the pro-life movement. When she becomes the head of the National Right to Life Committee, she is saying in 1978, that she feels that there needs to be a total ban on abortion, no exceptions. Well, just three of her fellow 50 plus board members agreed with her. So over, again and again and again, you see that it was sort of nuance. And then what happens? Well, it becomes a politicized issue. In the mid-1970s, the National Right to Life Committee in 1976 challenges presidential candidates to take an abortion on a personal matter. The idea that you would introduce an amendment to the constitution saying that a fetus as a person. And little by little, that sort of starts to gain currency. They see that there’s political goals here. The GOP and the Democrats, they introduced positions on abortion into their platforms in 1976. And by the time Reagan is elected in 1980, one year after the moral majority, sort of, helps to bring him to power, where evangelicals and Catholics have bonded together on this issue, then it really is sort of, like, wow. OK. Now, we’re off and running. And it becomes more and more and more extreme to the point that by the late 1980s, you basically can’t — you can no longer be an elected Republican official who’s pro-choice, and an elected Democratic official who’s pro- life. Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, they all flipped. George Bush, Ronald Reagan, they flipped. And, sort of, here we are now today.

MARTIN: This seems to have an enduring quality that makes it very difficult for people to come to any sort of political compromise, which is really the only choice. It has to be, kind of, worked out in the political process. And I’m just wondering what is your thought about why it is that this issue has so endured as a wedge issue.

PRAGER: I do think it goes back to that same thing I was speaking about before. Sex and religion, you know, it’s sort of the puritanical foundations of our country. And both sides, unfortunately, sort of, I think, cynically manipulated people, and people fell in line so quickly. You know, religion actually isn’t — if you go back in history, so black and white on this. Even the catholic church, until just about a century ago, recognized a difference between abortions pre and post quickening (ph). But there obviously is something also very unique about abortion itself. It involves not only sex and religion, but life and death, gender autonomy, all of these different things. And again, you have a very cynical, I think, politicians who really preyed on folks for their own political benefit. You know, Arlen Specter said in the mid-1990s that we need to take abortion out of politics, but it was impossible by that point. But now, we see what happens — what’s going to happen. You know, Roe galvanized the pro-life, and Dobbs is galvanizing the pro-choice. And we see, leading up to our midterm elections that there are many politicians now, on the Republican side, who are softening their stances. Saying, you know what? I need to get elected. And I need to not say that I’m now 100 percent pro-life but maybe I recognize exceptions. And we’re seeing that there is a divide in the pro-life (INAUDIBLE). And it is going to be very interesting to see what happens in the midterms. On the one hand, you have the absolutists. On the other side, you have the implementalist. And the pro-life community is nimble. Initially, post-Roe, they say, OK. They threw their weight behind a human life amendment, and when that then fell out of favor with their leading politicians, including Reagan by the way, who shifted, and said, you know what? The way we can really tackle those issues to import, then the pro- life community internship and they say, OK. We’re going to lead that, sort of, go for all at one smooth approach. And we’re going to go little by little by little. And they do it. They have great successes over the years. The Hyde Amendment, Webster, Gonzalez, SB8 in Texas, little by little by little, chipping, chipping, chipping away. And now, here we are. We’re going to have to see what happens. There’s a major divide between these two factions in the pro-life community.

MARTIN: As we are speaking now, the South Carolina Senator, Lindsey Graham, who has also proven very nimble, as you put it, —

PRAGER: Yes.

MARTIN: — in his — and around this. I mean, initially he said that the Supreme Court — that the State should decide this and then he — within literally a matter of weeks —

PRAGER: Yes.

MARTIN: — introduced a nationwide proposal that would tolerate abortion up to 15 weeks, and then would offer exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. I think he seemed to have introduced it as a, sort of, safe harbor for Republicans, but others are furious about this. Some people in the Republican leadership are furious about this. And they’ve made it clear that they don’t support this. How do you understand that? Like what is this — how does this fit into the politics around Roe and history of the politics around Roe?

PRAGER: Well, it’s very easy to be, like, 100 percent opposed to something when it’s just, sort of, hypothetical and theoretical. You are now going to have to deal with people in your State, girls and women, who are going to suffer the consequences of that. And these people are voters. Just step back. One thing, one of the amazing things about writing about Norma for me was that you see what happens when a woman is made to carry to term a pregnancy she doesn’t want. It’s not only the woman who suffers, it’s her children who suffer. And you see the children who are born, who she did not want, and you see in very real human terms in my book what happens. And that is now what these politicians are facing. So, OK. You know, you’re now seeing a fascinating thing as South Carolina, Lindsey Graham State. They just had a major, sort of, divide amongst their pro-life elected officials. And they did not pass legislation that would have made abortion a complete ban. They ended up at six weeks. Basically, these legislatures got nervous. But you’re also seeing now in Indiana that they did just pass a total ban from conception. Guess, with a few exceptions but still a complete ban. Now, you know, we’re going to start seeing more and more stories about women and girls who suffer as a result of this. And that is what Lindsey Graham is trying to, sort of, barred against. You mentioned a safe harbor. But will it offer political safe harbor? I do not know. My guess is that we’re going to know a lot more after the midterms.

MARTIN: Before I let you go, you mentioned that Norma McCorvey had a difficult life. How do you understand, kind of, the end of her life? It didn’t end in a way that, I think, people would’ve wanted. If — it just seems like a — the sadness of her life seemed to continue to the very end.

PRAGER: Yes, I was actually with her when she passed away, along with her eldest daughter, Melissa, and their family. You know, Norma was a great use to members on the pro-choice side when they needed a plaintiff, they were desperate to find a plaintiff and she was the only one they could, sort of, only find. She also was seen outstanding in the eyes of the party. She was the only one. They wouldn’t have chosen her if they don’t have to. She was of great east them. Then on the other side, she’s a great use to them. Here she is telling, you know, fabulous stories about what these crazy conditions in abortion clinics where she worked. And again, how she’s overcome by grief, et cetera. Very little of what she said was true. She’s great use to them. She was an enormous use to them as a fundraiser. She helped both sides enormously. But at the end of the day, to use her words, she felt like an orphan. She felt betrayed by both sides. And she had been betrayed. It’s unbelievable. At the end of — one side really used her body and one side used her, sort of, spirit. And then when they didn’t need her anymore, they let her go. So, it’s very sad. And at the end of her life, Norma is lamenting this. Above all, you know, what she was s lamenting? That she couldn’t be who she wanted to be. She wanted to be pro-choice up to a minute, and she wanted to be gay. And there was no room for her there in either side. When she became pro-life, they made her renounce her homosexuality. I just want to say the most profound thing for me about Norma when I think about her life nowadays is that her life really is a testament to how important class is when it comes to abortion. Norma’s own lawyer had money to get an abortion. Norma didn’t have money to get an abortion and so she couldn’t. When she was pregnant that third time, she found an abortion provider, an illegal provider, but a safe provider in Texas. But that man cost $500, she didn’t have that money. And so, she wasn’t able to get an abortion. And that’s one of the key things now. You know, half of the women who have abortions in our country, they live below the federal poverty level. And that act — you know, well, there was a very good report from by the Center for American Progress that basically says where abortion is more readily available than contraception is needed. Woman not only at better health but higher earnings, better professional prospects, et cetera. And where they don’t, they don’t. Well, Norma didn’t. And you see the profound effects of class of her life. And I think we’re going to see that continually, you know, as we now move ahead into this post-Roe world. That basically we are a more divided country than we’ve ever been. I stepped on the side of the State line, I can have an abortion and all that comes along with that. I step on the side of that State line, and I can’t. And that really is a tragedy.

MARTIN: Joshua Prager, thanks so much for talking with us.

PRAGER: Thank you for having me.