CBS News runs with the Norma McCorvey story.
"The former plaintiff known as 'Jane Roe' in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court
case that legalized abortion sought to have the case overturned in a
motion filed Tuesday that asks the courts to consider new evidence that
abortion hurts women.
Norma McCorvey, who joined the anti-abortion fight nearly 10 years ago
and says she regrets her role in Roe v. Wade, said the Supreme Court's
decision is no longer valid because scientific and anecdotal evidence
that has come to light in the last 30 years has shown the negative
effects of abortion.
'We're getting our babies back,' a jubilant McCorvey said at a news
conference while flanked by about 60 women, some who sobbed and held
signs that read 'I regret my abortion.'"
Update A: The AP story is being picked up widely, from USA Today to Fox News and local papers in Toronto, Savannah, Alaska, etc. as you can see from this link. (Stay in the June 17 time frame.) Drudge is now linking to the CBS story and The Smoking Gun links to the eleven-page affidavit filed today by Norma herself. (The full filing is around 4,500 pages.)
Update B: Amy Welborn caught this article in Christianity Today which has a link to the actual brief that was filed. It's a PDF file. The link to Amy's blog is general (she also uses Blogger) so go to Tuesday, June 17.
Update C: Eugene Volokh writes: "But I do know that if there were five votes on the Court to reject the constitutional right to an abortion, it would so hold in some case, with or without Rule 60 -- there are certainly plenty of other parties who could litigate this even if Roe's case is thrown out on procedural grounds. And given that there don't seem to be five such votes on the Court, then Rule 60 or not, the Court will not reject the constitutional right to an abortion; even if Roe's case isn't thrown out on procedural grounds, it'll be rejected on the substantive grounds".