A good discussion. But I'm having trouble with your main thesis, that McCorvey was genuinely anti-Roe but still supported first-trimester abortions (which was consistent throughout her time in the pro-life movement). You cite the 1995 interview to back it up. But this quote, from her book Won by Love, strongly suggests otherwise: "I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma', I said to myself, 'They're right'. I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth — that's a baby! ... I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception'. It wasn't about 'missed periods'. It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion — at any point — was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear." That's pretty definitive, isn't it? It's not the kind of thing an abortion gray would ever write.
Fair question. Again, it's really hard to determine with real confidence what she actually thought. But here's my best guess: I think Norma was generally anti-Roe because she felt a lot of weight for helping make that case successful. I think she thought that first-trimester abortions were generally immoral, but ought to be legal - but she didn't want them to be legal because of her. I've seen several things about pro-life leaders helping write her speeches, because she wasn't good at that. I don't know what that means. Did Norma say "here's what I want to say" and others wrote a script based on that except more eloquent? Or was a script based on a few talking points written for her to read? Or somewhere in the middle? I don't know, but the middle option seems plausible to me. And I think that might extend to her books (which I hear don't agree with each other, but I haven't read them). If she's being honest and accurate in the documentary about willingly being used by the movement as a mouthpiece while simultaneously using them (probably for money and adulation) then it's suddenly not that weird for her to have a strong anti-abortion stance in one of her books that may be stronger than how she really felt. It's also possible that she felt exactly like that at the time and then her views relaxed some later in age. That seems less plausible to me than the first explanation, yet still possible.
That's reasonable. McCorvey did indeed have a co-author for Won by Love. And to be fair the idea that she immediately became completely pro-life (as stated in the book) does contradict the 1995 interview. It's probably somewhere in between. Do you have a link to Fr. Pavone's comments, where he says he wasn't surprised by what he heard?
Here is the link to the tweet from the morning of May 23rd, the day after the documentary aired. https://twitter.com/frfrankpavone/status/1264114412430012416?s=20 He says "Friends, the #NormaMcCorvey documentary was no surprise at all. Everything she said, I have heard her say before. Difference is, I have heard her also say a lot more. Nothing in the film says she converted for pay, or thinks babies should be killed. Nothing. #prolife".
"I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma', I said to myself, 'They're right'. I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth — that's a baby! ... I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception'. It wasn't about 'missed periods'. It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion — at any point — was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear."
That's pretty definitive, isn't it? It's not the kind of thing an abortion gray would ever write.
I think Norma was generally anti-Roe because she felt a lot of weight for helping make that case successful. I think she thought that first-trimester abortions were generally immoral, but ought to be legal - but she didn't want them to be legal because of her.
I've seen several things about pro-life leaders helping write her speeches, because she wasn't good at that. I don't know what that means. Did Norma say "here's what I want to say" and others wrote a script based on that except more eloquent? Or was a script based on a few talking points written for her to read? Or somewhere in the middle? I don't know, but the middle option seems plausible to me. And I think that might extend to her books (which I hear don't agree with each other, but I haven't read them).
If she's being honest and accurate in the documentary about willingly being used by the movement as a mouthpiece while simultaneously using them (probably for money and adulation) then it's suddenly not that weird for her to have a strong anti-abortion stance in one of her books that may be stronger than how she really felt.
It's also possible that she felt exactly like that at the time and then her views relaxed some later in age. That seems less plausible to me than the first explanation, yet still possible.
Do you have a link to Fr. Pavone's comments, where he says he wasn't surprised by what he heard?
He says "Friends, the #NormaMcCorvey documentary was no surprise at all. Everything she said, I have heard her say before. Difference is, I have heard her also say a lot more. Nothing in the film says she converted for pay, or thinks babies should be killed. Nothing. #prolife".