More irony, in that it doesn’t seem to matter that key cases are based on deceptive testimony posing as evidence. William Murray was set up as a case of conscience, but wasn’t, and lived to campaign against the decision.
Norma McCorvey was set up as a rape victim unable to obtain an abortion, though she invented the rape story to speed up her case, and even before her conversion and renouncing of pro-choice ideology despised her lawyer for making her a test case, when she could easily have shown her where to get an abortion, having had one herself. In effect, the direct cause of McCorvey’s (at the time) unwanted childbirth was not the law, but an activist lawyer valuing the case over her client. Subsequently she developed a good relationship with her (not aborted) daughter and granddaughter. And she too lived to campaign against the law made in her (false) name.
Which makes one wonder why they bother with real cases at all, rather than getting the judges to look at a hypothetical case. I sincerely hope that the FFRC takes more care for the individuals involved in the cases it takes on than did Madelyn O’Hair and Sarah Weddington. The constitution, after all, was supposed to protect individuals, not ideologies.