I've been doing some research with R vs W and I find one conflicting piece of information pretty curious.

https://baptistnews.com/article/its-complicated-the-backstory-to-norma-mccorvey-and-roe-v-wade-you-probably-dont-know/

Joshua Prager (who spent years getting to know Norma and family to write a book) when talking about whether Norma was paid to convert to Evangelical Christianity and present an anti-abortion stance, claims that she was never paid a cent and that he saw her taxes as proof.

Interesting… then why on her death bed did she claim she did receive money and the minister who claims to have been a part of the group who paid her eventually spoke out as well?

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.5576923/we-used-her-minister-regrets-paying-roe-vs-wade-plaintiff-to-speak-out-against-abortion-1.5576924

Now, I can't find much of a reason for Mr. Prager to lie, and so out of curiosity decided to Google and find more information on Rob Schnek. First thing I found interesting is that no matter what you Google, the only stories you'll find are about his "heroic" change in stance on abortion. But there's one fact on his movie's website and Wikipedia that told me everything I needed to know.

"Rev. Rob Schenck is an evangelical minister to top-level government officials in Washington, DC," - http://www.armoroflightfilm.com/about/cast/reverend-rob-schenck/

So we have Norma, a pretty unstable individual who lied about being raped in order to skirt abortion laws which led to her to being the plaintiff in a case that would change federal law to protect abortions through the Supreme Court.

And then we have Rob Schnek who works with top level government officials who has a huge sudden change of heart on abortion and confesses to paying Norma to read a script and claim to be anti-abortion. The same Norma who spent years with Joshua Prager and apparently showed/convinced him with what he considered proof that she wasn't paid a dime to speak out against abortion.

If you do enough digging, you can also find some statements from Sarah Weddington that she had to be careful with R v W because she didn't always feel like Norma was always telling the truth and had to be sure to only present information that she should could confirm.

The more I try to piece together the history of this case, the more sketched out I am about Norma in general. Something seems pretty off with her and her involvement in all of this. Oh, and at the end of it all, she got two book deals to tell her story. Why do they always get book deals? Something doesn't feel on the up-and-up here.