Posted on 09/28/2006 5:42:20 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
WASHINGTON, September 28, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Supreme Court plans to hear a suit to reverse the landmark abortion US case, Doe v. Bolton, from the case’s original plaintiff, who claims the facts of the original case were fraudulent and she was misrepresented by attorneys.
The Court plans to consider the case on October 6, which with its companion case Roe v. Wade remains the chief obstacle to national and state laws restricting or prohibiting abortion. Both Doe and Roe were decided by the Court the same day, thereby overturning the nation’s abortion laws. However, it is the “health exception” established in Doe that permitted unfettered abortion from conception until the moment of birth.
According to Insight Magazine, the original Doe, Sandra Cano, plans to argue not only that Court justices have "frozen abortion law based on obsolete 1973 assumptions and prevented the normal regulation of the practice of medicine," but also that the facts in Doe used to overturn US abortion law were founded upon lies orchestrated by an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, Ms. Margie Pitts Hames. Ms. Cano says she was manipulated by the ACLU attorney, when she was a pregnant 22-year-old victim of an abusive husband with her three children in foster care.
"What I received was something I never requested—the legal right to abort my child," Ms. Cano said in an affidavit in 2000.
According to her affidavit filed with the U.S. District Court in New Jersey, Ms. Cano said she approached a legal aid office in Atlanta to file for divorce and custody of her children, where she was taken advantage of by an "aggressive self-serving attorney, Margie Pitts Hames, the legal-aid attorney."
According to Ms. Cano - who only examined her court records years after the Supreme Court decision - she is “99 percent certain” that she never signed an affidavit saying she did not want or could not care for another baby, and believes Ms. Pitts Hames either forged her signature or slipped the affidavit among the divorce papers she signed. “I never told Margie that I wanted an abortion. The facts stated in the affidavit in Doe v. Bolton are not true."
Ms. Cano claims that the court records showing she had applied for abortion, was denied the abortion and then sued the state of Georgia were all based on falsehoods, not the reality. In fact, Ms. Cano says she fled to Oklahoma until her mother and her attorney agreed to no longer pressure her to undergo an abortion.
"The basic thing is that Doe v. Bolton was fraud," she said about the case abortion advocates ironically trumpet as protecting a “woman’s right to choose”.
"None of this was my decision. None of this was me. I don't understand why no one took it upon themselves in such an important case, a case that allowed a law to be passed to take innocent human lives, to speak to the plaintiff in the case. Why they didn't speak to me?"
The case has moved to the Supreme Court, since the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January 2006 that only the Supreme Court had the authority to reverse its own decisions in Doe v. Bolton or Roe v. Wade.
Prayers indeed!..bttt
If they hear it on October 6th, when could we expect a ruling ???? Before the election ?
May they be answered.
Woah! Where did this come from??? I thought I followed the debate pretty close but this (to me) is out of nowhere. Is it being covered in regular media as well?
**Doe v. Bolton**
I had not heard this. Thanks.
Probably not until early next year. Rarely does the Supreme Court move fast on cases.
I don't think the court is "hearing" this case. Rather, it is considering whether to take this case on appeal. In other words, it's going over this case, along with every other of the hundreds of cases submitted to it each year, to decide whether to take it. If it decides yes, THEN it will "hear" it.
And 30 million 'murders' later we are still reaching for God's hand to help us out of the ABORTION NIGHTMARE that has taken control of our nation.
Roe lied, babies died.
I wonder is the Whore Ginsberg was a part of this, wasn't she a ACLU lawyer?
Why did she wait 33 years to ask?
They were used to enact abortion laws.....
Sarah Weddington (attorney) and her ilk were waiting for that 'test case' and they are responsible for over 40 million dead babies.
Abortion — Last but not least, in Cano v. Baker, Sandra Cano — the former Mary Doe of Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade — is asking the Supreme Court to overturn her landmark abortion ruling. Cano says she never wanted an abortion and that her lawyers deceived her and used her.
In a case being closely watched by conservatives, the Supreme Court plans to hear a suit to reverse the Doe vs. Bolton abortion decision in 1973.
Evil is very often founded in lies and deceit in order to gain acceptance. Don't get your hopes up for Doe to be overturned or nulled ... the court is packed with judges who believe, as Sandra O'connor confirmed yesterday, that this is a nation of rule by judges rather than the laws written by the legislatures. Such beyond reproach rulers (because our spineless elected officials will not impeach and remove the leftists bastards, even when they nullify the Consitution, as in the imminent domain cases that take property from one private party and grant it to another for increased tax revenues) will not admit they erred earlier by overturning this Roe/Doe evil ruling after so much innocent blood of alive unborn children has been flushed into oblivion by the subpreme court's fiat rulings.
yes she was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsberg
first paragraph
"Doe v. Bolton" ???
Hmmm
My thoughts exactly...
No, the Court has not yet decided to "hear" this case. If you look at the beginning of the NR article that mentions this case, it says: "Waiting in the wings, however, are a host of other formal requests for Supreme Court review. One of the first items on the Court’s agenda will be choosing which of these additional cases, if any, to accept." This abortion case is one that the Supreme Court has been requested to review. It will decide whether to take the case, perhaps on Oct. 6.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.