Supremes reject request for 'Doe' abortion review

[Soldier4Christ]

Supremes reject request for 'Doe' abortion review 
Court refuses to look at claims woman was shoved into landmark 1973 ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a request from Sandra Cano, the Georgia woman who was used as the plaintiff in the 1973 ruling that created a "health" exception for abortions, to reconsider the case.

Cano had sought the review because she said she was bullied by American Civil Liberties Union lawyers into participating in the case and argued science and medicine have changed dramatically from three decades ago.

Her case, Doe vs. Bolton, along with the more famous Roe vs. Wade, established the legal basis for the abortion industry in the U.S. Roe struck down state bans on abortion procedures, but Doe created the health exception, which allows pro-abortion doctors to provide abortion on demand for virtually any reason, at any stage of pregnancy.

Norma McCorvey, the original "Jane Roe" of Roe vs. Wade, also had sought a rehearing on her case, only to be rebuffed earlier this year by the Supreme Court justices.

Repeated polls show only about one in four Americans agree with unfettered abortion on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

Jan LaRue, the chief counsel with Concerned Women for America, said she was not surprised by the development, but the battle is far from over.

"We're looking this year to what the Supreme Court will do with the federal ban on partial-birth abortions, and we're very hopeful we'll have a good ruling there," she said. "Then we think the state (abortion) bans, such as in South Dakota and Louisiana, eventually will wind up before the court."

"Of course it will be later rather than earlier that we see the court ruling on those," she told WND.

Cano, who at the time of the case was a pregnant, 22-year-old wife of an abusive husband with all three of her children in foster care, was just looking for a way to get her children back and leave her husband, she says. At no time was she interested in abortion, she adds, but insists she was pressured to be a plaintiff in the lawsuit by an aggressive ACLU attorney.

Cano said the justices have ignored vast advances in scientific and medical knowledge in the last three decades and have "frozen abortion law based on obsolete 1973 assumptions and prevented the normal regulation of the practice of medicine."

This week the high court decided, without issuing any comment or noting any dissent, against hearing new arguments on the issue, which had been advanced after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided in January it did not have the authority to reverse the original ruling.

The Doe decision said the health of the mother includes: "physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age. …" And that means an abortion done for "health" reasons essentially opens the door to any abortion for any reason, according to GodandScience.org.

"The particularly chilling aspect of the 1973 decisions was that the humanity of the preborn child was purposefully ignored," the reference site said. "The Court held that the preborn human is not a person, therefore not deserving of any protection from the government."

The theology behind the two cases was affirmed in 1992 in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey when the court said a woman has a right to end pregnancy for any reason in early stages and also that a total ban on abortion would be found by the justices to be unconstitutional.

That 5-4 decision, however, did allow for an "undue burden" test for reviewing legislation limiting abortion. The provision allows courts to look to see whether the abortion regulation's "purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability."

The Casey decision also affirmed much of the Pennsylvania Control Act, which has requirements for Informed Consent, 24-hour Waiting Period, Parental Consent and Reporting Requirements.

Neither "Doe" nor "Roe" ultimately had the abortions for which their legal cases were launched.

According to a report in Insight magazine, Cano believes her case was based on fraud and lies coordinated by Margie Pitts Hames, Cano's ACLU attorney.

In her affidavit to the U.S. District Court in New Jersey, reports Insight, Cano claims the case originated when she approached a legal aid office in Atlanta to help her divorce her abusive husband and regain custody of her three children. However, says the report, Cano says she was taken advantage of by an "aggressive self-serving attorney, Margie Pitts Hames, the legal-aid attorney."

Cano, pregnant at the time, also says she never actually signed an affidavit saying she didn't want or couldn't care for another child. The affidavit even warned Cano might commit suicide.

"I am 99 percent certain that I did not sign this affidavit," she said, according to the Insight report. "I do not believe it is my signature on the affidavit, and Margie either forged my signature or slipped this document in with other papers while I was signing divorce papers. I never told Margie that I wanted an abortion. The facts stated in the affidavit in Doe v. Bolton are not true."

She testified before Congress is 2005 about her situation.

Here is her scathing testimony, in which she accused "wicked attorneys" of using her to advance a radical agenda:

    … I am Sandra Cano, the former "Doe" of Doe v. Bolton. Doe v. Bolton is the companion case to Roe v. Wade. Using my name and life, Doe v. Bolton falsely created the health exception that led to abortion on demand and partial birth abortion. How it got there is still pretty much a mystery to me. I only sought legal assistance to get a divorce from my husband and to get my children from foster care.

    I was very vulnerable: poor and pregnant with my fourth child, but abortion never crossed my mind. Although it apparently was utmost in the mind of the attorney from whom I sought help. At one point during the legal proceedings, it was necessary for me to flee to Oklahoma to avoid the pressure being applied to have the abortion scheduled for me by this same attorney. Please understand even though I have lived what many would consider an unstable life and overcome many devastating circumstances, at no time did I ever have an abortion. I did not seek an abortion nor do I believe in abortion. Yet my name and life is now forever linked with the slaughter of 40-50 million babies.

    I have tried to understand how it all happened. How did my divorce and child custody case become the basis by which bloody murder is done on infants thriving in the wombs of their mothers? How can cunning, wicked lawyers use an uneducated, defenseless pregnant woman to twist the American court system in such a fraudulent way? Doe has been a nightmare. Over the last 32 years, I have become a prisoner of the case. It took me until 1988 to get my records unsealed in order for me to try and find the answer to those questions and to join in the movement to stop abortion in America. When pro abortion advocates found out about my efforts; my car was vandalized on one occasion and at another time, someone shot at me while I was on my front porch holding my grandbaby.

    I am angry. I feel like my name, life, and identity have been stolen and put on this case without my knowledge and against my wishes. How dare they use my name and my life this way! One of the Justices of the Supreme Court said during oral argument in my case "What does it matter if she is real or not." Well I am real and it does matter. I was in court under a false name and lies. I was never cross-examined in court. Doe v. Bolton is based on a lie and deceit. It needs to be retried or overturned. Doe v. Bolton is against my wishes. Abortion is wrong. I love children. I would never harm a child and yet because of this case I feel like I bear the guilt of over 46 million innocent children being killed. The Supreme Court is also guilty.

    The bottom line is I want abortion stopped in my name. I want the case which was supposedly to benefit me, be either overturned or retried. If it is retried, at least I will have an opportunity to speak for myself in court, something that never happened before. My lawyers at The Justice Foundation have collected affidavits from over one thousand women hurt by abortion. We have filed those affidavits and a Rule 60 Motion to reverse Doe which is now on its way to the Supreme Court through the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. I am also giving you a copy of my affidavit in the case. Millions of babies have been killed. Millions of women have been hurt horribly. It is time to get my name and life out of this case and its time to stop the killing.

Pro-life interests had hoped for a better result from the court, with the addition lately of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who both appeared to have a more conservative approach to interpreting the constitution.