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.
This is news to me. I knew that the ACLU and PP lawyers lied in Roe v. Wade. I didn't know they lied in Doe v. Bolton as well.
Another dirty little secret is that Justice Brennan orchestrated the whole thing from behind the scenes, but let his sock puppet Blackmun take the credit for writing the opinion.
Yes! Merciful Lord, open hearts to Your way!
Isn't this the decision that defined "health" as even "social health" so that if you didn't like the way someone was squinting at your abdomen, you could abort?
As I understand it, yes. This is a VERY important case.
prayers
we need two more pro life judges on SCOTUS !
+
If you want on (or off) this Catholic and Pro-Life ping list, let me know!
This is exactly why the Senate cannot be allowed to fall into the Donkeys' paws. There may be one or more vacancies in the Supreme Court in the next 2 years.
Strange imagery, that. Donkeys ain't got paws. They have hooves. But I agree with your meaning, though.
"Evil is very often founded in lies and deceit in order to gain acceptance."
You just described the DNC.
Pro-Life bump
Should she recuse herself?
GL with the prayers. I hope logic and a determination to hold by the rule of law finally gets rid of these judicial monstrosities.
Dear Salvation,
It is the companion case of Doe v. Bolton that gives the pro-aborts cover on Roe. Roe actually lays out a ridiculous trimester system of state regulation, and the pro-aborts will go on about how Roe only protects first trimester abortions.
However, the two cases were decided together, and Doe vitiates all the mythical powers allegedly given to the state to regulate abortion in the second and third trimesters. It is Doe that takes Roe and turns it all into all-abortion, all-the-time, abortion-on-demand, from conception, right up until the moment that the child is nearly entirely clear of the birth canal.
If the Court hears this case, I'm afraid that this case is a little premature. Unless "justice" Kennedy repents of his crimes against God and humanity, trying in a desperate attempt to save his otherwise-damned soul, there likely will only be four votes to overturn this satanic ruling.
Myself, I'd have preferred a case like this to reach the Court after one or more of Satan's other minions either retired or bought the farm, and could be replaced by President Bush, or a good, pro-life Republican successor to President Bush.
We must pray.
sitetest
Sadly, that's just whom I had in mind when I wrote that. Any political party that has based its empowerment upon defending to the Nth degree the slaughter of alive unborn children is drenched in blood which will not 'wash off' ... and the most horrific aspect is so many Americans vote for these lying murder defenders because of that horrific empowerment scheme. evil strides the nation proudly, bouyed by the democrap voters without conscience.
Prayer bump!
According to the article...
In fact, the USSC plans to hear this case on October 6 -- at least, according to the article.
Here's hoping certiorari is granted.
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.