Second Landmark Abortion Decision Challenged by Lead Plaintiff

CNSNews.com ^ | 8/26/03 | Nathan C. Masters

[kattracks]

(CNSNews.com) - The plaintiff in one of the two famed Supreme Court cases that when combined, legalized abortion during all nine months of pregnancy, announced Monday she was filing a motion to try to have the historic verdict overturned.

Sandra Cano, who was identified only as "Mary Doe" in the 1973 Doe v. Bolton case, is now a pro-life activist, as is Norma McCorvey, the woman referred to as "Jane Roe" in the more famous Roe v. Wade ruling from the same year.

The Doe v. Bolton ruling broadened the health exception for late term abortions, allowing women virtually unfettered access to abortion. The more famous Roe v. Wade verdict, as the companion to Doe v. Bolton, established a legal right to privacy for women seeking abortions during the first two trimesters.

McCorvey has also attempted to have her case overturned, but in June, U.S. District Court Judge David Godby from Texas denied the motion two days after it was filed, ruling that it was not made within a "reasonable time." Godby's decision is now under appeal with the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

On Monday, Cano used the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta as the backdrop for her announcement. If Cano's motion was granted and the Supreme Court eventually reversed its 1973 ruling, states would be able to outlaw abortion once again.

Cano claims her 1973 case was based on lies and deception.

"The truth is that I did not seek or want an abortion. I was young, uninformed and in a difficult situation," Cano said in an affidavit filed with the motion. "Not once in the process was I given an opportunity to speak, and no judge or attorney in court asked me how I felt about abortion."

Cano is being represented by the San Antonio-based Justice Foundation, whose CEO, Allan Parker, is the lead attorney in the case. Parker told CNSNews.com why he considers this motion to be "historic."

"Thirty-three years ago today (Aug. 25), the Dole v. Bolton decision was rendered here in Atlanta," Parker said, referring to the location of the original trial court decision in Cano's case. "And today, Sandra Cano...filed a motion to overturn her own case because she now knows that it was unjust and dangerous to women."

Parker explained that Cano's case consists of three main arguments.

"The first is: We did not know what the effects of abortion would be on women in 1973 because it was rare and illegal. The court had no experience with how widespread abortion would affect women. But now, 30 years later, women are coming forward in large numbers to tell about the damage and the emotional suffering they've suffered from taking the life of their own child," said Parker.

Parker said Cano's motion includes sworn affidavits from more than 1,000 women who attested to the trauma they suffered as a result of having an abortion.

Cano's second argument involves a Georgia law enacted last year placing the responsibility for raising unwanted children on the state rather than the mother.

"The second thing is, why would any woman want to have an abortion? It's because she can't take care of the child," Parker said.

At the time the Supreme Court decided Doe v. Bolton, Parker said, Georgia law placed the burden of unwanted children on the mother. Under the law enacted in 2002, the state will raise unwanted children until 18 years of age.

"So in 1973, the burden of caring for an unwanted child was on the woman. Now, the burden is on the state of Georgia," Parker explained. "Therefore, it's not unreasonable to ask the woman to bear the child and then the state bear the responsibility of raising it, and the woman won't have to suffer the pain of killing her own child."

The third argument regards the question of when human life begins.

According to Parker, the Supreme Court declared in the 1973 decisions: "We don't know when human life begins, at this stage in the development of man's knowledge." But since 1973, "there's been an explosion of man's knowledge...that shows that life begins at conception as a matter of biology," he asserted.

Parker also criticized Godby's opinion that McCorvey's motion had not been filed within a "reasonable time." He pointed out that in one case, the Supreme Court reversed a 41-year-old decision.

But Parker also acknowledged that only the Supreme Court and not lower courts like Godby's was likely to reverse the Roe and Doe decisions.

"The lower courts are bound by Doe v. Bolton and Roe until the Supreme Court overturns them," Parker said. "They have to deny the motion."

Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America (formerly the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League), derided McCorvey's motion as a "sad anti-choice publicity stunt" in a June 17 statement.

"Instead of leaving private medical decisions up to a woman and her doctor, anti-choice forces want the government to decide," Michelman said in the statement. "This case shows the extreme lengths to which they will go to overturn our constitutional right to choose."

Parker said that the Supreme Court would only need to consider one of the two motions to reconsider both Roe and Doe. He explained that in 1997, the Supreme Court reversed two 12-year-old decisions on one Rule 60 motion.

Michelle Howe, one of the hundreds of witnesses in the Doe case, said she suffered from depression and anxiety attacks as a result of her abortion.

"I believe strongly that God's heart is extremely hurt over the legalization of abortion and the killing of his children for over 30 years," said Howe.

E-mail a news tip to Nathan C. Masters.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

[.30Carbine]

ping

[bart99]

""Under the law enacted in 2002, the state will raise unwanted children until 18 years of age............ So in 1973, the burden of caring for an unwanted child was on the woman. Now, the burden is on the state of Georgia," Parker explained. "Therefore, it's not unreasonable to ask the woman to bear the child and then the state bear the responsibility of raising it, and the woman won't have to suffer the pain of killing her own child."

---

Oh cripes.... now it's a family values issue outside of just a choice issue....... this almost blows it. Who supported unwanted children before 2002 in GA? Anyone have any statistics on just how many childred are supported now by Georgia tax dollars? How much this year-old law has cost? Why was it even passed? Wasn't there a social services dept in GA before for foster homes, adoption, etc?

Family values? Sounds like Calif using our tax dollars to provide free educational and health care for all illegal immigrants.

[smith288]

There is plenty of people lined up for adoption of infants. That shouldnt even be part of the argument. She was young, uninformed, in a tough emotional state and taken advantage of by leftist, feminazi baby killers. Thats all there is to it.

There is obviously more damage being done to women do abortions both mentally and physical. She is right in that there was no way of knowing the after effects at the time. There is also much more information that proves the baby is really more than a mass of inconvenience.

4D ultrasounds is one thing that would melt the heart of even the most ruthless leftist N.O.W. hag.

[bart99]

I don't disagree with you.

What I was confused about is this 2002 law enacted by the state, and why this is even part of the arguement. The state took care of adoptions and foster homes, etc., long before 2002, for unwanted children. I was commenting more on this new government law, than the abortion issue. As I mentioned, I'm not a big fan of tax dollars supporting illegal immigrants and the laws that require these kind of Government mandates.

[RonF]

"The second thing is, why would any woman want to have an abortion? It's because she can't take care of the child," Parker said.

Parker makes this way too simplistic, and does so in order to build an argument. There are lots of reasons why women have abortions. Parker is being dishonest and deceptive here.

[Noachian]

"The first is: We did not know what the effects of abortion would be on women in 1973 because it was rare and illegal.

The obvious reason for abortion being rare was because it was illegal, and the reason it was illegal was that people with common sense didn't condone murder which is what abortion is. When a mother consents to having her growing baby/fetus murdered it's bound to have an adverse effect on her as anyone with common sense would imagine except, of course, our High Court Justices who are above common sense.

The court had no experience with how widespread abortion would affect women. But now, 30 years later, women are coming forward in large numbers to tell about the damage and the emotional suffering they've suffered from taking the life of their own child," said Parker.

The Court had no experience in this area, but went ahead and declared murder legal anyway. That was a classic case of judicial activism dabbling in the social engineering of American society, and it split this country into factions that are at each other's throats even today.

If there was ever a time that Congress should have stepped in and put limits on the High Court's social meddling it was in 1973. But, the Congress stayed silent, and 30 years later we can see the consequence of both the High Courts abuse of power and the silence of the Legislature.

After millions of fetuses have been butchered, and countless women traumatized, there's talk in legal circles that maybe legalizing abortion wasn't such a good idea after all. The decision may even be overturned one day if the High Court can find a way to save face in doing so.

The mere fact that an elitist majority of nine unelected people, accountable to no one, could rend such havoc on this nation for more than a generation without the Congress investigating the practices of the High Court is inexplicable.

The High Court has dabbled in social engineering for many years, but no decision has had a more profound effect on American society than Roe. In all of those 30 years the Congress never bothered to question the Court about its decision that produced the slaughter, never thought to produce legislation overriding the Court's decision, and never questioned the Court's ability to change a ruling into a de facto law that skirted Congress. Congress did nothing to stop the slaughter.

The American people in 1973, as they are now, were not protected from the High Court's excesses by the Congress. The American people were then and are now expected to accept any and all decisions rendered by the Court whether they like those decisions or not. It wasn't the intent of the Founding Fathers to throw off the yoke of England only to accept the yoke of nine black robes.

But, the Founders DID give the American people a way to correct abuses in their government if the Congress wouldn't do it for them. In hindsight the Founders could have prevented any High Court from the excesses we see today if they had insisted that the Judiciary be elected to their offices. The American people can still correct that oversight by amending the Constitution. The American people can do, on their own, what the Congress fails to have the stomach for.

[Charlie OK]

so is McCorveys case over, or is there still a chance for something good to happen with it?

[ibheath]

She is refuting the three points the SCOTUS used to justify legalizing abortion in this case. When appealing a case, you have to appeal the premise the court made its decision on. IF the premise abortion was legalized on is proven false, then the case has to be overturned. Abortion supporters can bring new cases, but that will take time.

[RonF]

When appealing a case, you have to appeal the premise the court made its decision on.

Yes, but she never said that one reason that the court made it's decision as it did was because women have abortions because they don't want to take care of the resultant children. Note that unlike other points she didn't quote from the court case in that regard.

[Donna Lee Nardo]

Woman should keep their legs closed and men should keep it in their pants in too many cases. That is where the responsibility begins and ends, only abortion allows these selfish irresponsible miscreants to get off the hook and kill innocent life. The agenda of the stupid "woman's movement" facilitated this under the guise of freedom to choose; to choose death and irresponsibility, of course.

[Charlie OK]

I just saw a car yesterday that said "I vote Pro-Choice". I looked inside and it was the most shriveled-up, miserable looking old woman. I figure she had aborted all her kids and now had no one to take care of her, and she wanted to spread the misery. Or else she was the witch who got Hansel and Gretal.

Sick.

[JILES19]

Well Said!

[ellery]

But, the Founders DID give the American people a way to correct abuses in their government if the Congress wouldn't do it for them. In hindsight the Founders could have prevented any High Court from the excesses we see today if they had insisted that the Judiciary be elected to their offices. The American people can still correct that oversight by amending the Constitution. The American people can do, on their own, what the Congress fails to have the stomach for.

I don't think this is the answer -- it takes us further down the path to direct democracy rather than republicanism. Eight years of the 'toon reminded me yet again how smart our founders were and turned me against populism for good.

[Noachian]

I don't think this is the answer -- it takes us further down the path to direct democracy rather than republicanism.

With this Supreme Court the country is barreling head long toward an oligarachy that favors European style Socialism. Anyone that looks at Europe's track record over the last generation or two can see that it's not a place for constitutional freedoms.

We live in a country with a Constitution that declares a government OF, BY, and FOR the people, where the people consent to be governed, but if the people aren't be trusted to correct abuses in their Judiciary when their Congress won't for what purpose do we have a Constitution?

To put faith in politicians is to make the master the servant, and the servant the master. No good will come of it.

[rwfromkansas]

bump