Thursday September 28, 2006
US Supreme Court to Revisit Landmark Abortion Case Next Week
The original Doe, Sandra Cano, will testify that Doe v. Bolton was based on fraud
By Peter J. Smith
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.
Latest Headlines
- "Manhattan Declaration" Embodies U.S. Christian Pushback against Abortion, Same-Sex "Marriage"

- Hoffman Loses Final Tally of NY-23 Race; Alleges ACORN Tampering and Fraud

- Abortion Activist Judge Hamilton Confirmed with Help of Ten Republican Senators

- CDC Reverses Gardasil Vaccine Requirement for Immigrants

- Germany Faces Economic Downturn with Plummeting Birth Rate and Aging Population

- CCHD in Archdiocese of Chicago Says it is Working to Fix Problems

- Rejection of Washington DC Marriage Referendum Challenged With Legal Suit

- Obama-Supporting Homosexual Activist to Out Sexually Involved Priests Unless they Support Gay 'Marriage

- Austrian Catholic Bishops Issue Bland Response to Govt's Homosexual Partnership Bill

- Interim Report on Catholic Sex-Abuse Says "Homosexual Identity" Not a Predictor of Sex Abuse

- Commentary on Nov 20 NewsBytes

- LSN NewsBytes - US Health Care Reform

- LSN NewsBytes - Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD)

- LSN NewsBytes - Life Issues, Religion, Swine Flu, US Politics, Sarah Palin, Miscellaneous

- LSN NewsBytes - Climate Change/Global Warming

- 59 Bishops Contributed Financially to Maine Bishop's Effort to Oppose Maine Same-Sex "Marriage" Law

- Pro-Abortion Lawmakers Shower Praise on Senate Bill's Phony Abortion Compromise

Most Read this Week
- Largest U.S. Homosexual Publisher Shuts Down, Closing Major Gay Newspapers
- EWTN's Arroyo Hosts Reform CCHD Reps Who Reveal Shocking Evidence Against USCCB Anti-Poverty Arm
- Italian Mayors Order Crufixes Put in Classrooms in Revolt against European Court Ruling
- "Manhattan Declaration" Embodies U.S. Christian Pushback against Abortion, Same-Sex "Marriage"
- Nat'l Organization for Marriage Responds to Miss California "Sex Tape" Scandal
- Obama Evades Questioning on Stupak Amendment in FOX Interview
- French Judge Finds Hospital Guilty of "Unreasonable Obstinacy" in Saving Newborn's Life
- EU Leaders to Choose President today in Secret "Soviet Style" Meetings
- Hoffman "Unconcedes" Battle for NY-23: Recount Provides Hope for "Miracle" Victory
- CCHD Responds to Reform Movement
MORE NEWS:
LifeSiteNews.com Home Page
Last 10 Days
Archives
Special Reports
Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.








Back to Top