**Given the following, it does not likely that we will see radical change from the Supreme Court, even with its new members, relying on the reasoning that supports the SD legislation. Legislation that SD or any other state enacts that conflicts with current legal rulings on abortion are destined to be struck down: **
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Court refuses to reopen 1973 abortion ruling
The Supreme Court, as expected, refused on Tuesday to allow an Atlanta woman to reopen the 1973 ruling that was a companion case to
Roe v. Wade (complete orders list
here). The case of
Doe v. Bolton, also decided Jan. 22, 1973, added to
Roe by restricting the medical requirements imposed on the abortion option. Sandra Cano of Atlanta, who was the “Mary Doe” of that case, asked the Court to reopen her case under federal court Rule 60 (b), which allows reconsideration of a prior judgment if its continued enforcement has become unjust.
Cano’s appeal was denied without comment, and with no indication of any dissent. Georgia officials had declined even to respond to the petition, and the Court did not seek one from them. (
Doe v. Baker, docket 06-162). The Court had similarly denied the same effort by Norma McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” of the lead 1973 case establishing a right to seek an abortion. (*McCorvey v. Hll *was denied on Feb. 22 of last year). The addition of two new Justices to the Court since then made no difference in the Court’s response to the argument that medical science and the law had changed since 1973, so the issue should be reconsidered.
