L
LittleRose
Guest
I had the following in an e-mail forward from my mother today:
Free Republic
Home · Browse · Search News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
US Supreme Court to Revisit Landmark Abortion Case Next Week
LifeSiteNews ^ | 29 September 2006 | Peter J. Smith
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.
Free Republic
Home · Browse · Search News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
US Supreme Court to Revisit Landmark Abortion Case Next Week
LifeSiteNews ^ | 29 September 2006 | Peter J. Smith
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.