home

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Roe v. Wade Companion Case

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 05:03:18 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


Legally, I don't think the woman had a shot. Nonetheless, it's good news that the Supreme Court has decided not to hear the appeal of the woman who was the plaintiff in a companion case to Roe v. Wade.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned aside the case of Sandra Cano, one of the women behind the legalization of abortion, who had sought to reverse the victory she won 33 years ago.

Cano says she never wanted an abortion and that her difficult early life resulted in her becoming the anonymous plaintiff in Doe v. Bolton, the lesser-known case which the justices ruled on the same day in 1973 as the landmark Roe v. Wade.

33 years is a little late to try and reverse a decision.

Her current lawyers' legal brief says that despite advances in medicine, science and technology, the justices have "frozen abortion law based on obsolete 1973 assumptions and prevented the normal regulation of the practice of medicine."

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January that neither it nor a U.S. District Court had the authority to reverse the Supreme Court's decisions in Doe v. Bolton or Roe v. Wade.

Maybe there is hope after all.

< One in Five Soldiers Disabled After Serving | U.S. Uses Dogs to Scare Domestic Prison Inmates >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Roe v. Wade Companion Case | 5 comments (5 topical)
    Re: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Roe v. Wade Co (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 07:39:42 AM EST
    Although people protest and picket this decision, it seems like it will never change things, its interesting that this woman has had a change of heart though....

    Re: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Roe v. Wade Co (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 08:46:18 AM EST
    Still no hope for the tens-of-thousands of innocent children aborted every year for no more reason than their mother's were fed a steady diet of "no hope" and "it's not human" doctrines. Oh, sorry... yay freedom... woo-hoo.

    Re: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Roe v. Wade Co (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:35:13 AM EST
    geez, i hope this atty. was acting pro bono. billing her would have been completely unethical.

    Re: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Roe v. Wade Co (none / 0) (#4)
    by Officious Pedant on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:35:13 AM EST
    Hey, ceegh, Could you do me a favor and point out any entity in this debate that argues that a human embryo or fetus isn't human? Oh, and any indication that those so offended and outraged by abortion, are even moderately concerned (by their actions) about those that have been born into homes where they are abused and murdered. Thanks,

    Re: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Roe v. Wade Co (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 08:39:52 AM EST
    Officious Pedant, Sorry for the delay. You probably won't see this response, but I thought your post deserved one. It's simple logic on the first part. If an embryo or fetus were considered human would there be no penalty in killing it? We have laws that state it is illegal to murder human beings. The only way that an abortion is not considered murder, by law, is if the fetus is not considered human. I am especially repulsed by the idea that people would think a fetus is human and still support abortion. If you are stating that I think you may be surprised by how many abortion supporters don't agree (or maybe I should be more disgusted than I am.) As for the second point, I am continually astounded by the people who can't believe that people against abortion can truly care about the mothers and the new born child as well. I have supported organizations (monetarily and through actual work) that exist to especially help unwed mothers or ones in abusive relationships so that they can provide a good home for their children (unborn or otherwise.) These organizations exist so that what you describe can be prevented. Besides that my wife and I are actively looking to adopt as soon as we can put the money together to do so. Children are wanted even if the mother can't (or won't) provide. And to tell you the truth, there isn't a huge supply out there of children so there is some competition (and not just for the "white kids.") I hope this at least partially answers your thoughts. I would love if every child lived in an environment free of abuse, but they don't. I find it a little prejudiced on people's parts to believe that because the mother is young or poor (or minority for that matter) that they will automatically be abusive. I have not found that to be the case at all. Of the many unwed mothers I have known most have been in tough situations, but because they had determination, love, and support from their friends, family, or community they were able to provide a home to their children. Abortion isn't a convenience for the mother; it's a convenience to the society around her. If she didn't abort then we might actually have to care about her and her children.

    Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Roe v. Wade Companion Case | 5 comments (5 topical)