Archive for Doe v. Bolton

Texas lawmaker files bill to abolish abortion and ignore Roe

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 20, 2019 by saynsumthn

On January 17, 2019 Texas State Representative Tony Tinderholt filed a bill to abolish abortion in the state. HB896 is an, “Act relating to prohibiting abortion and protecting the rights of an unborn child,” and it in essence tells authorities to ignore federal mandates and to protect the preborn child with the force of law as a born child.

Image: State Representative Tony Tinderholt

State Representative Tony Tinderholt

Texas is where the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision which forced unrestricted abortion on demand began.

Roe was a pseudonym for Jane Roe a/k/a/ Norma McCorvey and Wade was Henry Wade, a Dallas district attorney who defended the Texas law, leading, eventually, to the Supreme Court ruling: Roe v. Wade. The Roe V. Wade case and a companion case, Doe v. Bolton were heard by the Supreme Court at the same time. Plaintiffs in both cases, Norman McCorvey (Jane Roe) and Sandra Cano (Mary Doe) claim they were lied to, manipulated and deceived.

In 1969, Norma McCorvey became pregnant and after meeting pro-abortion attorney Sarah Weddington, on March 17, 1970 she signed the affidavit which catapulted Roe into being. The case was first filed in Dallas on behalf of plaintiff Jane Roe and all other women “who were or might become pregnant and want to consider all options.”

Image: Texas abortion law challenge 1970

Texas abortion law challenge 1970

At the time, in Texas, abortions were prohibited except to save the pregnant woman’s life. But, on June 17, 1970 the three-judge federal panel struck down the Texas abortion statute.

1970-Henry-Wade-Abortion-article-2

 

The case was brought to the Supreme Court on the basis that Norma McCorvey, the Roe in the case was raped and needed an abortion. The fact is that she was never raped and never wanted an abortion. In fact, Norma later became pro-life and sought to overturn the infamous decision.

Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe, opened the door for abortion on demand by allowing the “health of the mother” exception” to be defined however the doctor chose.

Image: Sandra Cano was Doe in the Doe v Bolton Supreme Court abortion case

Sandra Cano was Doe in the Doe v Bolton Supreme Court abortion case

Testimony from Sandra Cano the Former Doe of Doe v. Bolton, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee June 23, 2005 showed that, like the Roe case, she never wanted an abortion.

Roe v Wade was argued for the first time before the Supreme Court on December 13, 1971 but because of new appointments to the Court, the case was reargued a second time on October 11, 1972 before the full nine-man court in, conjunction with Doe v. Bolton.

Image: Supreme Court at time Roe v Wade legalized abortion (Image credit: Oyez)

Supreme Court at time Roe v Wade legalized abortion (Image credit: Oyez)

The cases were decided January 22, 1973.

In 1998, McCorvey told marchers at the March for Life, “I lied and I’m sorry, I’ve repented, I’ve asked Jesus into my heart…”

Image: Norma McCorvey who was Jane Roe of Roe v Wade becomes pro-life

Norma McCorvey who was Jane Roe of Roe v Wade becomes pro-life

Neither McCorvey nor Cano lived to see abortion end.

ABOLISHING ABORTION IN TEXAS:

Image: State Representative Tony Tinderholt

State Representative Tony Tinderholt

Texas state Representative Tony Tinderholt’s measure would amend the Texas penal code for the “Rights of a Living Child” to read, “A living human child, from the moment of fertilization on fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum. The proposal states that the preborn child, “[I]s entitled to the same rights, powers, and privileges as are secured or granted by the laws of this state to any other human child.”

The proposed law would add to the Government code the following abortion enforcement, “The attorney general shall monitor this state’s enforcement of Chapters 19 and 22, Penal Code, in relation to abortion. The attorney general shall direct a state agency to enforce those laws, regardless of any contrary federal law, executive order, or court decision.”

The state’s local code would be amended to read that, “The governing body of a political subdivision of this state shall ensure that the political subdivision enforces Chapters 19 and 22, Penal Code, in relation to abortion, regardless of any contrary federal law, executive order, or court decision.”

It amends the penal code to apply even if the conduct [ the abortion] is “committed by the mother of the unborn child, the procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider, including a procedure performed as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by 160.102, Family Code; or the dispensation of a drug.”

IGNORING ROE:

Rep. Tinderholt’s measure clarifies that all changes apply only to acts committed on or after the measure takes effect and it requires that the State Constitution would override the Supreme Court decision in Roe as well as any other federal mandate:

Any federal law, executive order, or court decision that purports to supersede, stay, or overrule this Act is in violation of the Texas Constitution and the United States Constitution and is therefore void. The State of Texas, a political subdivision of this state, and any agent of this state or a political subdivision of this state may, but is not required to, enter an appearance, special or otherwise, in any federal suit challenging this Act.

To monitor the bill’s status, go here.

The measure follows calls for Texas Governor Greg Abbott to keep his promise to abolish abortion in the state. That promise was made to sixteen year old Jeremiah Thomas who passed away last year from cancer. Thomas’s dying wish that Texas abolish abortion made headlines and Governor Abbott told the dying teen, “Your wish is on the Republican Party platform positions, and it’s what we’re going to be pursuing this next legislative session.  And that is to outlaw abortion altogether in the State of Texas. And, so your wish is granted.”

 

 

Jeremiah’s parents, published an online petition to invite others to join Jeremiah’s wish by urging Governor Abbott to keep his promise by making abolishing abortion an emergency item for the State legislature.

Rep. Tinderholt was placed under protection following a 2017 attempt to criminalize abortions in the state, which resulted in several threats.

 

 

Measures to abolish abortion have also been proposed in Oklahoma. Senator Joseph Silk claims he was a “Typical pro-lifer,” until he “bumped into these crazy Abolitionists.”

Abolitionist and pro-life groups differ in whether incremental legislation is the correct strategy for abolishing abortion.

Senate Bill 13 (SB13), known as the Abolition of Abortion in Oklahoma Act, would equate abortion with homicide in Oklahoma, Sen. Silk claimed in the video below.

Shortly after the 1973 Supreme Court ruling on abortion, pro-lifers attempted to pass a complete ban on abortion via a Human Life Amendment. Those efforts were sadly defeated. Since that time, pro-life groups have worked to pass incremental legislation to protect the child in the womb. Those measures include the Heartbeat Bill, 20-week bans, parental consent requirements, an many others.

Abolitionists via their Free the States campaign are seeking to convince local governing authorities to “Ignore Roe” and protect the child in the womb.

Complete abolishment of abortion efforts come as pro-life measures like the Heartbeat bill which would outlaw abortion as early as six weeks, when the fetal heartbeat can be detected, are being proposed in several states. As the public demands tighter restrictions on abortion, pro-abortion forces are growing desperate and working to open the flood gates for home or mail order abortion pills. At the same time, new appointments to the Supreme Court are causing both sides to ask whether Roe will stand in coming months.

The humanity of the preborn child in the womb is impossible to deny. Today, ultrasound images, fetal monitors, sonograms and abortion victim imagery testify to the fact that the baby in the womb is a developing person which should be protected under the US Constitution as any other person. The analogy to other past dark times in history, such as slavery, when humans were not granted their God-given rights motivate pro-lifers and abolitionists alike.

Both want abortion abolished, both say their strategy is best, hanging in the balance is the preborn child.

7 facts the average American doesn’t know about legalized abortion

Posted in Abortion History, Abortion Vintage, Roe with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on January 24, 2016 by saynsumthn

As we enter another year of legalized abortion on demand, many Americans are unaware of many facts regarding the history of abortion in the United States. To correct some of these misnomers, we have listed seven facts that the average American does not know about legal abortion.

Keep abortion legal

1. Abortion was legal prior to 1973 in certain states

In 1967, Colorado became the first state in the US to legalize abortion. The bill was introduced by then Representative Richard D. Lamm. In 1968, Georgia legalized abortion. Previously, in 1966, Mississippi had legalized the procedure for cases of rape. Then during the debate to liberalize abortion in New York in 1970, the issue of unsafe abortions swayed one representative to change his vote on the floor, opening the door to abortion on demand in that state. Which brings me to the next fact.

2. Few women died from abortion the year prior to it’s legalization:

cdc-illegal-abortion-deaths

Despite the repeated lie that thousands or millions of women died from illegal abortion, there was then as now no law requiring the deaths of women from abortion to be reported. Stats from the Center for Disease Control show that, the year prior to Roe (1972) 66 women were reportedly killed from abortion. Out of those 39 were illegal, 24 were from legal abortion and 2 were unknown. However, in the year abortion was legalized (1973), the CDC documents that more women died from legal abortion than from illegal abortions.

3. Roe in the Supreme Court case never had an abortion:

Norma McCorvey ABC News Screen

The 1973 abortion case was brought to the Supreme Court on the basis that Norma McCorvey, the Roe in the case was raped and needed an abortion. The fact is that she was never raped and never wanted an abortion. In fact, Norma is also now pro-life and is seeking to overturn the infamous decision.

4. The language for Roe was written years before the case was decided

In 1962 the American Law Institute (ALI), comprised of judges, lawyers, and law professors who suggest recommendations for revisions to state laws proposed liberal abortion language as part of the “model penal code.” As a result, between the years 1962 and 1973, nineteen states reformed their abortion laws and enacted all or part of the institute’s reform model. Hawaii, Alaska, New York, and Washington removed all limitations for performing an abortion. Portions of the language read very close to what the Justices eventually enacted and included the “exceptions” language that opened the door for abortion on demand:

“[a] licensed physician is justified in terminating a pregnancy if he believes there is a substantial risk
(1) that continuation of the pregnancy would gravely impair the physical and mental health of the mother or
(2) that the child would be born with grave physical or mental defect, or
(3) that the pregnancy resulted from rape, incest, or other felonious intercourse.”

image: Live Action video

image: Live Action video

5. Roe V. Wade allowed for unrestricted abortions up to viability (24 weeks) with states deciding thereafter (viability measures have now drastically improved)

According to Paul Pauker who summarized Roe for Live Action previously, in Roe the Supreme Court adopted a trimester framework for state regulation of abortion. The Court held: in the first trimester of pregnancy, states may not regulate abortion; in the second trimester, states may regulate abortion only in ways related to protecting the mother’s health; and in the third trimester, states may “regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”

6. Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe, opened the door for abortion on demand by allowing the “health of the mother” exception” to be defined however the doctor chose.

Pauker states that the language that seemed to allow a third trimester ban on abortion was deceptive, because in Doe, the Court gave “health” such a broad definition that states have been prevented from successfully imposing bans on abortion, including late-term abortions.

Sandra Cano img22

Testimony from Sandra Cano the Former Doe of Doe v. Bolton, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee June 23, 2005 showed that, like the Roe case, she never wanted an abortion:

“The Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court decision bears my name. I am Sandra Cano, the former ”Doe” of Doe v. Bolton. Doe v. Bolton is the companion case to Roe v. Wade. Using my name and life, Doe v. Bolton falsely created the health exception that led to abortion on demand and partial birth abortion. How it got there is still pretty much a mystery to me. I only sought legal assistance to get a divorce from my husband and to get my children from foster care. I was very vulnerable: poor and pregnant with my fourth child, but abortion never crossed my mind. Although it apparently was utmost in the mind of the attorney from whom I sought help.

7. Today, based on many lies, tragically abortions are legal in all stages of pregnancy

Late term abortion Daily Signal 2015

The U.S. is one of only seven developed countries in which late-term abortions after 20 weeks (five months) are allowed, according to a 2015 report from the Charlotte Lozier Institute. The above graphic published by the Daily Signal reveals just how many states allow abortions through all nine months of pregnancy.

More facts Americans generally do not know about legal abortion published by Live Action News here and here.

Mary Doe plaintiff in abortion companion case dies

Posted in Abortion History, Abortion in the news, Roe with tags , , , , , , on September 30, 2014 by saynsumthn

Today, Sandra Cano, Mary Doe in the Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court Decision a companion decision to Roe v. Wade has lost her battle with cancer !

According to her friends on Facebook- she passed away September 30, 2014

Sandra Cano 61984_2814900918330453419_n

The case was called Doe. Vs. Bolton and it was the companion case for Roe V. Wade.

But Cano never wanted nor had an abortion. In fact, like Norma McCorvey – Roe in the Roe v. Wade case, Cano carried the pregnancy to term.

In 1970, she gave birth to a daughter but gave her up for adoption.

The Doe decision allowed for abortion up until the moment of birth if necessary for the health of the mother.

According to Cano, the original case was advanced without her understanding of what was going on.

Cano once spoke with the National Catholic Register’s senior writer Tim Drake about the case.

Cano, who has become pro-life once told the Catholic Register, “It’s a nightmare to be connected to a case that I never wanted to be connected to. Doe v. Bolton allows abortion up to the ninth month. This case takes children’s lives.”

She explained her connection to the abortion case:

“Back in 1970,” Cano begins, “I had a very complicated marriage and had two children in foster care. I was pregnant and wanted to get my babies back from foster care. I was poor, uneducated and ignorant. My life was very unstable. I was in a survival state. I went to Atlanta Legal Aid to get a divorce. Whoever was there to try to help me, I trusted. That’s how I became unknowingly involved with Doe v. Bolton. Never once did I know that we were going to kill babies.

“I can’t understand how a case like this could go to the Supreme Court without anyone knowing or speaking to me to find out if what the attorney was presenting to the court was true. I was so ignorant I didn’t know that there were two cases that legalized abortion.

“I ran away to Oklahoma to keep from having an abortion. They knew I was against abortion. Grady Memorial Hospital said I had gone before a panel of nine doctors and nurses to seek an abortion. I never sought an abortion. The hospital has no records because I never went to the hospital.

“It was only later that I learned that, through Margie Pitt Hames, I had sued Georgia Baptist Hospital to have an abortion.”

The Register asked how she discovered the truth and she replied, “In 1974, I went to Georgia Right to Life to try to find someone to help me. I told them that I was the woman who was involved in the abortion law, but didn’t know what it was about. They sent me to Fayetteville to seek help. On and off over the years, I would come forward, but when you don’t have money or people willing to help, a lot of people think you’re someone off the nut wagon.

“In the 1980s, I talked to an Atlanta Journal and Constitution newspaper reporter. She told me I had to prove who I was. I asked, “How do you do that?” She told me I had to go down to the court to verify that I was the person involved in the case. When I did that, they told me I had to go to the Federal Archives building. When I did that, they gave me this humongous book to look through. I didn’t understand half of it. I was out of my league. There was also a sealed envelope. I wanted to open it, but couldn’t. They told me that I would have to go to the court to have my records unsealed. Someone at the court showed me how to petition the court to unseal the records.

“A week later, Judge Owen Foster called me. He told me, “I don’t normally do this, but think you need a lawyer. We’re going to be hearing your case.” I found an attorney and went down to the court to unseal the records. Margie Pitt Hames didn’t want me to open the records.

After unsealing the records I wrote to the Supreme Court. They said that the statute of limitations had passed.”

“They connected my name to a case that I never knew about in the beginning, never participated in, never believed in. I carried a guilt for many, many years. I was just a pawn,” Cano told The Blaze.

In 1989, Cano was contacted by the daughter she gave up for adoption:

Sandra Cano Daughter

A post written on Cano’s Facebook page after her death reads, “She is more happy than anyone I know to be gracing heaven. If anyone knows how to enjoy it…it’ll be Sandra. WE love you, Sandra!!! Your name lives on as someone fought for the life of a child…not the right to kill it!!! Love you!!”

In 2005 Cano gave this testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Sandra Cano img22

The Consequences of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton
June 23, 2005

Testimony of Sandra Cano the Former Doe of Doe v, Bolton, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee June 23, 2005

The Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court decision bears my name. I am Sandra Cano, the former ”Doe” of Doe v. Bolton. Doe v. Bolton is the companion case to Roe v. Wade. Using my name and life, Doe v. Bolton falsely created the health exception that led to abortion on demand and partial birth abortion. How it got there is still pretty much a mystery to me. I only sought legal assistance to get a divorce from my husband and to get my children from foster care. I was very vulnerable: poor and pregnant with my fourth child, but abortion never crossed my mind. Although it apparently was utmost in the mind of the attorney from whom I sought help. At one point during the legal proceedings, it was necessary for me to flee to Oklahoma to avoid the pressure being applied to have the abortion scheduled for me by this same attorney.

Please understand even though I have lived what many would consider an unstable life and overcome many devastating circumstances, at NO TIME did I ever have an abortion. l did not seek an abortion nor do I believe in abortion. Yet my name and life is now forever linked with the slaughter of 40-50 million babies.

I have tried to understand how it all happened. How did my divorce and child custody case become the basis by which bloody murder is done on infants thriving in the wombs of their mothers? How can cunning, wicked lawyers use an uneducated, defenseless pregnant woman to twist the American court system in such a fraudulent way? Doe has been a nightmare.

Over the last 32 years, I have become a prisoner of the case. It took me until 1988 to get my records unsealed in order for me to try and find the answer to those questions and to join in the movement to stop abortion in America. When pro abortion advocates found out about my efforts, my car was vandalized on one occasion and at another time, someone shot at me while I was on my front porch holding my grandbaby.

I am angry. I feel like my name, life, and identity have been stolen and put on this case without my knowledge and against my wishes. How dare they use my name and my life this way!

One of the Justices of the Supreme Court said during oral argument in my case “What does it matter if she is real or not.” Well I am real and it does matter.

R.I.P. Sandra Cano, God knows the truth and to Him it matters as well. Thanks for speaking up for life !!