High Court Refuses Plaintiffs' Appeal to Vacate 1973 Abortion Rulings
by Ed Thomas
October 12, 2006
(AgapePress) - - The United States Supreme Court has rejected the appeals of two plaintiffs attempting to have the companion rulings in their landmark abortion cases -- rulings that helped to establish the "right" of abortion on demand 33 years ago -- set aside. But, even though the high court refused to consider the appeal, one pro-life attorney says the symbolism of their effort is still significant.Brian Fahling is senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy (AFA Law Center). He says although the U.S. Supreme Court this week turned away the appeal of Sandra Cano -- who was the anonymous "Doe" of Doe v. Bolton -- the high court made this decision based on the technical requirements for the merits of such an appeal, not due to pro-abortion prejudice.
Brian Fahling | |
Fahling says the court has to be able to provide a proper remedy or relief in order to apply Rule 60(b), a civil procedure regulation that relates to the reversal of a court order or judgment. In the case of Doe v. Bolton, he explains, as far as any kind of relief that the court could have afforded to the woman on whose behalf the appeal was filed, "there really was none."Cano's case shares the fate of a previous appeal attempted by Roe v. Wade plaintiff Norma McCorvey. Both women were attempting to have their landmark court decisions vacated on the grounds that each woman was coerced and their original cases were based on falsehoods. The AFA Law Center's senior trial attorney sees these facts as important reinforcement for the pro-life movement in its fight to end abortion-on-demand in America.
It is helpful, Fahling asserts, for pro-lifers to be reminded of the truth to which Cano and McCorvey are now attesting, about the deception and strong-arm tactics by abortion proponents that went into securing the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton abortion rulings.
"I think it is helpful for us to be reminded of that," the attorney says, "to see that and to see that those decisions are not only legally abhorrent and wrong but factually as well." What this reminder does, he contends, is it "brings back into the public consciousness, really, that this culture of death that was inaugurated with Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton was predicated on a lie."
The underlying falsehood of the abortion rulings is apparent in the first instance with Nora McCorvey, "who said she was raped and was not," Fahling says, "and now [with] Sandra Cano, who said she was essentially browbeaten into saying that she wanted an abortion when she, in fact, did not."
Millions of innocent unborn babies have been killed as a result of the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, Fahling observes -- companion rulings that created a "right" to abortion based on falsehoods. However, he believes Cano and McCorvey's efforts have not been in vain and says just the ladies' presentation of the truth to the court has great significance.
Ed Thomas, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.
