{"id":177894,"date":"2018-01-17T18:44:15","date_gmt":"2018-01-17T23:44:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=177894"},"modified":"2018-01-17T18:47:56","modified_gmt":"2018-01-17T23:47:56","slug":"woman-behind-doe-v-bolton","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/woman-behind-doe-v-bolton\/","title":{"rendered":"7 facts to know about the woman behind Doe v. Bolton<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

On January 22, it will be 45 years since U.S. Supreme Court decisions legalized abortion on demand in all 50 states. Most Americans know of Roe\u00a0v. Wade. <\/em>But it was Roe’s<\/em> companion decision, Doe v. Bolton, <\/em>which legalized the procedure throughout all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason.\u00a0The cases were decided the same day, January 22, 1973.<\/p>\n

The Court’s reasoning was that with pro-life laws, exceptions must be made for the health (including mental health) of the mother. But this loophole was a large one. As was explained<\/a> in light of the 40th anniversary of the decision:<\/p>\n

In Doe<\/em>, the Court announced that health, for the purposes of late-term abortion law, would be synonymous with the mother’s “physical, emotional, psychological, familial \u2026 wellbeing”\u2014in other words, every reason a pregnant woman could give for seeking an abortion in the first place.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The “Doe” in Doe v. Bolton<\/em>\u00a0was a woman named Sandra Cano. Here are some facts about Cano, and the decision which bore her name.<\/p>\n

1. Sandra Cano did not want an abortion.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Cano did not actually want an abortion, but was seeking legal help to get custody of her children in foster care while she was pregnant with her fourth child and divorcing her husband, as detailed by<\/a> EndRoe.org. Cano believed:<\/p>\n

… [H]er lawyer, Margie Pitts Hames, tricked her into signing the affidavit that formed the basis of the plaintiff’s charges in Doe<\/em>. “I do not believe it is my signature on the affidavit, and Margie either forged my signature or slipped this document in with other papers while I was signing divorce papers. I never told Margie that I wanted an abortion. The facts stated in the affidavit in Doe v. Bolton<\/em> are not true.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Not only did Cano not want an abortion, she briefly escaped to Oklahoma after her mother and her attorney (Hames) tried to have her get one. Doe, <\/em>however, alleged that Cano had sought an abortion, with Pitts likely having forged her signature or having her sign it in addition to her divorce papers.<\/p>\n

After the initial court hearing, Cano would never get to appear in court again for Doe v. Bolton<\/em>.<\/p>\n

2. Cano spent her life trying to overturn this legacy.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Cano has made no secret about how she did not want to be part of the Doe<\/em> decision. She expressed such sentiments in many interviews, from the National Catholic Register<\/a> to the pro-abortion Huffington Post<\/a>.\u00a0Father Frank Pavone shared how, at a rally in 1997, Cano vowed<\/a>, “I pledge that as long as I have breath, I will strive to see abortion ended in America.”<\/p>\n

In 2005, she testified<\/a> before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in “The Consequences of Roe v. Wade <\/em>and Doe v. Bolton<\/em>.\u201d She referred to Doe <\/em>as “a nightmare,” adding:<\/p>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In 2006’s Cano v. Baker, <\/em>she asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to reconsider Doe, <\/em>though her request was denied.<\/p>\n

Cano spent the rest of her life actively trying to end the legacy of abortion which came about from such a case. She died in September 2014, in Georgia, where her case came from. She had developed throat cancer, and was also suffering from sepsis and heart failure when she died on September 30 that year.<\/p>\n

\"Sandra<\/a>

Sandra Cano, the Doe in the Doe v. Bolton<\/em> abortion case<\/p><\/div>\n

3. Cano was poor, like many women taken advantage of by the abortion industry<\/strong><\/p>\n

In Abuse of Discretion, <\/em>Clarke D. Forsythe\u00a0explained how<\/a> the Court was told Cano did not receive an abortion due to poverty. While Cano was indeed poor, this did not mean she wanted an abortion. It was just one way in which her pro-abortion attorneys took advantage of her and disrespected her with such an assumption that has persisted today when it comes to reasons why women need abortion.<\/p>\n

In her testimony before Congress, she noted, “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.”<\/p>\n

As she expanded upon in her 2006 interview with the National Catholic Register:<\/p>\n

\n

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\u2019s how I became unknowingly involved with Doe v. Bolton<\/i>. Never once did I know that we were going to kill babies.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Abortion advocates before and since then have turned to taking advantage of women in poverty. This includes Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, who spoke out against<\/a>\u00a0certain segments of society being allowed to have children.<\/p>\n

4. Like many others, Cano suffered from her involvement with abortion.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Cano has spoken of the case as being a “nightmare” and being “a prisoner.” She described it as “a doom upon her shoulders,” according to<\/a> Allan Parker of the Justice Foundation, who was acquainted with her.<\/p>\n

In her testimony she also shared how “I feel like my name, life, and identity have been stolen and put on this case without my knowledge and against my wishes.\u201d<\/p>\n

Post-abortive men and women have also shared a litany of strong emotions, a sampling of which can be found at<\/a>\u00a0Silent No More. Former abortionists have also expressed regret, including the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson<\/a>, and Dr. Anthony Levatino, who is featured in Live Action’s “Abortion Procedures”<\/a> video series.<\/p>\n