Here is what the United States Supreme Court decided in Doe v. Bolton:
- Mary Doe and the physicians both had standing to sue in Doe v. Bolton.
- A woman’s constitutional right to abortion is not absolute.
- The health of the mother includes “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”
- The requirement that a physician’s decision to perform an abortion must be based on his best clinical judgment is not constitutionally vague because this decision can be made in light of all of the circumstances.
- The requirement that abortions in the state of Georgia be performed at hospitals accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals was determined to be unconstitutional.
- The interposition of a hospital committee on abortion was determined to be unduly restrictive of the patient’s rights, which were viewed by the United States Supreme Court to already have been safeguarded by her personal physician.
- Required acquiescence by two other physicians has no rational connection with a patient’s needs and unduly infringes on a physician’s right to practice medicine.
- The restriction of abortion to Georgia residents violates the Privileges and Immunities clause of the United States Constitution.
Here are the facts of the Doe v. Bolton case that are actually false:
- Mary Doe had been advised that an abortion could be performed on her with less danger to her health than if she gave birth to the child she was carrying.
- On March 25, 1970, Mary Doe applied to the Abortion Committee of Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, for a therapeutic abortion under Georgia state law. Her application was denied 16 days later, on April 10, when she was eight weeks pregnant, on the ground that her situation was not one described under the laws of Georgia that were in effect at that time.
- Because Mary Doe’s application was denied, she was forced either to relinquish “her right to decide when and how many children she will bear” or to seek an abortion that was illegal under the Georgia statutes.
Here are the true facts regarding Mary Doe and the pregnancy that was in question in Doe v. Bolton:
- The plaintiff in Doe v. Bolton, Mary Doe, is actually Sandra Cano.
- Sandra Cano was unwilling to undergo an abortion, even though she had been pressured by her attorney, Margie Pitts Hames, into having an abortion.
- When Sandra Cano was seeking legal assistance from Margie Pitts Hames, she was only seeking to divorce her husband at that time and to regain custody of her children.
- There is no record of Sandra Cano ever applying for a therapeutic abortion at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta.
- Sandra Cano had already had her fourth child and had already given up that child for adoption at the time that the Doe v. Bolton decision was made.
- Sandra Cano believed that abortion was morally wrong and that the Doe v. Bolton decision was wrongfully decided.
- Sandra Cano had consistently supported the reversal of the Doe v. Bolton decision.
- Sandra Cano had believed that abortion is not in the best interest of the mother.
Here are reasons why the Doe v. Bolton decision was wrong and why Doe v. Bolton must be reversed:
- The United States Supreme Court relied on false statements provided by Margie Pitts Hames, who was representing Mary Doe in Doe v. Bolton, to arrive at its final ruling in Doe v. Bolton, and these false statements had a material effect on the outcome of the Doe v. Bolton decision.
- The broad definition of health provided in the Doe v. Bolton decision has enabled abortion-on-demand to be legal during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States, up to the moment of birth.
- The Doe v. Bolton case was actually brought before the United Supreme Court against the will of Sandra Cano, who was the plaintiff in the Doe v. Bolton case.
- Sandra Cano’s due process rights were violated in the Doe v. Bolton case, regardless of the outcome of the Doe v. Bolton case, the position of the Supreme Court justices that decided Doe v. Bolton, or the correctness of the final decision of the Doe v. Bolton case, because Doe v. Bolton was filed against her will and because she was not afforded an opportunity to get the true facts of her side of the story before the United States Supreme Court during the Doe v. Bolton case.
- Margie Pitts Hames, who was the attorney representing Sandra Cano in Doe v. Bolton, engaged in unethical actions, including bringing the Doe v. Bolton case against the will of Sandra Cano and making false statements during the Doe v. Bolton case.
- The procedural conditions on abortion under Georgia state law that were declared to be unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Doe v. Bolton were restricting the practice of medicine, which is a privilege afforded to validly licensed physicians and is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, and these procedural conditions should not have been declared unconstitutional because these procedural conditions were regulating privileges afforded to validly licensed physicians.
- The rights of a pregnant woman are not always adequately safeguarded when she seeks to obtain reproductive medical services at abortion providers because abortion providers often coerce pregnant patients into undergoing abortions and because abortionists often make medical judgments that are not in the best interest of the pregnant woman who is considering an abortion.
- The state has various legitimate governmental interests, including but not limited to a legitimate interest in regulating the medical profession, a legitimate interest in regulating an individual physician’s privilege of practicing medicine, a legitimate interest in protecting the lives of unborn children who are viable outside of the womb, and a legitimate interest in protecting pregnant women against serious errors in medical judgment that might lead to the death of an unborn child or serious harm to the mother, that justify regulations on abortion that are similar to those that have been wrongfully declared to be unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Doe v. Bolton.
- The Doe v. Bolton decision must be reversed, even if legal support for abortion still exists in the United States, because this decision was attained in violation of the due process rights of Sandra Cano, because this decision resulted from false statements that materially affected the outcome of this case, because this decision resulted from judicial errors made by justices of the United States Supreme Court during this case, and because this decision is contrary to the intent of the provisions of the United States Constitution that were applied to this case and the Roe v. Wade case.
In an effort to reverse the Doe v. Bolton decision, Sandra Cano filed an affidavit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia back in 2003, and that affidavit can be found here.
Sandra Cano tragically passed away on September 30th from complications of throat cancer. Even though the Doe v. Bolton decision was unable to be successfully reversed during her lifetime, there is still hope that the Doe v. Bolton decision will be reversed.