Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
A political polling firm lost a Supreme Court challenge Tuesday to a North Dakota law that bars telemarketers from making prerecorded interstate calls to the state’s residents. The North Dakota Do-Not-Call law says callers cannot use robo-call machines unless a live operator first obtains the subscriber’s consent before a prerecorded message is delivered. The Virginia-based political polling firm FreeEats.com argued that the North Dakota law is pre-empted by the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which allows prerecorded noncommercial calls. Justices declined to review a state Supreme Court ruling upholding the law. FreeEats.com used a prerecorded voice to ask questions about gun rights, abortion and tuition tax credits for attending private schools. Recipients were asked to respond by pushing buttons on their touch-tone phones. The case is FreeEats.com v. North Dakota, 06-127. Court rejects 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 that the justices ruled on the same day in 1973 as the landmark Roe v. Wade. “We’re very disappointed that the Supreme Court has not decided to protect women and children from the harm of abortion,” said Allan Parker, one of Cano’s attorneys. “The Court has aborted the normal regulation of medicine in this area.” Cano says she was a 22-year-old victim of an abusive husband and that her children were in foster care when she sought legal assistance in getting a divorce and in getting her children back. She said an aggressive attorney pushed her into the abortion case. “What I received was something I never requested — the legal right to abort my child,” Cano said in an affidavit six years ago. 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. Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.