Health care reform must respect life, and not contain provisions that mandate or encourage the withdrawal or curtailment of effective life-sustaining treatment to the terminally ill, the chronically ill, or the permanently disabled. Therefore, the provisions that address end-of-life issues must be amended to leave no room for an interpretation that would pressure healthcare providers to make decisions based on cost rather than best medical care.

Section 1233 of the House bill includes vague, federally defined end-of-life counseling. We are concerned that such counseling might put subtle pressure on patients to make decisions not on sound medical bases but in order to conserve costs. Additionally, the bill does not define terms such as “palliative care” and “end-of-life services,” raising the question of whether a discussion about euthanasia might even be mandated.

Section 2707 of the Senate HELP bill requires that insurers develop and implement a reimbursement structure for making payments to healthcare providers that includes incentives for use of evidence based medicine and best clinical practices. This and other provisions in the bill create the possibility that health care coverage determinations could be based on a patient’s health status, age, and/or quality of life. The resulting structure could become a means of advocating for the least expensive treatment at the expense of respect for life. With cost as a primary driver, the elderly, sick, and disabled may find their options for care severely limited.

Supporters of the healthcare reform bills claim that the legislation will not lead to the withdrawal or curtailment of life-sustaining healthcare, or put pressure on doctors and patients to hasten death. However, amendments offered in the Senate HELP Committee to address these concerns were defeated, including the following: (1) amendments to prevent the denial of end of life care and prohibit rationing on the basis of patient age, disability, medical dependency, or quality of life; (2) an amendment to ensure that taxpayers were not forced to fund assisted suicide; (3) an amendment that would have prevented private health insurers from being prohibited from covering treatment; (4) an amendment that would have ensured all individuals have access to essential health benefits; and (5) an amendment that would have required certification that participating plans do not have a pattern of practice or denying coverage based on their age, expected length of life, and disability.

If the supporters of these healthcare reform measures do not intend to withdraw or curtail life-sustaining healthcare for many patients, why are they unwilling to include clarifying language in the bills? We urge members of Congress to clarify these provisions before a bill is brought to the House and Senate floors.

On the editorial page of today’s Wall Street Journal, the editors offer a primer in rationing: what it is, and why it is key to President Obama’s plans for health care reform. They observe:

While claims about euthanasia and ‘death panels’ are over the top, senior fears have exposed a fundamental truth about what Mr. Obama is proposing: Namely, once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, rationing care is inevitable, and those who have lived the longest will find their care the most restricted. [Read the full article.]

AUL Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe says the article clarifies a distinction that supporters of ObamaCare ignore when they claim that the President’s reform plan would be no different than the rationing of goods and services that already exists. “In a practical manner, the limits and constraints in this world result in goods being rationed,” Forsythe says. “We don’t have all the time or money or material goods we might like or need.  But there’s an important distinction between rationing according to prices and limits in the marketplace and rationing by government budget and government officials.”

TAKE ACTION: Get the facts on the health care reform plans currently under consideration and sign the “Keep Abortion Out of Health Care” petition at AUL’s RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com.

Health care reform must respect life, and not contain provisions that mandate or encourage the withdrawal or curtailment of effective life-sustaining treatment to the terminally ill, the chronically ill, or the permanently disabled.  Therefore, the provisions that address end-of-life issues must be amended to leave no room for an interpretation that would pressure healthcare providers to make decisions based on cost rather than best medical care.

Section 1233 of the House bill includes vague, federally defined end-of-life counseling.  We are concerned that such counseling might put subtle pressure on patients to make decisions not on sound medical bases but in order to conserve costs.  Additionally, the bill does not define terms such as “palliative care” and “end-of-life services,” raising the question of whether a discussion about euthanasia might even be mandated.

Section 2707 of the Senate HELP bill requires that insurers develop and implement a reimbursement structure for making payments to healthcare providers that includes incentives for use of evidence based medicine and best clinical practices.  This and other provisions in the bill create the possibility that health care coverage determinations could be based on a patient’s health status, age, and/or quality of life.  The resulting structure could become a means of advocating for the least expensive treatment at the expense of respect for life.  With cost as a primary driver, the elderly, sick, and disabled may find their options for care severely limited.

Supporters of the healthcare reform bills claim that the legislation will not lead to the withdrawal or curtailment of life-sustaining healthcare, or put pressure on doctors and patients to hasten death.  However, amendments offered in the Senate HELP Committee to address these concerns were defeated, including the following: (1) amendments to prevent the denial of end of life care and prohibit rationing on the basis of patient age, disability, medical dependency, or quality of life; (2) an amendment to ensure that taxpayers were not forced to fund assisted suicide; (3) an amendment that would have prevented private health insurers from being prohibited from covering treatment; (4) an amendment that would have ensured all individuals have access to essential health benefits; and (5) an amendment that would have required certification that participating plans do not have a  pattern of practice or denying coverage based on their age, expected length of life, and disability.

If the supporters of these healthcare reform measures do not intend to withdraw or curtail life-sustaining healthcare for many patients, why are they unwilling to include clarifying language in the bills?  We urge members of Congress to clarify these provisions before a bill is brought to the House and Senate floors.

London tabloid The Daily Mail has published a powerful testimony from a TV host affirming the dignity of human life: “Why I am opposed to euthanasia after 14 years of caring for mum.”

Charlie Ottley’s mother was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, an aggressive form of cancer of the plasma cells, and was expected to have no more than four years to live. Instead, she is now approaching the world record for survival of the disease, having held on for 14 years — and Ottley, a 37-year-old travel expert and poetry writer for TV and radio, has put his career on hold so that he may be her primary caretaker. He rents a cottage across the street from her so that she may receive care in her own house, as her wish is to die at home.

In the story, Ottley tells how his experience has turned him against euthanasia:

I believe it’s worth fighting for every moment of life – which is why I was so dismayed to hear in the past few days that there are 800 British people on a waiting list for Dignitas, an organisation in Switzerland that helps ill people end their lives.

Last week, it emerged that peers [in the House of Lords] are to debate a proposal to remove the threat of prosecution from family members who help their relatives to end their lives prematurely. It’s a controversial topic, but I can tell you that after years of caring for my grievously ill mother, I am more opposed to euthanasia than ever.

Apart from anything else, I owe it to such a remarkable woman to do all I can to prolong her life. [Read the full article.]

Here in the United States, Americans United for Life is taking the lead in the fight against a district-court ruling in Montana that permitted assisted suicide in that state. We’ve created a special Web page to keep you informed of our efforts in the case, which is currently on appeal to Montana’s Supreme Court.

LEARN MORE: Read about AUL’s work to preserve human dignity at the end of life in the latest edition of our annual legislative guide Defending Life.

Today Americans United for Life (AUL) filed an amicus curiae brief before the Montana Supreme Court on behalf of 28 bi-partisan Montana Senators and Representatives, arguing that there is no right to assisted suicide under the State’s constitution.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of AUL stated, “It is appalling that the district court has attempted to unilaterally manufacture a state constitutional right to assisted suicide – a right that has no basis in the history of our nation.  Instead, Montana has compelling interests in protecting all human life and in preventing the abuses inherent in assisted suicide.”

In December 2008, a state district court ruled that, under the Montana Constitution, individuals have a right to suicide, and a right to assistance in committing suicide.  However, the judge did not impose any restrictions on the practice, even leaving room for the active euthanasia of patients by their physicians.

“The district court held that a person’s constitutional rights are ‘defeated’ if she does not receive assistance in dying.  This means that anyone—even a patient who cannot administer lethal drugs herself—is entitled to have a physician kill them,” observed Mailee Smith, AUL Staff Counsel. 

She continued, “What’s even worse is that there is no requirement that another person witness the suicide request or that there be written documentation of the request and the basis for it.  Physicians can unilaterally decide that their patients want to die, with no paper trail to hold them accountable.  That is not assisted suicide—that is euthanasia.”

AUL worked in conjunction with the Montana Attorney General’s office in coordinating amicus curiae briefs supporting the State’s prohibition of assisted suicide.  AUL’s brief can be accessed here.

In 2008, the states of Washington and Montana legalized assisted suicide, joining Oregon which legalized the practice in 1994.  This legalization of assisted suicide in America demands a truthful look at the logical outcome when this form of killing is accepted.  The logical outcome—as we see in Switzerland—is not just assisted suicide of the terminally ill, but assisted suicide of the healthy.

Ludwig Minelli—founder of the Swiss assisted suicide clinic, Dignitas—recently revealed plans to help a healthy Canadian woman die along side her terminally-ill husband.  Minelli told England’s BBC radio “suicide is a marvelous, marvelous possibility given to a human being in order to escape a situation which is unbearable.”  He also has no hesitation in killing psychiatric patients suffering from depression or mental illness.  In Minelli’s opinion, anyone who has the “mental capacity” should be permitted to commit suicide, even healthy patients.

Switzerland has the most liberal assisted suicide laws in the world—in part as a result of Minelli’s continuing challenges to even the modest boundaries of the Swiss assisted suicide law.  Switzerland legalized assisted suicide in 1918 and is the only jurisdiction that allows nonresidents to kill themselves.  In November 2006, the Swiss Supreme Court expanded the law by declaring a constitutional right to assisted suicide for psychiatric patients and other mentally ill individuals.

For Minelli, the next step in the right to assisted suicide is for the healthy to be permitted to kill themselves.  For him, this is a “marvelous opportunity” to further his agenda and extend the permissiveness of assisted suicide in Switzerland and for those willing to travel there.  He announced his intentions to assist the Canadian couple with full expectation that the case ultimately will end up in courts where he can push for further expansion of the right to assisted suicide.

Minelli is not a doctor, but a human rights lawyer.  He, along with other advocates for assisted suicide, rely on two ideological principles:  1) Individual Autonym— principally, that it is the “ultimate civil liberty” to control the time, manner and place of our own death;  and 2) Killing is an acceptable answer to human suffering.

Assisted-suicide advocates argue that laws can create safeguards to prevent abuses and protect the most vulnerable.  They have managed to convince many Americans, who naively rely on these assertions and believe assisted suicide will be only for the old, the sick, and the dying.  But in reality, Minelli and Switzerland’s laws reveal the true debate. It shows America that the end goal of assisted suicide advocates is to make it available to all—even those who may not really want to die, but are depressed over a difficult time in their lives.

Thus, initially limiting assisted suicide to the terminally ill is only the first in a line of incremental steps for society to accept killing as an alternative to human suffering.  The next is the killing of those with other illnesses and psychiatric patients, then the healthy.  If not informed and wise, America will quickly find herself a nation ridden with euthanasia—where her most vulnerable, in need of protection and help, are simply put to death.

Are you in or out?  That is the question for hospitals across the state of Washington, as each one determines its policy on the “Death with Dignity Act” passed through voter initiative (Initiative 1000) last November.   The Act went into effect last week, 120 days after the election.

The trend in America allowing individuals, primarily licensed physicians, to legally counsel and assist a patient in ending his or her life is alarming.  However, this law and view of life is a logical follow-on to legalized abortion and the categorization of unwanted or undesired life.  If our nation’s laws permit a licensed physician to counsel and perform an abortion–ending a baby’s life–for pragmatic reasons, why would not the next logical right declared in law permit licensed physicians to assist those wanting to end their lives through suicide?

Our nation’s inclination toward death over life is troubling and drastic.  In the days before Initiative 1000, one opinion writer called upon “responsible citizens” to disregard emotions and vote with “logical minds.”  He continued, “Our feelings cannot be allowed to govern other people’s rights. If a human being is suffering, they have the right to ease that suffering through whatever means are available to them,” including ending one’s life with the aid of a licensed physician.

I suggest those in favor of this legislation are in fact the ones voting with their emotions, choosing death because they are emotionally unable to deal with the discomfort and thought of possibly dying in six months or less.  Yet, what about our logical minds?

The logical mind inquires into what principles and policies underlie this radical law, departing from our people’s declared unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  When did a right to Death creep into our purview?   The logical mind remembers America’s ‘can do’ attitude of triumphing over trials and facing hardship with dignity–not surrendering to hopelessness and quitting.  The logical mind asks, “Can I trust a licensed physician to treat me for a potentially fatal disease when I know he believes at some point I should conclude that I have no hope and should kill myself with his assistance?”

Policies and laws impact the views of the people.  When our nation took the step to permit abortions, it began to degrade our citizen’s view and value of life.  With Oregon and now the state of Washington accepting that some people are better off killing themselves, our nation faces a critical point of evaluating the logical steps to follow.

Yes, Americans need to be responsible citizens and use their logical minds.  They must realize the individual with terminal illness or the woman with an unwanted pregnancy may have difficulty looking beyond the challenges of the day.  People in these emotionally-laden positions should not be counseled out of desperateness into hastening death.  On the contrary, these individuals need realistic encouragement to face the difficulties ahead and to be given hope for life tomorrow.  Death is a certainty of life, but the timing and means of death are not decisions to rest on the shoulders of human beings.  Rather, they should be left to the Creator in whom our unalienable rights originate.

In a recent column, AUL Board member George Weigel writes of the late Pope John Paul II and how his view of America evolved during his life.  One particular observation of the beloved pontiff (from 1997) seems particular apropos as America inaugurates a new President:

No expression of today’s [American] commitment to liberty and justice for all can be more basic than the protection offered to those in society who are most vulnerable.  The United States of America was founded on the conviction that an inalienable right to life was a self-evident moral truth, fidelity to which was a primary criterion for social justice.  The moral history of [America] is the story of [its] people’s efforts to widen the circle of inclusion in society, so that all Americans might enjoy the protection of law, participate in the responsibilities of citizenship, and have the opportunity to make a contribution to the common good.  Whenever a certain category of people — the unborn or the sick and old — are excluded from that protection, a deadly anarchy subverts the original understanding of justice.  The credibility of the United States will depend more and more on its promotion of a genuine culture of life, and on a renewed commitment to building a world in which the weakest and most vulnerable are welcomed and protected.

Let’s pray the President Obama and his Administration take heed of this wisdom.

“[R]ecognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”  Preamble, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

On December 10, 1948, in the immediate aftermath of the horror and carnage of World War II, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), a document affirming the dignity and rights of all human beings.  What has been described by some as a “Magna Carta for all humanity” has been translated into more than 200 languages and remains one of the best known and most often cited human rights documents in the world.

The UDHR was drafted by the Commission on Human Rights of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations, chaired by social activist and former American First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt.  Its 30 enumerated articles detail the civil, social, cultural, economic, and political rights of all human beings.

To read the entire article, please click here.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 11, 2008

Americans United for Life Releases Eight New Model Legislation & Policy Guides: Twenty-Three Model Legislation & Policy Guides Now Available

Chicago, Illinois — Americans United for Life (AUL) today released its 2009 Model Legislation & Policy Guides. With the addition of eight new guides this year, AUL now offers 23 pieces of model legislation on key issues related to abortion, protection of unborn victims of violence, bioethics, healthcare rights of conscience, and the end-of-life.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO said, “AUL is the leading developer of cutting-edge pro-life legislation that saves lives today and lays the groundwork for a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law.”

New additions to AUL’s library of model legislation include a state legislative resolution opposing the federal Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a prohibition on coerced abortions, and The Child Protection Act—comprehensive legislation to ensure abortion providers report child sexual abuse and prevent the transportation of children across state lines for clandestine abortions.

Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs added, “Each year, AUL legal and policy experts provide extensive consulting and support to legislators across the nation, helping to enact protective laws that advance a culture of life. We look forward to partnering with legislators and pro-life allies in 2009 to build on our past successes.”

All of AUL’s Model Legislation & Policy Guides are available at http://www.aul.org/Legislative_Guides

As the public is well-aware by now, a Montana trial court ruled on Friday that persons in the state have 1) a right to die, and 2) a right to assistance in dying.  Thus, Montana became the third state (after Oregon and Washington) to allow physician-assisted suicide (PAS).  There are many problematic aspects of the decision, and I have written a legal summary of the decision here .  But there are a number of practical issues that must be at the forefront of any discussion of the Montana decision.

First and foremost, the State of Montana has absolutely no safeguards in place to prevent abuse of PAS or use by non-terminally-ill patients.  The court actually acknowledged that the state currently has no safeguards in place, and that there are no definitions of who is “competent” or “terminally-ill” and therefore eligible for assisted suicide.  In fact, the court leaves that decision completely to physicians—with no legal guidance on how to determine whether a person is competent to choose assisted suicide.

Further, the plaintiffs had stated in prior pleadings that assisted suicide should be available to anyone who takes life-sustaining medications, who would die within a reasonable amount of time without taking those medications.  That would include persons with controlled diabetes or asthma who, without taking their medications, would necessarily die within a “reasonable” amount of time.

In that regard, the status of PAS in Montana is completely unregulated.  Contrary to Oregon and Washington, there are no so-called “safeguards” in place.  (And even in Oregon, those safeguards have proven to be fairly ineffective, with the state health plan failing to cover treatments for terminally-ill patients but offering to provide assisted suicide instead.) 

The court also made drastic statements degrading human life and the lives of terminally-ill patients.  The court stated, “It is difficult to imagine a compelling interest in preserving the life of an individual who is suffering pain and the indignity of his disease….”  Basically, the court stated that there is no compelling interest in saving a terminally ill person—that terminally-ill patients have no worth, and there is no compelling interest in ensuring that they are not killed.

Finally, not only is physician-assisted suicide completely unregulated under this opinion, but the court’s rationale totally supports active euthanasia by physicians.  In determining that a patient has a right to die and die with assistance, the court stated that without assistance, the “constitutional right to die with dignity” of some patients would be defeated.  But this rationale applies not only to patients who are still able to ingest lethal drugs, but also to patients whose diseases have left them without the ability to physically take the drugs themselves.  The logical extension of the court’s rationale is that when patients’ dignity rights can be preserved only by obtaining assistance in death from physicians, that assistance can and must include the physician actually performing the act itself (i.e., committing the killing of the patient through euthanasia). 

Moreover, the court acknowledged that, at this point, there are no safeguards for physicians who do not wish to participate in PAS or euthanasia—leaving the conscience rights of those physicians completely unprotected.

Thus, the public policy implications of this decision are tremendous—and dangerous.  One judge has single-handedly allowed PAS and euthanasia throughout the state of Montana, and ignored the proper legislative process (at the end of the opinion, the court directs the legislature to “implement the right” to PAS).  AUL is urging the state to appeal this extremely dangerous decision.

Americans United for Life (AUL) condemns a Montana trial court’s ruling that persons in the state have a right to die by assisted suicide, and urges the state to appeal the decision to the Montana State Supreme Court.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President and CEO, stated, “This ruling begins the descent toward euthanasia and even a duty to die in Montana. We have already seen cases in Oregon where patients are denied state insurance coverage for life-saving treatments and are told instead the state will pay for their suicides. Assisting someone in committing suicide is never a compassionate choice.”

Mailee Smith, AUL Staff Counsel added, “This court’s decision sets the stage for an even more dangerous situation than what exists in other states where physician-assisted suicide is already permitted. The plaintiffs in this case argued assisted suicide should be available to a broader group of patients than can even receive lethal drugs in Oregon or Washington. In Montana, assisted suicide will not be limited to patients with terminal illnesses.”

The case, Baxter v. State, was brought by a group of physicians and ill patients who challenged the state’s homicide statutes arguing the public policy of Montana should be read to support assisted suicide.

Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs, stated, “In siding with suicide advocates in this case, the trial court has opened the gates for suicide-on-demand in the state of Montana. Anyone who survives on medication will be entitled to assisted suicide, and there are no safeguards ensuring that persons requesting suicide are not suffering from a treatable mental illness.”

During the 110th Congress, at least 97 bills and resolutions were considered in the areas of abortion, contraception, stem-cell research and cloning, artificial reproductive technologies, genetic counseling, healthcare rights of conscience, and the end-of-life.

Read the full article at AUL.org/110Review

Washington State voters approved I-1000 on November 4, 2008, making Washington the second state in the nation to legalize physician-assisted suicide (PAS). However, hospitals and healthcare providers in Washington are coming forward in opposition to PAS, refusing to assist in patient suicides despite the fact that the practice is now legal in the state.

The Washington State Medical Association, which strongly opposed I-1000, has asserted that although PAS is now legal, the new law does not require physicians, hospitals, and other healthcare facilities and professionals to offer and participate in the suicide of their patients.

Individual healthcare providers have now taken the Washington State Medical Association at its word that their rights will be protected. SpokesmanReview.com, a Washington-based media outlet, has reported that Eastern Washington’s largest healthcare provider, Providence Health and Services, has instituted a policy prohibiting physicians from assisting in the suicides of patients at its hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted care facilities. Providence Health and Services operates eight hospitals in Washington State.

A statement issued by Sacred Heart Medical Center and Holy Family Hospital declared, “Providence will not support physician-assisted suicide within its ministries…This position is grounded in our basic values of respect for the sacredness of life, compassionate care of dying and vulnerable persons, and respect for the integrity of medical, nursing and allied health professions. We do not believe health care providers should ever be put in a position of aiding a patient in taking his or her own life.”

Thus, these events have implicated not only end-of-life issues facing healthcare providers, but also those providers’ right of conscience—the right of individuals and institutions to practice their profession in accordance with their consciences and religious beliefs, without being discriminated against or forced to choose between their livelihood and their moral convictions. We are all aware of the rights of conscience attacks healthcare providers have faced in the areas of abortion and contraception—it logically follows that PAS advocates will attack as well.

Specifically, the “right” to contraception and  the “right to choose” have had the severe adverse effect of trumping the right to religious freedom, the very right upon which our country was founded. In addition, the “right” to contraception and the “right to choose” have also created a new “duty to provide” for healthcare professionals. Now, it is not enough to simply have a “right” to contraception and a “right to choose”; healthcare providers in many situations have been forced to cater to that “right” absolutely and without question, even if it means a violation of their own fundamental right to religious freedom.

It may not be long before healthcare providers in Washington will similarly be called upon to violate their consciences or else be forced to leave their professions. The approval of I-1000 has created a new “right to die” in Washington, which may very well generate a corresponding absolute “duty to provide” for healthcare professionals, just as the “right to choose” has resulted in abortion advocates urging a duty to provide in the abortion context.

Like Pandora’s box, the legalization of physician-assisted suicide in Washington presents a multitude of both hidden and apparent dangers for Washington citizens. Currently, Washington law does not explicitly protect healthcare providers who conscientiously object to participation in PAS.  It is only a matter of time before we see the Washington State Medical Association’s stance attacked by PAS advocates.  Thus, it is imperative that Washington legislators mobilize now and enact rights of conscience legislation that specifically protects healthcare providers from being forced to participate in physician-assisted suicide.

Americans United for Life (AUL) today released analysis of the results of yesterday’s life-related ballot initiatives. The election saw pro-life ballot initiatives on abortion defeated in California, Colorado, and South Dakota while initiatives legalizing physician-assisted suicide in Washington state and destructive embryonic stem cell research in Michigan were approved.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of AUL said: “We applaud the work of those who strove to protect human life through state ballot initiatives this year. We will continue working at both the state and federal levels in the days ahead to advance the culture of life. These results do not square with an American electorate that is increasingly pro-life. The life movement will reassess and regroup for the next election cycle with new ways to communicate that even the weakest amongst us should be welcomed in life and defended in law.”

California: Defeat of Proposition 4 (Parental Notice)
For the third time in six years, California voters failed to pass Proposition 4, or “Sarah’s Law,” an amendment to the California Constitution that would have protected parental rights and the safety of minors by ensuring that parents are notified of their minor daughter’s abortion at least 48 hours prior to the abortion.

“The defeat of Proposition 4 is a loss for California parents and children who remain vulnerable to sexual abuse, coerced abortions, and inadequate care at abortion facilities” said Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs. “Proposition 4 would have put California in line with the rest of the nation, as the vast majority of the states have enacted parental involvement laws.”

Washington: Approval of Initiative 1000 (Physician-Assisted Suicide)
In Washington state, I-1000 was approved by voters, making Washington the second state — after Oregon — to legalize physician-assisted suicide. The newly enacted measure creates financial incentives for healthcare insurance companies to deny coverage for life-saving treatment and to pressure vulnerable patients to choose physician-assisted suicide. In addition, the measure does not provide adequate safeguards for those suffering from treatable mental illnesses, and requires physicians participating in patient suicides to falsify death certificates.

“The approval of Washington Initiative 1000 poses dangers for the rest of the nation,” stated J. Margaret Datiles, AUL Staff Counsel. “Now that physician-assisted suicide has been legalized in a state other than Oregon, assisted-suicide advocates will be working relentlessly to legalize the practice across the country.”

Michigan: Approval of Proposal 2 (Embryonic Stem-Cell Research)
Michigan voters approved Proposal 2, the “Stem Cell Initiative.” The amendment legalizes destructive research on human embryos, and will allow government funding for research on human embryos produced in fertility clinics.

“It’s deeply troubling that a state would vote to legalize destructive embryonic stem-cell research at a time when research using adult stem cells is making such progress. It is truly a waste,” added Smith.

South Dakota: Defeat of Initiated Measure 11 (Abortion Ban)
South Dakota failed to pass Initiated Measure 11, a constitutional amendment that would have banned abortions in South Dakota, except for those performed in cases of rape or incest, or when continued pregnancy severely endangers the woman’s life or health. In 2006, South Dakota voters failed to pass a similar ban.

“Although ultimately unsuccessful, Initiated Measure 11 furthered the debate over the impact of abortion on women, the unborn, and our nation,” said AUL Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe. “Given the mounting evidence of the negative impact of abortion, this is a discussion that we must continue to pursue in the days ahead.”

Colorado: Defeat of Proposition 48 (Human Life Amendment)
Colorado voters failed to pass Proposition 48, the “Colorado Equal Rights Amendment,” which would have amended the Colorado Constitution to define “person” as “any human being from the moment of fertilization,” impacting actions undertaken by the State and its officials.

“As with the South Dakota abortion ban, the Colorado Human Life Amendment sparked needed debate and discussion within the pro-life movement,” said Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs, “We are confident that the pro-life movement will emerge from this election cycle stronger, wiser, and more determined.”

With today’s election, the pro-life movement is at a critical crossroads. We need every pro-life American to vote today!

But after we’ve voted and the dust settles, what will we do next? Please join me and our AUL experts for a post-election conference call (toll free) on Wednesday, November 5 at 3pm ET (2pm CT, 1pm MT, 12pm PT) for 30 minutes of pro-life election summary and analysis, followed by a time of Q&A.

We will discuss the impact of the new President, the changed makeup of Congress, countless state legislative races, and the five pro-life state ballot measures.

To join the call, you must register. Visit http://tinyurl.com/5gfebx to sign up ASAP.

And please invite your friends to join us.

My op-ed on Washington State’s Initiative 1000 appears on page B5 of yesterday’s (Sunday’s) Washington Times.

The article discusses the dangers of WA I-1000. The measure would legalize physician-assisted suicide and create financial incentives for healthcare insurance companies to deny coverage for life-saving medications and push patients to commit suicide. It would also require physicians to falsify death certificates and endanger those suffering from depression and other common, treatable mental illnesses. Moreover, it would allow those with financial interests in the death of a patient to facilitate and participate in the suicide of the patient. Lastly, I-1000 would also deny family members the chance to speak and see loved ones who have chosen assisted suicide before they died.

To read the full article, click here.

Last Friday a district judge heard arguments for Baxter v. State, a Montana lawsuit brought by a terminally ill patient (who did not appear), four physicians, and the physician-assisted suicide advocacy group, Compassion and Choices. Plaintiffs in the case seek to legalize physician-assisted suicide by  overturning a section of Montana’s homicide statute as it applies to physicians. Currently, Oregon is the only state that has legalized physician-assisted suicide. Plaintiffs also seek to establish a state constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide. The United States Supreme Court has held in 1997 that there is no Constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide.

The Montana Attorney General’s office stated that intentionally taking life is illegal, and assisting someone to commit suicide is illegal as well.  The AG’s office asserted that the issue of physician-assisted suicide is, and always has been, the responsibility of the Legislature, and not the courts.

A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would seriously endanger Montana residents, as the plaintiff’s proposals would result in an assisted suicide policy that was much broader and less regulated than Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act.

For example, plaintiffs have defined “terminal illness” as an incurable and irreversible condition that, without medication, would cause death in a reasonably short time. This definition would include conditions like asthma and diabetes. In addition, there is no six-month timeline for patients to qualify as “terminally ill.” This contradicts the accepted, standard medical definition of terminal illness, which includes a six-month timeframe.

Plaintiffs argue that the law in Montana should be changed to allow the physician who is providing the lethal medications for assisted suicide to be the same physician who determines that the patient is (1) terminally ill, and (2) competent to make the decision voluntarily. This places patients in great danger, and diverges from Oregon’s law, which requires that there be a second physician to make the determination of terminal illness and competency.

In addition, plaintiffs argue that patients should be able to make requests for assisted suicide orally, in writing, or both. The Oregon law, on the other hand, requires that the request must be signed and in writing, by both the patient and two witnesses. It is clear that the plaintiffs’ recommendations do not provide adequate patient safeguards. 

None of the plaintiff-physicians are board-certified in psychiatry, anesthesiology, or any of their sub-specialties, including pain medication. It is hard to see how the opinions of these physicians on end-of-life palliative care and treatment can be given weight.

During the arguments on Friday, District Judge Dorothy McCarter compared ill patients to pets, arguing that human beings should be put down as pets are.  “I mean, we put our pets to sleep when they’re suffering like that,” McCarter said. In a society of advanced pain medication technology and developed palliative care programs, it is difficult to understand McCarter’s rationale.

With Washington’s physician-assisted suicide Initiative 1000 being voted on in November, Montana is not the only state where assisted suicide advocates are taking action. Only last month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill promoting assisted suicide in California. Suicide advocates’ mission to spread the practice of physician-assisted suicide across our nation has become more than apparent, and has re-awakened another battlefield in the fight to protect the sanctity of life. 

While the Presidential election has naturally garnered the majority of the media’s and the public’s attention, there are also critical races and issues being considered in the states.  Five states, California, Colorado, Michigan, South Dakota, and Washington are considering ballot initiatives that directly implicate important life issues:  abortion, biotechnologies, and the end-of-life.

California Proposition 4: Parental Notice

Proposition 4, or the “Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative” (also known to its supporters as “Sarah’s Law”), will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot in California.  Proposition 4 proposes a new amendment to the California Constitution that would ensure that parents are notified (and involved) when their minor daughters are considering abortion by requiring abortion providers to notify the minor’s parent, legal guardian, or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative family member.  Once the parent or guardian is notified, the provider may not perform an abortion on the minor for 48 hours.
In addition, the initiative mandates that abortion providers report statistical information about all abortions (including abortions on minors) to state officials, requires the minor’s non-coerced consent for an abortion, and authorizes monetary damages against physicians if any portion of the new law is violated.

For more information, click here.

Colorado Proposition 48: Human Life Amendment

Proposition 48, the “Colorado Equal Rights Amendment,” proposes amending the Colorado Constitution to define “person” to “include any human being from the moment of fertilization.”  This definition of “personhood” would apply to specific sections of the Colorado Constitution and would inform future actions take by the State, the state government, and state officials.

For more information, click here

Michigan Proposal 2: Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

The “Stem Cell Initiative,” also known as “CureMichigan,” will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot as Proposal 2.  This amendment would allow unregulated and unrestricted destruction of human embryos for research purposes.  It would also allow government funding for research on human embryos produced in fertility clinics and could open the door for the legalization of human cloning.

Proposal 2 would drastically alter existing Michigan law.  Michigan currently prohibits “nontherapeutic research” on a “live human embryo, fetus, or neonate,” fetal experimentation, and human cloning.

For more information, click here (PDF, pages 14-16).

South Dakota Initiated Measure 11: Abortion Ban

An abortion ban initiative, known as “Initiated Measure 11,” will appear on the November 2008 ballot in South Dakota as a constitutional amendment.  If voters approve it, the South Dakota Constitution would ban all abortions except for those performed in cases of rape or incest, or when pregnancy severely endangers the woman’s life or health.  Anyone performing an abortion in violation of the amendment could be charged with a Class 4 felony, which in South Dakota carries a maximum punishment of 10 years in jail and a $20,000 fine.

For more information, click here (PDF, page 8).

Washington Initiative 1000: Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide

Washington Initiative 1000, also known as “I-1000,” purports to give “mentally competent, terminally ill adults, medically-predicted to die within six months,” the legal choice to request and self-administer a lethal overdose of medication prescribed by a physician.  The measure requires two oral and one written requests by the patient, two physicians to diagnose the patient and determine the patient is competent, a waiting period, and physician verification of the patient decision.  Physicians, patients, and others acting in “good faith compliance” with the measure would not face criminal or civil liability.

For more information, click here.

Last night Gov. Schwarzenegger signed AB 2747 into law. This law requires physicians to give patients with treatable illnesses information on suicide, including financial information. There are no guidelines on what or how this information should be given. This law will put financial pressure on poor patients suffering from treatable diseases to commit suicide.

For more information on this bill see my previous posts .

Today the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV, ruled in Donna Limmer v. Linda Schunk that persons who assist in the suicide of another are still entitled to the inheritance of the deceased person. This dangerous decision encourages persons who have a financial interest in another’s death to assist that person in committing suicide.

Wisconsin Right to Life reported that the case involved a mother and daughter, Linda and Megan Shunk, who drove their husband/father, Edward Shunk, to a cabin and left him there alone with a loaded shotgun. Sometime after they left, Mr. Shunk shot himself and died. Edward’s other daughter, Donna Lemmer, filed a claim against Linda and Megan, alleging that they should not be entitled to Edward’s inheritance because they assisted in his suicide. The court ultimately ruled against Donna, stating that Linda and Megan are still entitled to Edward’s inheritance because their assistance in Edward’s suicide did not amount to an “intentional killing.”

Barbara Lyon, Executive Director of Wisconsin Right to Life, stated: “Wisconsin Right to Life plans to seek either court or legislative action to close this loophole. For the protection of our citizens, the state should not provide a financial motive to those who participate in a suicide.”

For more information on assisted suicide, click here.

For more details on this story, click here.

AB 2747, a dangerous bill promoting assisted suicide, was placed on the desk of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at 11 a.m. this Thursday, September 18, 2008. The Governor has twelve days starting Thursday to veto or sign the suicide measure, or else the measure will become law automatically without his signature. It’s been two days, and the Governor has taken no action so far. The bill becomes law on October 1st, which means that Gov. Schwarzenegger has until the evening of September 30th to make a move.

Although the Governor has not made any public statements either supporting or opposing AB 2747 and believes that physician-assisted suicide is an issue that should be decided by the people, the California Catholic Conference has reported that Gov. Schwarzenegger has already signed a good end-of-life bill this session. According to the Conference, AB 3000, a bill creating advanced medical directive forms which includes a “Physician Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment” form, was signed by the Governor in July. This may be an indication that the Governor may veto AB 2747, but only time will tell.

AB 2747 would require physicians to participate in patient suicides, and would put patients with treatable illnesses under pressure –financial and otherwise – to commit suicide. Organizations that have firmly opposed the suicide bill include California Family Council, California Nurses for Ethical Standards, Mercy San Juan Medical Center, Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital, St. Mary’s Medical Center in San Francisco, California Disability Alliance, California Foundation for Independent Living Centers, CA League of United Latin American Citizens, La Raza Roundtable de California, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund and numerous other statewide organizations.

California AB 2747, a bill promoting suicide, passed the California Assembly this past Thursday by a 42-32 vote. If Gov. Schwarzenegger does not sign or veto the bill within twelve days after the bill is presented to him by the Assembly, it will become law without his signature.

The bill’s original purpose was to legalize physician-assisted suicide. The measure was amended in committee and it now promotes physician-assisted suicide in an indirect but equally dangerous way.

It now purports to require physicians to furnish patients with information on how to end their lives. According to LifeNews.com, “[n]ot only does the bill promote suicide, it forces physicians who don’t want to be involved in the grisly practice to refer cases to doctors who don’t mind pushing death on their patients.” In addition, under AB 2747, if patients choose to commit suicide by starving or dehydrating themselves to death, physicians are required to allow this, and to provide sedative medications during the excruciating process of starvation/dehydration. In other words, all physicians would be required to participate in the suicide of their patients, either directly or through material cooperation.

The bill also mandates that information on the financial costs of suicide be furnished to patients who request it, and offers no guidelines on how this information is to be provided. The California Disability Alliance (CDA) has noted that the type of information provided and how it is presented can make a huge difference in a patient’s decision. The CDA stated: “In a society where many people have no health insurance or have inadequate coverage, financial pressures rather than medical considerations could easily skew the discussion away from what is best for the patient and toward what may be best for payors.” The CDA argues that AB 2747 is “the wrong answer” to the clear need for better end-of-life care.”

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not stated his personal opinion on AB 2747. In January 2006, Schwarzenegger stated that a physician-assisted suicide law “is a decision probably that should go to the people, like the death penalty or other big issues.”

When physician-assisted suicide bills were introduced in California in the past, Schwarzenegger’s administration reported to San Francisco Gate news that the Governor was “very open-minded” on the issue, and was willing to carefully examine legislation that is presented to him by the Assembly. GOP consultant Dan Schnur has noted that Schwarzenegger’s willingness to consider progressive bills is directly in line with Schwarzenegger’s profile as “a social moderate.”

The medical community and a plethora of advocacy organizations have come forward in opposition to AB 2747, recognizing the dangers it presents to the disabled, elderly, sick, and poor. Echoing the American Medical Association’s opposition to legalizing physician-assisted suicide, California Medical Association President Dr. Anmol S. Mahal asserted: “Assisting someone to die…is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer.”

Hospitals and other organizations that have come forward in strong opposition to the bill include California Family Council, California Nurses for Ethical Standards, Mercy San Juan Medical Center, Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital, and St. Mary’s Medical Center in San Francisco.

Senator Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley) has issued a statement that he will urge Gov. Schwarzenegger to veto AB 2747. The Senator exclaimed: “I want the Governor to clearly know that this measure cloaked as compassion is actually sponsored by a group of people who want to give physicians the legal right to take part in the death of another person.”

The enactment of AB 2747, which indirectly promotes physician-assisted suicide, will mark the beginning California’s slide toward euthanasia. The promotion of suicide takes advantage of the depressed and the disabled, and of patients suffering from treatable diseases. As Wesley J. Smith, a California attorney and consultant for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, pointed out:

“Indeed, since 1973 Dutch doctors have gone from killing the terminally ill who ask for it, to the chronically ill who ask for it, to the disabled who ask for it, to depressed people who aren’t even physically ill who ask for it.”

It has been nearly fourteen years since the Oregon Death with Dignity Act was approved by a narrow margin in November 1994. This year, state bills and ballot initiatives attempting to legalize and create a state constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide (PAS) have been introduced, and challenges against state criminal homicide laws prohibiting assisted suicide have been filed. Despite national and international data and studies demonstrating the dangers that assisted suicide poses to the sick, disabled and elderly, assisted suicide proponents continue to press forward with efforts to spread the practice beyond the borders of Oregon. The medical community has come out against the PAS, but advocates have ignored its advice and recommendations. Meanwhile, disability groups and civil rights organizations consistently oppose the spread of assisted suicide. Although physician-assisted suicide is currently allowed only in the state of Oregon, legalization of the practice has emerged as an area of renewed interest.

To read more, please see the entire article published by the Culture of Life Foundation.

In its first statement devoted exclusively to the issue of embryonic stem cell research, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) last week firmly stated the following:

It now seems undeniable that once we cross the fundamental moral line that prevents us from treating any fellow human being as a mere object of research, there is no stopping point.  The only moral stance that affirms the human dignity of all of us is to reject that first step down this path.

The USCCB urges all Catholics—and others of good will—to join them in reaffirming that “the killing of innocent human creatures, even if carried out to help others, constitutes an absolutely unacceptable act.”

The statement—overwhelmingly approved by at vote of 191 to 1—is the first of two documents to be released by the USCCB.  The second document will be addressed to engaged and married couples in the Catholic Church, educating them on reproductive technologies and the link to embryonic stem cell research.

Stating that while the Catholic church “appreciates and encourages the progress of the biomedical sciences which open up unprecedented therapeutic prospects” (quoting Pope Benedict XVI), the USCCB focuses on the fact that embryonic stem cell research sacrifices innocent human life—stating that “[d]irect attacks on innocent human life are always gravely wrong.”

The USCCB explains that justifications set forth for embryonic stem cell research are founded on utilitarian principles that will eventually harm the dignity and autonomy of the very patients it is currently supposed to “help.”  For example, if we use embryos simply because the embryos are going to “die anyway”—where do we draw the line?  Patients with terminal illnesses and criminals on death row will “die anyway”—but that does not give scientists the ability to kill them for medical research.  As the USCCB states, “[t]he very same ethic that justifies taking some lives to help the patients with Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease today can be used to sacrifice that very patient tomorrow, if his or her survival is viewed as disadvantaging or other human beings considered more deserving or productive.”

This logic is not as strained as researchers would like us to think.  Just this week it was reported that in Oregon, the state’s health services will pay for patients’ lethal drugs for assisted suicide, but not for further treatments.

Similarly, if an embryo is not afforded human rights simply because it is too weak or undeveloped to possess such rights—where does that leave patients whose diseases have progressed to a degree that the patients lack all autonomy?  “If fundamental human rights such as the right to life are based on abilities or qualities that can appear or disappear, grow or diminish, and be greater or lesser in different human beings, then there are no inherent human rights, no true human equality, only privileges for the strong.”

The USCCB statement also explains that human cloning is argued as essential for the progress of embryonic stem cell research.  This leads to the creation of life for the purpose of destroying life.  It also leads to the deplorable practice of using women for their eggs—in complete disregard for the health of women.

And thus, the USCCB’s conclusion stated above: once we cross the line, there is no stopping point.

As life-affirming laws in Michigan increase, the abortion rates in Michigan continue to plummet. Michigan state health officials announced last week that the abortion rate in the state have dropped to a record low since record-keeping began in 1979. The current abortion rate shows a 50% drop since the peak in 1987, and a 3.7% drop from 2006. The Michigan Department of Community Health reported that in 1987 there were 350 abortions for every 1,000 live births. In 2007, the number of abortions dropped to 200 abortions for every 1,000 live births.

The drastic drop in the Michigan abortion rate in 2007 is no surprise. Americans United for Life (AUL) ranked Michigan as the #1 pro-life state for 2007. AUL bases its rankings on the number of pro-life laws being enforced in a state, and the breadth of protection provided by each law.

Michigan currently has a number of women’s health and safety laws in effect, including:

• a comprehensive informed consent for abortion statute;
• a statute providing an option for women to view an ultrasound image of the unborn child;
• parental consent statute for abortions performed on minors;
• minimum health and safety requirements for abortion facilities;
• and a prohibition of the use of public funds and school health coverage plans for abortions.

Michigan law also contains provisions that specifically protect the health and safety of the unborn and the newly born. Michigan law defines the killing of an unborn child as a form of homicide, and defines non-fatal assaults on an unborn child as a crime. In addition, Michigan law requires that infants who survive an abortion and are born alive must be given immediate and appropriate care.

In terms of bioethics, Michigan law bans human cloning, for both reproductive and research purposes. Michigan also bans fetal experimentation and non-therapeutic research on a live human embryo, fetus, or neonate. As for end-of-life issues, Michigan treats physician-assisted suicide as a felony.

Lastly, Michigan law protects the rights of conscience of healthcare providers in the abortion context. Under Michigan law, healthcare professionals and healthcare facilities who object on grounds of conscience may not be forced to participate in the performance of an abortion, and may refrain from participation.

It is no coincidence that the abortion rate in Michigan has dropped to its all-time low, and that Michigan has the best pro-life, incremental legislation in place. Research shows that incremental protections are effective means of lowering the number of abortions performed. Michigan is a concrete example of this conclusion. The effectiveness and importance of passing life-affirming, incremental legislation in the states has been made clear enough. For those interested in making abortion rare, Michigan stands out as a model.

To go to National Right to Life’s article elaborating on congruent abortion data click here.

As the 2008 Presidential Election approaches, we find ourselves struggling to determine which presidential candidate will best serve our country and hold fast to the principles and values we hold dear. One factor of increasing importance in this determination is a candidate’s position on abortion and life issues. How important is it for the pro-life cause to elect a pro-life President? What impact will the next President of the United States have on the pro-life agenda? Does it really matter what the next President’s position on life issues is? The answer is simple: Yes, it does matter. The President of the United States plays a crucial role in advancing the pro-life cause in America, and the election of a pro-life President will guarantee a political environment that is supportive of pro-life legislation and policies.

To read the entire article click here.

Discover has published an interview with Leon Kass, the former chair of the President’s Council on Bioethics, that is far ranging in its discussion of health policy issues. Touching on ethics, technological innovation, end of life issues, reproduction issues, stem cell research, therapy vs. enhancement, access to healthcare, and civic engagement, the interview is well worth your time.

Americans United for Life is co-sponsoring with The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity a conference on aging, death, and immortality March 6-8 in Phoenix.

The Conference Will Equip Participants to:

• Understand the clinical and social experience of aging, especially in the American context.
• Anticipate developments in the near future of healthcare, science, biotechnology, medical law, and the impact on our common humanity.
• Appreciate the medical, social and cultural context in which death is experienced.
• Prepare to address the current and future challenges of aging and the quest for immortality.
• Identify the assumptions behind various strategies for immortality, including transhumanism.
• Learn ways that palliative care, hospice, and other modalities can reframe the crises associated with the experience of dying.
• Gain an awareness of national, state, and international developments in the legal status of assisted suicide and euthanasia.
• Develop effective strategies for facing the ethical, legal, and social implications of aging and the pursuit of immortality.

For more information, see

• General Information
• Schedule
• Housing and Food
• Institutes
• Continuing Education / Academic Credit
• Syllabi
• Registration
• Conference Brochure (PDF)

Be sure and stop by the AUL table and say hi!