home

Pro-Life Groups to Urge 'John Ashcroft, MD Law'

I echo TChris' sentiments on the Supreme Court's assisted suicide decision yesterday (opinion here).
If you haven't read about the case yet, the Washington Post has an easy to follow report:

The Supreme Court upheld Oregon's law on physician-assisted suicide yesterday, ruling that the Justice Department may not punish doctors who help terminally ill patients end their lives. By a vote of 6 to 3, the court ruled that Attorney General John D. Ashcroft exceeded his legal authority in 2001 when he threatened to prohibit doctors from prescribing federally controlled drugs if they authorized lethal doses of the medications under the Oregon Death With Dignity Act.

The case was not about the right to die, per se. The Supreme Court has previously ruled there is no constitutional right to die. States are free to enact their own laws on the issue. Oregon did that, with a law that had been upheld by state and federal courts. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Ashcroft could extend the drug laws to punish doctors who provide lethal drugs to patients who have requested them so they can die on their own terms.

Right to life groups are already promising a pitch to have Congress pass a "John Ashcroft, MD" law...(my term, not theirs):

Tom Marzen, a leading pro-life attorney who monitors end of life issues, told LifeNews.com that Congress should pass "an amendment to the Controlled Substances Act that specifically states that assistance in suicide is not a 'legitimate medical purpose.'"

Dorothy Timbs, legislative counsel for National Right to Life's medical ethics center agrees..."Nothing in the decision suggests that Congress lacks the constitutional authority to amend the Act to make clear that federally controlled drugs may not be used to kill people," Timbs explained.

Here are some reactions from today's editorials:

  • Seattle Post Intelligencer
    It was troubling to see Chief Justice John Roberts cast his first dissent in this case, a toady vote siding with the Bush administration's abuse of executive power. Also troubling is the prospect of Judge Samuel Alito, should he be confirmed by the Senate, joining Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as a fourth vote in sympathy with such executive excess.
  • The Oregonian
    bq. Roberts let Oregon down this week.....Roberts joined Scalia's peevish dissent. While this vote doesn't define Roberts, it's a troubling indicator of the chief justice's mind-set -- and of the court's creeping direction.... [It] should heighten concerns about the direction of the court as it fills with Bush-appointed justices. Judge Samuel Alito, President Bush's current nominee to the Supreme Court, appears to be even more sympathetic than Roberts to broad notions of federal executive power.

The Bush Administration was also guilty in this case of abandoning for political purposes what ought to be its own federalism principles. Mr. Ashcroft had reversed a policy of the Clinton Administration in order to invalidate the Oregon law at the behest of social conservatives who had lost the political battle over assisted suicide in that state. Results-oriented jurisprudence isn't any more admirable from the right than it is from the left.

A poll on the LA Times website right now has 91% of responders agreeing with the Supreme Court decision.

And from bloggers:

Jane at Firedoglake weighs in:

I find it highly ironic that per the Supreme Court terminal patients can now end their lives but they can't smoke weed to make their pain more bearable.

And how about that charmer John Roberts, eh? The one who said only months ago he probably wouldn't vote against assisted suicide -- and then he did.

Kevin Drum:

Federalism is at least a principled conservative position on which reasonable people can disagree. But the current crop of "conservative" justices is more interested in figuring out excuses to impose their own version of morality on the rest of us than they are in any meaningful application of conservative principle. I eagerly await thundering editorials from the right inveighing against judicial activism.

< Commission on Bush Crimes Against Humanity | GOP Pitches "New" Congressional Ethics Proposal >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What is the problem with this? What possible reasons do the so called "State's Rights" Republicans oppose this? If God doesn't like it, he can deal with it, I don't think he needs John Ashcroft to uphold his laws for the rest of us.

    So Congress had authorized the Executive to regulate controlled substances used for "legitimate medical purpose." When the feds threatened to prosecute Oregan doctors who assisted in the death of competent but gravely ill suffering people, the lawsuit began. The Court upheld the Oregan law and said prosecution by the feds is unlawful. This is an issue of statutory construction said the 6 in majority. The 3 (soon to be 4) guys on the Right instead wanted it to be about their policy preference for viable life over death. U.S. Congress' intent to pass a law and whether these prosecutions were part of that intent was the focus of the prevailing opinion. It upheld Oregan's right to pass a law saying assisted suicide isn't murder. The majority said: The law as written says regulate controlled substances not legitimate medical purpose. The "non-activist" judges said: Viable life is paramount! You must be punished! The far right crowd says: We'll get the pitchforks!

    Dorothy Timbs, legislative counsel for National Right to Life's medical ethics center agrees..."Nothing in the decision suggests that Congress lacks the constitutional authority to amend the Act to make clear that federally controlled drugs may not be used to kill people," Timbs explained. Except, of course, when these same "right to life" boneheads advocate for the death penalty. I don't understand how people who are "right to life" advocates can't recognize that Republicans don't care one iota about "life". They're pro-war (any war), they're pro-death penalty, they're anti-environment...I mean, what more do these people need to be shown for them to understand that Republicans, and the Republican agenda, is anathema to life.

    I maintain that since Scalia has written that it is illegal to prescribe drugs to kill people, therefore lethal injection, isn't. I would like to see that thrown in their faces. These guys don't care about the issues, it is about the control.

    Great point getthept. Another interesting point is the Texas law that says if you can't pay the medical bills, its OK to let a child die even without the parent's consent. Interesting how the Right to Lifers have never been camping outside the couple of hospitals in Texas where this has actually been allowed to happen. What's with that?

    Great, Roberts has finally shown his cards. He won't be much better than Rehnquist. Unfortunately, Alito will be even worse and soon the Court will have 4 hardcore conservatives with their minds set on controlling the society according to a narrow viewpoint. One more and nothing will stop them from achieving whatever they wish. Terrible. Elect another Republican president and the game will be over for a dozen of years.