Connect with us

News

California’s assisted suicide law shut down in court

Published

on

When California passed their assisted suicide law in 2015 it was embroiled in more than a little controversy. The usual debates regarding end of life choices between advocates and opponents raged well beyond the bill’s final passage, with court challenges beginning almost immediately. Now, more than two years later, a judge has overturned the law (or will do so in five days barring a successful appeal), but not because of the underlying questions about assisted suicide. It was more of a technicality, challenging how and when the legislature voted on it. (Sacramento Bee)

A judge in Riverside County on Tuesday overturned California’s controversial assisted death law nearly two years after it took effect, ruling that the Legislature improperly passed the measure during a special session on health care funding.

The court is holding its judgment for five days, according to representatives for supporters and opponents of the law, to give Attorney General Xavier Becerra time to file an emergency appeal.

“We’re very satisfied with the court’s decision today,” said Stephen G. Larson, lead counsel for a group of doctors who sued in 2016 to stop the law. “The act itself was rushed through the special session of the Legislature and it does not have any of the safeguards one would expect to see in a law like this.”

Just by way of disclosure, I support assisted suicide laws for the terminally ill and have written about the subject here extensively over the years. But that doesn’t mean that the opponents of California’s law didn’t have some valid complaints which needed to be addressed. The “technicality” they’re dealing with is that the bill failed to pass during the regular session of the legislature and was instead voted on during a special session called specifically to address a funding shortfall for public health programs. While a seemingly minor quibble, it does seem to pose a barrier under the normal rules of order. The argument from supporters is that end-of-life questions are a valid topic relating to healthcare so dealing with it during the special session was appropriate. Clearly, the judge disagreed.

The other complaint raised by opponents of the law was that it failed to provide adequate safeguards against abuse or neglect. They raised questions about the definition of the phrase “terminal illness” and objected to a provision which provided doctors with immunity from prosecution if they prescribed life-ending drugs. These are all difficult questions, but since there had been a debate on those specifics already and the legislature chose to pass the legislation anyway it seems to make a weak case for overturning it.

I still maintain that people who are at the end of their lives with no reasonable prospect of recovery should be able to determine for themselves precisely how much suffering they can endure. And when that limit is reached, competent medical professionals are able to provide a much kinder exit from this life than most of the ones cooked up by desperate people who choose to take their own lives in their homes. Arguments about religion and the morality of suicide are completely valid, but in the end (literally in these situations), that’s something which remains between the patient and God. It seems to me to be rather haughty of anyone to impose their own decisions as if they are speaking for the Almighty.

If the appeal by the California Attorney General fails, this bill may be heading back to the drawing board for another round of debates. That’s not a bad thing since there are probably still areas where it could be improved. But discarding it entirely would be a disservice to patients facing difficulties which the rest of us who have never been forced to stare into the abyss in that fashion are unable to fully comprehend.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Forecast: GOP now more likely to have *at least* 54 Senate seats next year than to lose its majority

Published

on

By

A nifty catch by Philip Klein, eyeballing the latest data from Nate Silver’s model (as of 5:15 p.m. ET). Check it yourself. Democrats momentarily have an 18.4 percent chance of gaining two seats and winning a majority next month. Whereas Republicans have a 9.1 percent chance of gaining three, a 5.5 percent chance of gaining four, a 3.2 percent chance of gaining five, a 1.4 percent of gaining six, a 0.7 percent chance of gaining seven, and a 0.3 percent chance of shooting the lights out and gaining eight (which would leave them one seat shy of a filibuster-proof majority, for what it’s worth). Add those up and you get a 20.2 percent chance of 54 or better.

Which can be summed up in four words: Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Klein on the path to 54:

Though Republicans were always favorites to keep the Senate, their odds have improved in recent weeks, with three states in particular giving them a boost. Republicans are now considered “likely” to keep their seats in Texas and Tennessee and North Dakota seems ready to flip into the Republican column. Barring any other major upsets, victories in those three races would be enough for Republicans to keep the Senate — hence their 81.6 percent chances overall.

To get to 54, the most likely scenario would be that Republicans win the tossup states of Nevada and Missouri, and then surge to victory in Arizona and Florida (two races that are currently tilting Democrat, but well within range of Republican victory). Beyond that, they’d have to start flipping some seats that are currently considered “likely” to remain Democrat, such as Montana and West Virginia.

Eh, I don’t know if Montana and Indiana, the latter of which he neglected to mention, are all that “likely” to remain Democratic. They’re leaning that way, with both Jon Tester and Joe Donnelly clinging to three-point leads. But Montana hasn’t been polled in three weeks and the latest from Indiana has Donnelly up four but with just 44 percent of the vote. In fact, in none of the four polls dating back to August has Donnelly topped 44, suggesting that a lot of Hoosiers are thinking hard about whether to stick with the incumbent. It’s likely that the GOP will be disappointed somewhere on Election Night — Missouri, Nevada, and Arizona are all leading candidates — but going for one for two on Montana and Indiana seems doable.

Whichever way they do it, if they can get to 54 then Collins and Murkowski might well be nonfactors during the next SCOTUS battle. Flake won’t be in the Senate at all, of course. Trump really might have the arsenal he needs to fill a Ginsburg or Breyer vacancy with a conservative.

That’s the good news. The not-so-good news, also from Silver’s model:

Click the link and add up the different probable outcomes and you’ll see that the GOP has about the same odds of holding the House as Democrats do of winning … at least 54 seats. They’ve got a 10 percent chance of winning at least 60. Gonna be a lot of subpoenas for Pat Cipollone to cope with next year.

There are no new swing-state polls as I write this but keep an eye on the one of Arizona that’s currently in progress (yes, in progress) at the NYT’s site, the Upshot. As I write this at a little after 5 p.m. on the east coast, they’ve compiled a sample of 299 people — not large enough yet to give us confidence in the topline numbers but large enough to make it worth paying attention to. Currently Martha McSally leads Kyrsten Sinema by four points, 49/45. If that holds through the end of the poll, it would be the second straight survey showing McSally ahead after trailing for most of the race. (The previous poll had her up six.) Stay tuned.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Midterm 2018 TEXAS: Robert (Beto) O’Rourke vs. Ted Cruz

Published

on

By

Texas is Texas.

You don’t mess with Texas!

Texans don’t want a far left US Senator who lies about his background and police records, DUI included, and abuses everything the Lone Star State stands for.

Senator Ted Cruz is up by at least 5 points — but that is not enough.

Cruz is a real conservative and an intellectual giant. He has the highest possible ratings from conservative groups as a sitting US Senator.


We can’t let him down.

His opponent Beto (really Robert) O’Rourke isn’t Hispanic but he is loudly PROGRESSIVE.

He is a phony.

He is a Democratic Socialist and would spell doom for our Republic.

He wants open borders, more rights for criminals, and an end to the petroleum economy.

In Texas?

Trump won Texas by 9 points.

Cruz should win reelection by at least that amount.

Recall Cruz not only voted for Judge Kavanaugh but he articulately defended due process and innocent until proven guilty – the very hallmark of western jurisprudence.

We need him; America needs his voice in the Senate.

There has not been a Democrat to hold statewide office in Texas since 1994!

Keep it that way.

Cruz is a star in national politics and a firm vote for our side. He makes America first! And he is the best advocate for Texas bare none.

Turnout is critical.

Cruz MUST win.

Make this viral in every corner of Texas.

You Might Like

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Pat Robertson: C’mon, we’re not going to blow up a key Middle East alliance over one little murder

Published

on

By

Lefties are marveling that a brand-name Christian conservative would be encouraging followers to look the other way at an assassination, but they’re forgetting Jesus’s parting words at the end of the Sermon on the Mount: “If you want to make an omelette, you’ve got to break a few eggs.”

Wait, am I misremembering? My youthful memories of the gospels are not the best. I think perhaps the savior’s actual parting words were “Velvet glove, iron fist.”

I mean, that at least sounds like Jesus.

Lotta mixed feelings about the evangelical turn towards hard-nosed realpolitik under Trump. On the one hand, the gripe about Christian conservatives used to be that they were forever trying to inject morals into the messy business of politics, made more uncomfortable by the fact that many millions of people disagree with some of their stances on sexual morality and resent their attempts to convert them into policy. Well, good news: Between Robertson’s take on the Khashoggi affair and the complete pass given to Trump on matters like Stormygate, there’s less moralizing than ever.

The bad news? I’m unclear from the clip below on how many murders Pastor Robertson would be willing to tolerate in the name of preserving the alliance and “$100 billion worth of arms sales,” as he notes in passing. Presumably his interest in the latter answers my question: Some of those weapons will be used to continue killing civilians in neighboring Yemen, as he doubtless knows. If Robertson’s willing to condone that in the name of checking Iran, naturally he would condone looking the other way at a lot of things, Khashoggi’s murder just one among them. Christianity’s nice and all but we’ve gotta live in the real world.

I honestly don’t know whether to call him a fraud or to salute him for taking a cold but sober view of the international chessboard.

There may be another reason why he and POTUS’s friends at CBN are rushing to provide cover here, though:

To some extent the Saudis’ problem is Trump’s problem. Right now Trump can afford to ignore the Democrats’ interest in finding out how much his and the Kingdom’s interests overlap. In three months, with the House likely in Democratic hands, it’ll be harder.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Like us on Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

Close