 |
| Wesley Smith |
The suicide pushers want to win by any means possible.
Next time an assisted suicide promises guidelines to protect against abuse, remember Tucker’s disdain for the very concept.
Hence, Kathryn Tucker, the lawyer who brought the Glucksberg case, wants judges to impose assisted suicide legalization on us all. From, the California Lawyer story on the so far unsuccessful fight here to pass an Oregon-style assisted suicide law:
Director Tucker of the Disability Rights Legal Center called SB 128 an “outdated approach, seeking to replicate a measure adopted 21 years ago in Oregon.” In her view, litigation would be more effective than legislation. For example, if the plaintiffs prevail in Brody, Tucker says, “the same open practice of aid in dying will emerge in California … [without] burdensome requirements for collecting and reporting data.”
Ah, the cat is out of the bag! These were the very “guidelines” that Tucker once said was so important to protect against abuses.
DO YOU NOT SEE NOW that the suicide fanatics are running a con about “guidelines?” They are merely an expedient to be ignored or discarded as soon as society swallows their hemlock.
Hopefully, that might not be so easy.
Way back in 1997, in Glucksberg v. Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court found–9-0!–that there is not a constitutional right to assisted suicide.
Florida State Supreme Court agreed with regard to state law. So did Alaska’s. Connecticut trial court agreed. Ditto a recent California trial court, among others.
Heck, even Montana’s Supreme Court, which issued one of the most muddled confusing decisions I have ever read, did not find a constitutional right to assisted suicide.
Then, a New Mexico trial judge wanted to make history. But she was overturned in the New Mexico Court of Appeals, in a long decision that hearkens quite a bit to the Glucksberg case. From the Washington Times story:
The New Mexico Court of Appeals handed a defeat to the right-to-die movement Tuesday by striking down a lower-court ruling establishing physician-assisted suicide.
The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that the district court had erred when it determined that “aid in dying is a fundamental liberty interest.” “We conclude that aid in dying is not a fundamental liberty interest under the New Mexico Constitution,” said Judge Timothy L. Garcia in the majority opinion.;
Good. IF this horrible idea is to become law, it should be done through democratic processes.
No comments:
Post a Comment