![]() |
| Wesley Smith |
California Governor Gavin Newsom is clearly running for president and — surprise, surprise — has a new memoir coming out. In an interview about the book, he recounted attending his mother’s hastened death. From the Washington Post story:
Malice in this context doesn’t mean ill will. Rather, “(1) Malice is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a fellow creature.” That was clearly the case in Newsom’s telling.
It’s what she wanted! Perhaps. But under the law, a victim cannot consent to being murdered, so that would be no defense for the doctor.
But Wesley, it would be legal in California today! No, it wouldn’t. California’s assisted suicide law requires self-administration. So, under the law as it currently exists, if a doctor intentionally lethally injects someone with the intent to kill, it remains murder.
Despite the obvious emotional pain caused in witnessing his mother’s killing, Newsom says that he strongly supports legalizing assisted suicide. Of course he does. Legalizing assisted suicide is a liberal agenda item. And as I said, he’s clearly running for president.
So, the question is: Did Newsom break the law? If he did not participate directly in his mother’s killing or arrange for the doctor to do the deed, probably not.
But in a 2018 recounting, he told a New Yorker reporter a somewhat different story: “The night before we gave her the drugs I cooked her dinner, hard-boiled eggs, and she told me, ‘Get out of politics.’ She was worried about the stress on me.” Assisted suicide was illegal in 2002, so I don’t know.
I do wonder though, that if he had been continually caring for her so that she didn’t have to leave him a message about her plan, if he had tried to dissuade Tessa from having herself ended, and had facilitated the kind of medical care that might have made her not want to be killed, whether things might have turned out differently. Hospice, properly administered, can work wonders in that regard. But as Newsom said, he was “distant” from her and oh, so very busy.
It was the spring of 2002 when Gavin Newsom’s mother, Tessa, dying of cancer, stunned him with a voicemail. If he wanted to see her again, she told him, it would need to be before the following Thursday, when she planned to end her life.Some call it assisted suicide, but it appears to have actually been a homicide because she was lethally injected by a doctor:
Newsom, then a 34-year-old San Francisco supervisor, did not try to dissuade her, he recounted in an interview with The Washington Post. The fast-rising politician was racked with guilt from being distant and busy as she dealt with the unbearable pain of the breast cancer spreading through her body.
Newsom’s account of his mother’s death at the age of 55 by assisted suicide, and his feelings of grief and remorse toward a woman with whom he had a loving but complex relationship, is one of the most revealing and emotional passages in the California governor’s book, “Young Man in a Hurry: A Memoir of Discovery,” which will be published Feb. 24.
Forty-five minutes before the “courageous doctor” arrived to administer the medicine that would end her life, Newsom and his sister gave their mother her regular dose of painkillers to keep her comfortable, he said.Here’s the thing. If the “courageous doctor” intentionally administered an overdose with the intent to kill Tessa, it was murder, which is defined in California as “the unlawful killing of a human being . . . with malice aforethought.”
When the doctor arrived, Tessa Newsom lucidly answered his questions and told him she was sure of her decision, Gavin Newsom said. Her labored breathing and the gravity of the moment became too much for Newsom’s sister. She left the room. Newsom stayed.
“Then I sat there with her for another 20 minutes after she was dead,” he said, his voice breaking briefly and his eyes welling as he told the story. “My head on her stomach, just crying, waiting for another breath.”
Malice in this context doesn’t mean ill will. Rather, “(1) Malice is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a fellow creature.” That was clearly the case in Newsom’s telling.
It’s what she wanted! Perhaps. But under the law, a victim cannot consent to being murdered, so that would be no defense for the doctor.
But Wesley, it would be legal in California today! No, it wouldn’t. California’s assisted suicide law requires self-administration. So, under the law as it currently exists, if a doctor intentionally lethally injects someone with the intent to kill, it remains murder.
Despite the obvious emotional pain caused in witnessing his mother’s killing, Newsom says that he strongly supports legalizing assisted suicide. Of course he does. Legalizing assisted suicide is a liberal agenda item. And as I said, he’s clearly running for president.
So, the question is: Did Newsom break the law? If he did not participate directly in his mother’s killing or arrange for the doctor to do the deed, probably not.
But in a 2018 recounting, he told a New Yorker reporter a somewhat different story: “The night before we gave her the drugs I cooked her dinner, hard-boiled eggs, and she told me, ‘Get out of politics.’ She was worried about the stress on me.” Assisted suicide was illegal in 2002, so I don’t know.
I do wonder though, that if he had been continually caring for her so that she didn’t have to leave him a message about her plan, if he had tried to dissuade Tessa from having herself ended, and had facilitated the kind of medical care that might have made her not want to be killed, whether things might have turned out differently. Hospice, properly administered, can work wonders in that regard. But as Newsom said, he was “distant” from her and oh, so very busy.

2 comments:
GAVIN NEWSOM IS RIDICULOUS- HE "ADMITS" HE WAS "DISTANT FROM HIS MOTHER" "AND SO VERY BUSY" AND YET HE WITNESSED HOMICIDE OF A DOCTOR INJECTING POISON INTO HER THAT HIS OWN SISTER COULD NOT WATCH AND FOR VERY GOOD REASON BECAUSE IT CAUSED DISCOMFORTED BREATHING FOR HIS MOTHER BUT YET HE OPENLY STATES THAT HE WANTS TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT AND THAT HE STRONGLY SUPPORTS LEGALIZING KILLING/ASSISTED SUICIDE SO HE IS HYPOCRITICAL AND YET AGAIN "NEGLECTING HUMAN NEEDS" AS HE DID BY NOT CONTINUALLY CARING FOR HIS MOTHER AND BY NOT ADVOCATING FOR HER TO RECEIVE PROPERLY ADMINISTERED MEDICAL CARE WITH PROPER SUPPORTS AND EFFECTIVE PAIN RELIEF AND OTHER (LIFE-PROVIDING) METHODS TO LESSEN HER SUFFERING WHICH ARE MANY AND NOW OPENLY STATING HE WANTS TO PROMOTE FOR EVERYONE! WELL THERE IS THE WARNING STRONG AND VIVID! CITIZENS DESERVE BETTER THAN THIS!!! AND ESPECIALLY HIS OWN MOTHER!!!
I have to admit, I don't know if I could ever bring myself to vote for a politician who openly supports medical killing. I know that, intellectually, there's no such thing as a politician that one agrees with on all issues, but this one issue serves for me as a sort of fundamental moral test. Can a politician who lacks the capacity to recognize the corrupt and evil forces that often come to bear on people who are vulnerable and at their lowest moment be trusted to do what's right when citizens are faced with, say, the devastation of natural disasters? Or could they be counted on to voice a morally righteous stance in regard to the rest of the world? Some may say I'm asking for too much from politicians. I don't think so. Those who say it's asking too much are simply lowering the bar on morality. --Thomas Lester
Post a Comment