By HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged to help strengthen laws that protect people with disabilities from assisted suicide, saying “we can’t be a moral society” with these laws in place.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), called assisted suicide laws “abhorrent” during budget discussions this week.
During HHS budget discussions on Wednesday, Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, pressed Kennedy about assisted suicide, noting that in several states, disability groups have filed lawsuits saying that their assisted suicide laws are discriminatory.
“Disability groups are filing against some of the assisted suicide laws because it seems to target those with disabilities and the Americans with Disabilities Act passed in 1990: That act has worked to protect those with disabilities, not incentivize them to take their own life,” Lankford said.
“We’ve now seen a rise of people with eating disorders that are given access to assisted suicide, and this is just wrong a multitude of ways,” Lankford added.
“What is HHS doing to protect those with disabilities that may be targeted by those assisted suicide laws?” Lankford asked.
“To me, I think those laws are abhorrent,” Kennedy responded. “And we just see in Canada today, I think the No. 1 cause of death is assisted suicide, and as you say, it targets people with disabilities and people who are struggling in their lives.”
Euthanasia is the fifth-leading cause of death in Canada, accounting for an estimated 1 in 20 deaths in Canada. The country is currently considering expanding medical assistance in dying (MAID) to individuals whose sole underlying condition is mental illness.
In the United States, assisted suicide is legal in 12 states and Washington, D.C. A recently-compiled database found that at least 14,000 Americans have died by assisted suicide since 1997; the actual number is likely much higher because not all states provide data.
“I don’t think we can be a moral society — we can’t be a moral society around the globe if that becomes institutionalized throughout our society,” Kennedy told Lankford. “So, I am happy to work with you in whatever way we can.”
Three ongoing lawsuits allege that their state’s assisted suicide laws are discriminatory against people with disabilities.
Most recently in December 2025, several disability and patient advocacy groups filed a lawsuit alleging that Delawareʼs new assisted suicide law discriminates against people with disabilities.
The Delaware lawsuit maintained that “people with life-threatening disabilities” are at “imminent risk” because of the new law.
“Throughout the country, a state-endorsed narrative is rapidly spreading that threatens people with disabilities: Namely, that people with life-threatening disabilities should be directed to suicide help and not suicide prevention,” the lawsuit read.
“At its core, this is discrimination plain and simple,” the lawsuit continued. “With cuts in health care spending at the federal level, persons with life-threatening disabilities are now more vulnerable than ever.”
In another recent lawsuit in July 2025, United Spinal v. Colorado, a coalition of advocacy groups claimed that Colorado’s assisted suicide law is unconstitutional because it allegedly discriminates against those who suffer from disabilities.
In 2023, a similar California lawsuit challenged California’s assisted suicide law, saying it puts people with disabilities at greater risk.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
First they came for the disabled. I said nothing because . . . .
A person close to me, a family member wished they were never born. Life’s most cherished values may vanish, life itself is itself a thing of beauty.
There is in a more contemplative view a deeper beauty experienced. We divest ourself of craving for sensuality, pleasure on the level of satisfaction in our intercourse. Whereas it’s not what we draw from something that lasts. Rather it’s that which is noticed, apprehended in awareness of my uniqueness within all that surrounds me. A love.
Many then lose meaning and purpose when the vanishing begins. Where there’s that awareness that isn’t subject to change, what we possess invokes a living desire to gift. We discover life. Whether pain. Whether not.
They keep calling it assisted suicide. Why?
If a “health” professional applies the death-causing poison, is it still a suicide?
Cleo if one gives their assent for someone to kill them for no other purpose than wanting to die the consent itself is suicidal, a [willful act] of suicide.
Whereas the difference is seen in Fr Maximilian Kolbe’s act of assent to be killed by starvation in place of the Jewish prisoner at Auschwitz. Fr Kolbe’s willingness to die is instead an act of heroic virtue.
About what’s “abhorrent,” even prior to Roe v. Wade (1973), Washington state was the first instance in all of human history to approve fetal infanticide by ballot (1971), then probably second only to Oregon to approve Physician Assisted Suicide (2009), and at the front of the lineup of states and the flaccid U.S. Supreme Court, the same state approved gay “marriage” (2012); and tied with Colorado in approving recreational marijuana (2012), and as the Evergreen State, the first to approve human composting (2019).
But, in such a blue state, the last straw is the announcement this week by Seattle’s Starbuck’ Coffee Co. that it’s building a second corporate headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee. What! One backstory reason is the uptick in city taxes under the newly elected mayor, a self-described Socialist in a runaway-spending blue state. The start of a statewide exodus of rich folks and jobs?
And now even Seattle’s elitist coffee reputation is in jeopardy! Whatever is this world coming to?
How about “‘inclusive’ homicide”?
A subject of morality and immorality. Who can decide?
As usual, the Church offers some convoluted answers to Living Will directives for medical reasons and DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders without defining it as an egregious “mortal sin.”
EWTN: A moral principle…
This principle can be expressed as follows: “A ‘do-not-resuscitate’ order is morally permissible IF ONE CAN JUDGE THAT CPR is excessively burdensome for this patient, taking into account his situation and his physical and moral resources, or that CPR imposes excessive expense on the family or community.”
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catholics-and-donotresuscitate-orders-9714