A win in New York State, for now, in the battle against assistance suicide

On July 17, 2026, a scant two weeks after four orders of Catholic nuns, joined by Bishop John Barres of the Diocese of Rockville Center on behalf of the Diocese, challenged the new law, Senate Bill 138 (“The Medical Aid in Dying Act”),

Judge Anne M. Narducci rendered a significant, albeit possibly temporary, victory in favor of the plaintiffs. This was after Governor Kathy Hochul had signed it into law on February 6, 2026, originally to be effective August 5, 2026.

Judge Narducci’s four-page order in Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm v. James, in a federal trial court in the Northern District of New York, entered a temporary restraining order preventing state officials from enforcing Senate Bill 138 against the plaintiffs and the facilities they operate.

Whether Carmelite Sisters is a permanent win remains to be seen, as a yet unscheduled hearing will take place in the coming months in what is the latest skirmish in the seemingly never-ending fight to protect both the sanctity of life and religious freedom in deep blue states such as New York.

This column first offers details about Senate Bill 138 and the related litigation from New York. It then offers analysis and commentary on the significance of Carmelite Sisters for religious freedom, while reflecting on why Senate Bill 138 and similar laws dangerously seek to expand the already threatening practice of so-called assisted suicide that violates both Catholic teachings and human dignity.

New York Senate Bill 138

Under New York’s draconian Senate Bill 138, medical professionals who are unwilling to prescribe medications allowing persons diagnosed with potentially fatal illnesses to hasten the end of their lives are still required to inform them of the right to terminate their time on earth.

Moreover, in perhaps the most dystopian section of the law, medical providers who refuse to violate their consciences (let alone their Hippocratic oaths to “Do No Harm) are facing significant fines, the revocation of their professional licenses, and even incarceration because they follow their consciences.

The Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm, the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne (who are still engaged in a battle with New York officials over whether they must comply with a law requiring nursing home operators such as themselves to use pronouns, assign rooms, and grant access to patients based solely on their self-proclaimed gender identities), the Missionary Sisters of St. Benedict, and the Little Sisters of the Poor, along with Bishop John O. Barres of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, and the Diocese, filed suit on July 17, 2026 challenging Senate Bill 138.

The 108-page complaint the plaintiffs filed in Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm v. James charged, most notably, that New York’s Medical Aid in Dying Act, as it interacts with the state’s Palliative Care Information Act, in regard to the care they provide, violated their First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion.

More specifically, the complaint alleged that the law would have interfered with their religious freedom and would have kept them serving the sick and dying in accordance with their Catholic beliefs. At the same time, Carmelite Sisters sought to defend the rights of terminally-ill patients, who choose to live out their final days in the care of religious providers who will neither invite them nor encourage them to end their lives voluntarily.

Having agreed with the plaintiffs that Senate Bill 138 violated their rights, Judge Narducci will convene a hearing at a later date she has yet to announce.

Judge Narducci will then rule whether her temporary ban in Carmelite Sisters against Senate Bill 138 will become permanent as applied to the plaintiffs.

Analysis and Commentary

Decades of pro-abortion court rulings have undeniably led to the loss of respect at the other end of the spectrum. The pro-death movement seeks to play, and even replace, God by removing Him from the natural course of events associated with the end of life. As the National Right to Life organization has made clear, a straight line connects abortion to euthanasia or assisted suicide as supporters of these immoral practices demonstrate their clear lack of respect for life, regardless of the stage of an individual’s development.

Although the American Catholic bishops have long led opposition to euthanasia, a growing number of jurisdictions, such as New York, which became the thirteenth state to do so, have adopted such statutes. In addition, countries in Europe as well as nations including Australia, where it is called voluntary assisted dying, and Canada, have adopted laws, usually referred to as Medical Assistance in Dying or MAID, terminology intentionally designed to sanitize suicide under the guise of providing humane care.

Yet, a recent report by the pro-life organization Aging With Dignity demonstrates that the egalitarian-sounding approach that pro-euthanasia supporters espouse is often far from the truth. Aging With Dignity’s study made it clear that in the United States, “non-terminal conditions like lupus, complications from a fall, anorexia, and diabetes all qualified people for suicide-affirming care, and there has been an explosion of people included in the ever increasing, but cryptic designation of ‘other.’” So much for supposed “care” for those with terminal illnesses.

The situation is no different in Canada, where its hard-pressed medical system—which regularly experiences underfunding, staff shortages, and long wait times—permits patients not experiencing life-ending illness the option of ending their lives instead of receiving ordinary medical care. In fact, along with being the fifth-leading cause of death in Canada, a recent study revealed that twenty military veterans were offered the unsolicited option of MAID rather than given ordinary medical care for their various conditions.

A particularly troubling dimension of New York’s Senate Bill 138 and similar state laws is their potential impact on relationships between and among physicians, their patients, loved ones, and caregivers—such as the faith-based plaintiffs in Carmelite Sisters. Difficulties can arise because New York’s law pointedly requires doctors to ignore perhaps the most two relevant elements, in the Hippocratic Oath, according to which doctors must profess that “I will do no harm” and “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan.”

Because New York’s law leaves doctors potentially subject to such serious legal sanctions as fines, imprisonment, and loss of their licenses, their ability to provide the best independent professional judgments to patients, their families, and caregivers means that Senate Bill 138 undoubtedly would have seriously compromised their ability to act freely.

Further, at a time when patients and their loved ones are no doubt frightened, worried, and unsure what to do, it is nothing short of immoral on the part of politicians in the guise of legislators steeped in a culture of disrespect for life to demand that dedicated doctors violate their oaths and consciences by offering those with life-threatening illnesses assisted suicide as their only viable option instead of health care.

Hopefully, when Judge Narducci reconvenes the parties, she will finalize her order by respecting both religious freedom and the sanctity of life that New York’s politicians ignored. I will write a follow-up when the judge renders her judgment.