Articles by CNA Daily News

St. Paul, Minn., Sep 12, 2019 / 04:01 pm (CNA).- More than 200 people attended an informational hearing of a Minnesota House committee Wednesday that listened to testimony regarding an assisted suicide bill, which is unlikely to advance in the Republican-led Senate.

Among those testifying against the End-of-Life Options Act was Kathy Ware, who cares for her 21-year-old son Kylen, who has multiple disabilities.

“My son is not undignified because I have to help him use the bathroom,” Ware said Sept. 11, according to the St. Paul Pioneer Press. “This bill makes a public statement by law that death is better than living with a disability like Kylen.”

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Mike Freiberg of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. It would allow a mentally capable adult with a terminal illness who has six months or fewer to live to be prescribed life-ending medication. A second doctor would have to confirm the terminally ill adult’s situation.

The manner of death of those who commit assisted suicide would be “listed as the underlying terminal illness and not as a suicide or homicide.”

The bill says that “a person who has custody or control of medical aid-in-dying medication … that remains unused after the terminally ill adult’s death shall dispose of the unused medical aid-in-dying medication by lawful means according to state and federal guidelines including: (1) returning the unused medical aid-in-dying medication to a federally approved medication take-back program or mail-back program; or (2) returning the unused medical aid-in-dying medication to the local or state police departments who shall dispose of the medication by lawful means.”

In Oregon, where assisted suicide was legalized in 1997, doctors have written 2,217 prescriptions for lethal medication, and about two-thirds of those who were prescribed them, 1,459, have died from the drugs.

The Minnesota bill would allow health care providers to choose not to provide assisted suicide, but requires the provider to “make reasonable efforts to accommodate the terminally ill adult’s request including transferring care of the terminally ill adult to a new health care provider.”

Health care facilities would be able to bar their employees from providing assisted suicide only if the terminally ill person intends to take the medication “on the facility’s premises.”

The bill also declares that what it terms “aid-in-dying” does not constitute suicide or assisted suicide.

Marianne Turnbull, a St. Paul resident who has cancer and supports the bill, said at the hearing of the House Health and Human Services Policy Committee that “when the time comes, I want a good death. I want to die at home surrounded by people who love me.”

Stephanie Packer travelled from California to testify against the bill, the Star Tribune reported. Packer has pulmonary fibrosis, and said her insurer stopped covering several of her medications after assisted suicide was legalized in her home state, and she was told her copay for assisted suicide medication would be only $1.20.

“If there are other options out there to save them money, they are good businesspeople, and they are going to do it,” she said of insurance companies.

A Nevada physician, Dr. T. Brian Callister, warned that with legal assisted suicide, “what we are going to see is a movement towards the cheapest treatment” by insurers. “The cheapest treatment is the medicine that is going to kill you.”

Senator John Hoffman, DFL-Champlin, told the AP that insurers could pressure the elderly and disabled to use assisted suicide medication, and said, “I think people with disabilities should be pretty concerned.”

Rep. Anne Neu questioned at the hearing how many people would choose assisted suicide “in fear of being a burden on their families.”

The state’s bishops are among the religious leaders opposed to the bill.

At the hearing, Asad Zaman of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota noted his opposition to the bill, while Harlan Limpert, a Unitarian Universalist minister, indicated his support.

Senator Michelle Benson, R-Ham Lake, who chairs the Minnesota Senate Health and Human Services Committee, said shortly after the House committee’s hearing that “physician-assisted suicide is a dangerous policy and we will not hear it in the Senate.”

“Many of those opposed to state-sanctioned suicide are in the mental health and disability community because when people are vulnerable, they are at the greatest risk of outside influence clouding their personal judgement,” she noted. “When people are facing difficult decisions or even desperation, the state should not be telling them ending their life is a way out.”

Benson suggested palliative care as a “life-affirming” alternative, and said: “In fact, we proposed a palliative care commission to discuss policy options that would support palliative care, but House Democrats opposed the bill.”

“Senate Republicans have increased funding and expanded health care access to those with mental health issues in recent years. It frightens me to consider someone who may be having suicidal ideation could be told that suicide is a positive choice for their life. Let’s be clear: it is not. Whether it’s done by a medical professional or an individual’s tragic decision, suicide hurts those left behind,” she stated.

“Finally, if physician-assisted suicide becomes law, it may be easier for some to remind those with a high level of care that it is cheaper for them to die than to keep them alive. The cost of care is not how we determine the value of someone’s life.”

The state legislature will not reconvene until February 2020.

In the US, assisted suicide is legal in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia, and in Montana by a court ruling. A law allowing it in Maine will take effect Jan. 1, 2020, and a law legalizing it in New Jersey is on hold while it is being challenged in court.

In Colorado, a Colorado man who has cancer and his doctor have filed a suit against a Catholic health system alleging that its policy barring doctors from participating in assisted suicide violates state law.

[…]

Washington D.C., Sep 11, 2019 / 01:00 pm (CNA).- A florist in Washington state sued for declining to serve a same-sex wedding is once again appealing her case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a statement issued Sept. 11, lawyers from the Alliance Defending Freedom said that Barronelle Stutzman’s case must be considered by the court for a second time.

Stutzman’s appeal comes after the Washington state Supreme Court ruled against her for the second time earlier this year, saying that “the adjudicatory bodies that considered this case did not act with religious animus” in ruling against Stutzman.

“Regardless of what one believes about marriage, no creative professional should be forced to create art or participate in a ceremony that violates their core convictions. That’s why we have taken Barronelle’s case back to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Kristen Waggoner, senior vice president of the U.S. Legal Division of ADF and attorney for Stutzman, said on Wednesday.

In 2013, the 74 year-old florist declined to make flower arrangements for the same-sex wedding of long-time customer and friend Rob Ingersoll, saying that she believed marriage to be a sign of relationship between Christ and His Church and she could not make a floral arrangement for a same-sex wedding. Stutzman referred Ingersoll to several nearby florists. 

Although Ingersoll did not file a complaint with the state, Stutzman was later sued by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the attorney general of Washington state for discrimination.

“The Attor­ney General concocted a one-of-a-kind lawsuit, prompt­ing others to threaten and harass her,” ADF’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court states.  

In 2017, the Washington state Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling against Stutzman. In June of 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the ruling and sent the case back to the state supreme court, ruling that Stutzman’s case should be reconsidered in light of the Court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop decision.

In that decision, the Court decided that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed a constitutionally unacceptable hostility toward religion in ruling that Masterpiece Cake Shop baker Jack Phillips violated anti-discrimination law.

In June of 2019, the Washington supreme court again ruled against Stutzman saying the lower courts had not acted with impermissible hostility towards her religious beliefs.

“Although settled law compelled us to reject Arlene’s Flowers and Barronelle Stutzman’s claims the first time around, we recognized Stutzman’s ‘sincerely held religious beliefs’ and ‘analyze[d] each of [her] constitutional defenses carefully,’” the court’s decision stated. “And on remand, we have painstakingly reviewed the record for any sign of intolerance on behalf of this court or the Benton County Superior Court, the two adjudicatory bodies to consider this case.”

“After this review, we are confident that the two courts gave full and fair consideration to this dispute and avoided animus toward religion,” the ruling stated. “We therefore find no reason to change our original decision in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop.”

According to ADF, the state supreme court issued largely the same decision that it had previously, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s order to reconsider the case in light of a new decision.

The Washington court said that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission applied only to “adjudicatory bodies” and not executive officials like the state’s Attorney General, who brought the case against Stutzman. 

“In any event, we decline to expansively read Masterpiece Cakeshop to encompass the ‘very different context’ of executive branch discretion,” the Washington state supreme court’s decision stated.

In the petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the ADF argues that the state court effectively excused religious hostility by a state executive official, and that the Supreme Court “should reaffirm that the Free Exercise Clause binds all state actors, not only adjudicators,” and citing four federal circuit court rulings that applied rules barring religious hostility to executive officials.

Stutzman says she stands to lose almost everything that she owns if she loses her case.

“This case is an ideal opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to reaffirm that the First Amendment protects people who continue to believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman,” ADF vice president of appellate advocacy John Bursch stated.

“Particularly at a time when society is becoming more confrontational and less civil, it is critical that the courts honor the rights of citizens to speak and act freely, including those who strive to live consistently with their faith,” Bursch said.

[…]

Washington D.C., Sep 11, 2019 / 12:00 pm (CNA).- On the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Catholic leaders in the United States has spoken in honor of those who lost their lives, and praised the country’s resolve and unity.
… […]