CDCAN
CALIFORNIA DISABILITY
COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK
DISABILITY RIGHTS
NEWS REPORT
#0010-2006 January 17, 2006 Tuesday
morning
Connecting people with disabilities &
seniors to rights and unified action
1225 8th Street Suite 480 - Sacramento, CA 95814
916/446-0013 Fax: 916/446-0026
Marty Omoto - director
email: martyomoto@rcip.com
website: www.cdcan.us
US Supreme Court
Decision:
* UPHOLDS VOTE OF
6-3 OREGON ASSISTED SUICIDE LAW
* RULING DOESN'T LEGALIZE ASSISTED
SUICIDE
* IMPACT ON AB 651 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER
BERG
WASHINGTON DC
- The US Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote, upheld the Oregon assisted suicide
state law in a ruling issued today, though the ruling does not overturn the
right of states to ban such laws if they choose to. The Oregon state law, passed
by voters in 1994, allows physicians to assist persons terminally ill to end
their lives by prescribing medications - an act that the US Department of
Justice said was in violation of federal laws to regulate doctors and controlled
substances. The case, originally filed
by then US Attorney General John Ashcroft, was carried forward by current US
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.
The ruling backed a previous ruling
by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that called then Attorney General
Ashcroft's ''unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices
historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate
about physician-assisted suicide.''
Former Attorney
General John Ashcroft, who in 2001 said that doctor-assisted suicide is not a
''legitimate medical purpose'' and that Oregon physicians would be punished for
helping people die under the law. The US Supreme Court disagreed saying
that the US Department of Justice improperly
tried to use a federal drug law to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe
medications to persons who are terminally ill for the purpose of ending their
lives.
The high court's decision does not legalize assisted
suicide nationwide or prohibits states from banning the practice. The
ruling however has impact on legislation pending (AB 651 by Assemblymember Patty
Berg) in California that is based on the Oregon law. That bill is in the
state Senate Judiciary Committee, though no hearing date has been set yet.
How Justices Voted
The controversial issue is one where traditional liberal
and conservative legislators and judges - including members of the US Supreme
Court, switch political sides in what opponents of assisted suicide say is
a critical disability and human rights issue. * Conservatives, who are viewed by
some disability advocates as opposing expansion of disability rights or favoring
placing limits on those rights, especially in the area of access to public
accommodations, side with many of those same advocates on this issue.
Assemblymember Tim Leslie and Sen. Charles Poochigian, both conservative
Republicans, both strongly opposed the Berg bill and efforts to legalize
assisted suicide - though both have been in favor of changes to certain rights
impacting access to public accommodations. Assemblymember Ray Haynes,
another conservative Republican, was also strongly against assisted suicide and
the Berg bill - but also sponsored a bill that would have ended the State's
contribution to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) worker wages.
* Meanwhile,
progressive or liberals, who are viewed by some advocates as favoring protection
or expansion of disability rights, have been siding with the Oregon law, or in
support of the efforts to pass a similar law in California.
* The vote
on the US Supreme Court also showed how influential the vote of Judge Samuel A.
Alito will be, if he is confirmed, as most people expect, to replace Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court.
* Voting to uphold the
Oregon assisted suicide state law and against the claim of the Bush
Administration were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Anthony
Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring, David Souter, and John Paul
Stevens.
* Voting against the Oregon
state law (and in support of the claim of the US Department of Justice) was
Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas. The three
justices said that the federal government has the power to regulate the
medicines that doctors prescribe.
What the Court Said and
Ruled
The US Supreme Court ruled that
the federal government, represented by then US Attorney General John Ashcroft
improperly tried to use a federal drug law to stop further implementation of the
Oregon assisted suicide law by prosecuting Oregon doctors who prescribe
medications for that purpose. The ruling did not however legalize across
the nation assisted suicide or physician assisted dying) or prohibit the states
from passing and enacting laws that ban that practice.
* Justice
Kennedy writing for the majority of the Court wrote that ''Congress did not have
this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance,'' and that
the ''authority claimed by the attorney
general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes
and design.''
* ''If the term legitimate
medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs
to produce death,'' Justice Kennedy wrote.
* Justice Scalia wrote that the ruling ''is perhaps driven
by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal
government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that
position.''
Previous Rulings and
California Legislation
* 1990 - the
Supreme Court ruled that persons who are diagnosed as terminally ill people may
refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive.
* 1992 -
California voters rejected 46-54% in November 1992 a ballot initiative,
Proposition 161, which would have allowed either the administration of lethal
medications by a physician or self-administration of lethal medications by a
patient.
* 1994 - Oregon's "Death with
Dignity Act" initiative, Measure 16, which AB 654 is based on, passed by Oregon
voters by a narrow 51-49% in November 1994.
* 1995 - two bills (AB 1080 by former Assemblymember
Martinez, and AB 1310 by former Assemblymember Mazzoni) both modeled after the
Oregon law, were introduced and died in committee. Neither bill was heard in
committee.
* 1997 - Implementation
of the Oregon law was delayed until 1997 by an injunction, which was lifted by
the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on October 27, 1997 ( Lee v. State
of Oregon , 107 F.3d 1382). The law was implemented later in
1997.A ballot measure in November 1997 (Measure 51) to repeal the Act failed by
a vote of 60-40%.
* 1997 - the US
Supreme Court unanimously ruled that people have no constitutional right
to die, upholding the right of states to ban physician-assisted suicide. However
the ruling did not prohibit states from passing laws to allow it. The ruling, in
an opinion, by the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, allowed individual
states to decide - but hinted that the Court at some future point would look at
the issue.
* 1999 - Former Assemblymember
Dion Aroner (D-Berkeley) carried legislation in 1999 (AB 1592) called "Death
With Dignity" that was nearly identical to the Oregon law. The Aroner bill
passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee by a narrow 8-7 vote, but died in
Assembly Appropriations Committee in 1999.
* 2004 - Assemblymember Patty Berg
(D-Eureka) introduces AB 654, similar to the 1999 Aroner bill and the
Oregon law. The bill passes out of the Assembly Judiciary and
Appropriation committees, before being held up - due to opposition - on the
Assembly Floor. She later amends the contents of AB 654 into AB 651 in
August 2004 to allow the issue to be heard before the Senate Judiciary
Committee. The bill (AB 651) as of 1/17, has not been set for hearing
yet.
Impact on People With
Disabilities and Seniors
The issue
divides the senior and disability community on religious, personal and political
grounds with debate as contentious and emotional as the issue of
abortion.
Assemblymember Berg, a former
senior advocate, previously has stated that her bill will not apply to people
with developmental disabilities - or those people who have other cognitive
disabilities. Advocates opposing the bill contend that the legislation does not
expressly say so or point to existing state laws that define developmental
disabilities under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act,
considered the civil rights act for people with developmental
disabilities.
* Some advocates - citing past history of budget cuts
and rollback of services and access to health care, do not trust the State to
enforce any safeguards that any bill would put in place on the issue what they
call "assisted suicide".
* Other advocates while recognizing a person's right
to make end of life decisions, fear that the state - or the medical profession,
would unduly influence or encourage assisted dying for a various reasons -
including savings in healthcare costs.
* Some advocates remain opposed
because of the history of the euthanasia program that Nazi Germany imposed
specifically on children and adults with disabilities, before the outbreak of
World War II.
* Others - like the Catholic Church, have opposed previous
efforts in California on religious grounds.
* Other advocates, including some
senior groups, however support the concept that Berg advocates because it
provides protections to a person's "ultimate right" to make a decision about
their own life, in those cases where the illness is terminal.
* Some
advocates cite personal cases where "death with dignity" - as Berg refers to her
proposed legislation - was the option that their loved ones wanted, because
their terminal illness was either too painful or too unbearable.
* Some
advocates say legislation would add protections to people with disabilities and
seniors, because it is already happening - but others strongly dispute that
point.
* Both sides point to the Oregon statute, passed in 1997 as evidence
that supports their view.
NEXT STEPS
* The ruling by
the US Supreme Court has no immediate impact in California, since the ruling
does not prohibit states from having laws that prohibit or ban states from
allowing physician assisted suicide. California currently bans assisted
suicide.
* AB 651 by Assemblymember Patty Berg (D-Eureka), which would
put in place in California a physician assisted suicide (or physician aid in
dying for those diagnosed as terminally ill) similar to the Oregon law.
That bill - strongly opposed by a coalition of several disability and senior
rights organizations, individuals, religious groups and others, is waiting
for a hearing before the State Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill is
supported by a several disability and senior groups and individuals.
*
CDCAN Townhall Telemeeting scheduled on January 30, 2006 at 1:00 PM to 2:45 PM
on this issue.
How To Receive CDCAN Capitol News Reports and
Alerts
The California Disability Community Action Network is a
non-partisan link to thousands of Californians with developmental and other
disabilities, people with traumatic brain and other injures, seniors and their
families, community organizations and providers, direct care and other workers,
and other advocates. These action alerts and news reports is for all of
them. If you would like to get on this distribution (and conversely,
get off of it) please send an email with that request to: martyomoto@rcip.com OR sign up via the NEW
CDCAN website at www.cdcan.us Sharing information is part of
our organizing effort. Please feel free to forward or copy this
(attribution is nice). We're all in this together!