|
|
WASHINGTON-- The Supreme Court upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die. Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said that a federal drug law does not override the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people. New Chief Justice John Roberts backed the Bush administration, dissenting for the first time. The administration improperly tried to use a drug law to punish Oregon doctors who prescribe lethal doses of prescription medicines, the court majority said. Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Kennedy is expected to become a more influential swing voter after O'Connor's departure. He is a moderate conservative who sometimes joins the liberal wing of the court in cases involving such things as gay rights and capital punishment. The ruling was a reprimand to 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. Kennedy said the authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself, Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine. If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death, he wrote. Scalia said the court's 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. Oregon's law covers only extremely sick people-- those with incurable diseases and who are of sound mind, and after at least two doctors agree they have six months or less to live. For Oregon's physicians and pharmacists, as well as patients and their families, today's ruling confirms that Oregon's law is valid and that they can act under it without fear of federal sanctions, state Solicitor General Mary Williams said. The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft's unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide. Ashcroft had brought the case to the Supreme Court on the day his resignation was announced by the White House in 2004. The Justice Department has continued the case, under the leadership of his successor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The court's ruling was not a final say on federal authority to override state doctor-assisted suicide laws-- only a declaration that the current federal scheme did not permit that. However, it could still have ramifications outside of Oregon. This is a disappointing decision that is likely to result in a troubling movement by states to pass their own assisted suicide laws, said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which backed the administration. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and a supporter of the law, said the ruling has stopped, for now, the administration's attempts to wrest control of decisions rightfully left to the states and individuals. Thomas wrote his own dissent as well, to complain that the court's reasoning was puzzling. Roberts did not write separately. Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that terminally ill people may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive. Then, justices in 1997 unanimously ruled that people have no constitutional right to die, upholding state bans on physician-assisted suicide. That opinion, by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said individual states could decide to allow the practice. Roberts strongly hinted in October when the case was argued that he would back the administration. O'Connor had seemed ready to support Oregon's law, but her vote would not have counted if the ruling was handed down after she left the court. The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © The Sun-Times Company Please choose another name! SM I have been using MT for a long time. I don't need this headache! Man! How does he choose??? The same way the previous presidents chose which I am not privy to but I know he is indeed the only president who has ever not attended at least one funeral of an American soldier during war time.(He also is the only president who did not pitch the first ball on opening day of baseball season...not important but an interesting sidebar for a former baseball team owner - most think he did not want to deal with the dissent). Not appropriate????? are you kidding??? what is the difference between a 19-year-old losing his life to a lunatic or a 19-year-old losing his life in the service of his country. Both should be given the respect of presidential presence. Who do we choose I think this is the first time in my life I will not vote. Neither candidate is capable in my opinion of running this country. One doesn't care about the country and the other one just got lucky being the last man standing in his party. Our country is "dumbdowning" in their presidential candidates. Just my opinion. What right to choose act? We already have the . Now let's see. If I had to choose between having a racist call me naive, sign me up for a barrel full of pot shots. Naive I am. womans right to choose what a woman chooses to do with her body, is her business..you are such a fanatic. Worry about you and yours and leave others to deal with their own. Worry about the kids already here that have no homes, worry about all the kids we are killing in Bush's immoral war. Worry about the kids we are sending as soldiers to get maimed and die for nothing. I don't know why you would choose this fight anyway...sm Bennetts words are right there for all to see/hear. This came out of his mouth, you can't make this stuff up. If you can't see any wrong, hate, inappropriateness in what he said then that's on you. Don't we pick and choose Don't we pick which Bible adages we follow? The Bible also says turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor as thyself, do unto others....yet many Christians in various venues (including these boards) chide others for being advocates of peace, tolerance and love for all citizens of the world. The Bible has contradictions, it was written by men, after all and seems incredibly subject to interpretation. I think it is a woman's right to choose.
Only because you choose to make it so. You are pro choice obviously, there is a choice to be made here too. There is nothing noble about using a 17-year-old for political fodder. What if the situation were reversed? What if Barack Obama had a pregnant teenage girl? Can you honestly say with a straight face you would have posted this same thing? Or are you suggesting that the left have no family values? Tell me, who would you choose to interview him? nm Well said. If we could only pick and choose who to help.. someone as yourself would be on top of my list! Do you have a brain and just choose not to use it? Are you seriously denying that Obama began his political career in the living room of an infamous domestic terrorist? NObody's that stupid, gourdpainter. Not even you! Right to choose........no matter what? sm Then by the same token, it is a woman's right to choose (or choice) to have sex in the first place, apart from incest and/or rape. In those 2 instances, the woman truly has no choice. However, I still do not believe that murdering a child is the answer. And I'm paying for children born out of wedlock anyway through my taxes. "Just because someone adopts a child does not mean they are good parents." True, but there are also children in this world whose natural parents are not good parents. Finally....I think you misunderstood my stance on doctors refusing to do abortions. In order to treat STDs, a doctor does not have to murder someone. In order to treat AIDS, a doctor does not have to murder someone. These are diseases which REQUIRE treatment in order for the patient to live. Conversely, in order to treat an unwanted pregnancy through abortion, a doctor MUST PERFORM MURDER, regardless of the gestational age of the baby. If a doctor does not believe that murder is right, then I believe he is within his God-given right to refuse to perform an abortion. I believe nurses and scrub techs and other support staff are also within their right to refuse to participate in such a procedure based on their religious beliefs/moral convictions. You can't pick and choose WHEN you want majority rule to count. The people have spoken, they don't want it, try again next time. Allowing us to choose which charities to support gives us too much control. Much better for government to grab our money and distribute it ''fairly'' to causes and individuals we would never approve of on our own. It goes right along with plans to eliminate individual choice in health care, eliminate school vouchers, bailouts, millions to ACORN, proposed limitations on first and second amendment rights. Do you remember Peter Falk as Columbo? ''Oh, and just one more thing....'' In an interview, Falk said that being investigated by Columbo was ''like being nibbled to death by ducks.'' Pretty good analogy to what's happening in our government. But we are losing our ability to choose every day. Can't have a fast food place in low income neighborhoods in California anymore because someone has decided because people have low incomes, they obviously can't make their own choices. Can't have trans fat because someone has decided we can't decide for ourselves what those are. Businessowners can no longer decide to allow smoking in their bars where majority of patrons are smokers in many places because someone else has decided it's for the greater good if they don't. I could go on. It isn't Democrat or Republican, it's WE THE PEOPLE allowing these things to happen, allowing ourselves to be duped by studies, doctors, and scientists who think they know what is best for everyone and that we aren't capable of making choices on our own. If we don't stop it in its tracks, it won't matter which party or who is in office. It will continue to spin out of control until we no longer have the choices of which you speak! But in order to make any difference, we have to be united and stop turning on each other. Rs and Ds will choose which polls to hear... You cannot overlook 13% undecided which gives neither candidate a bounce over the 50 mark, no matter how hard you try to make it fly. You can have your 3-day whoop, no problem. Convention bounce has a tendency to fade quickly in the face of unaddressed issues. Look....if liberals can pick and choose... statements of what someone said once and once they say now...so can conservatives. You can't have it both ways. Obama didn't choose this man.. He had this man chosen for him and probably had to be kicked pulling and screaming to this VP pick. If you have ever watched Biden speak, he has nothing but rave reviews of McCain. Sure, he's now running against him but he didn't suddenly change his feelings about him. He hasn't towards Obama either; he's just going through the motions in hopes of getting to the White House VP slot where he can make another run in 2012. I can't, because they choose to remain nameless x ya'll all said he should choose better acquaintances! nm x They choose to ignore that fact Becauuse it would be much harder to scare people if they told the truth. You choose who you CARE to hear Still, you are lumping everyone together. I AM a Christian AND a Republican and while I personally am definitely pro-life, I understand you cannot legislate morality. I definitely believe in sex education for our children and have no problem with birth control. So where does that put me in your narrow mind? why did you choose the word Wonderful? nm Excuse me but what do you mean by pick and choose? Obama has NO right to 'pick and choose.' He cannot interfere in Iran's sovereignty and internal affairs only with the justification that he supports and defends democracy. I wished he could! But he cannot, this would have been a grave mistake, a bigger mistake than Iraq. The Iranian government's reaction would have been to tell Obama 'Mind your own business.' Do you think all mothers would choose their life over their child's? A serious question. All this proves is that liberals pick and choose... freedom of religion? Like ANY of you ascribe to that? Lemme seee----go back to your church. Ummm...bible-thumpin gun moll...I would have to search, but you get my drift. Yes, i know what choice is. Me, and some like me, also believe the infant should have a choice, but you certainly jumped right in and circumvented that one didn't you? No big surprise here....you pick and choose the facts you want...sm to read and hear. I'm tired of trying to educate you. Meanwhile, Barry Obama can do no wrong, and the facts are spun in the media to his direction, making him look like the poster boy for "poor me" they're trying to "smear me" .... No matter that it is all TRUE!!!!! Well, boo hoo. Barry worked for ACORN, was and is, friends with terrorists and racists and liberal democratic former CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, people who hate this country and all it stands for are his so called "friends" that he has thrown under the bus. Watch, if he wins, they'll all pop out of the woodwork again. That man lies and rewrites his life story, and you all believe him. That old saying that goes: Show me a person's friends and those he surrounds himself with, and it will show you who he is. Well, I certainly don't like and trust what and who Barry Obama. Gee, how come there is NO ONE from Barry's former or current life, that are friends that can stand up for his character? The street is always one-way for the democrats, the biggest spin doctors around. I'll take SP over O any day. Roe vs Wade gave us the right to choose years ago. nm . Yep. And I will certainly abide by what the american people choose.... be it obama or McCain. But I know one thing...I won't have been a part of putting Obama or anymore Democrats in government. No way. No how. Happy voting! Exactly, is it fair to infringe on the caregiver's right to choose? sm So the woman choosing whether to have an abortion should have the right to choose what she does with her body but the medical person she goes to does not have a right to choose what they do with their body? I don't think one person's rights should infringe upon another's. Really, I am smart and one has to choose wisely on what to use one's braincells..... I think I stop for now with my postings. I do not want to get into flaming and I feel that it might come just to that, if you start questioning my intelligence if I do not read pagelong, useless links put on this board. I am not brainwashed. I live my life the way I choose to live and you are free to live yours the way you want to live. If you don't believe in Christianity and salvation that is your choice. I don't call you brainwashed by those who don't believe in God, so please don't call me brainwashed by my convictions and my belief in a Savior and eternal life. Have a blessed day! 
Yes, freedom works for everyone, right to choose applies....sm to individual doctors, nurses, and even pharmacists, as well as the woman; as you said, there are enough providers who will happily oblige and do the procedures for compensation and not have a problem with it. I used to be a surgical tech, I never had to assist in one, my docs were general surgeons, but I could never be in the room, myself, while an abortion was being performed, I would get sick. I am sorry, I believe in the freedom for others, but personally I could not be there, and would not want to be forced, could not! JMHO Yes, right, because all of the women who have abortions are simply sluts who can't keep their legs closed. Nobody has an abortion because they were raped and victims of a horrible abuse. I'm not for abortion but I don't have to be pro-life to see the ignorance in your post. I do not have evil thoughts. Satan exists whether you choose to believe he does. Finally, the woman who prayed before she voted is not like me. She allowed herself to be deceived. Both are very beautiful women. nm x Right back at ya! Come over here where women.... are not dissed by their party. Our door is always open! :) No, I don't hate women.... ....and I don't necessarily hate dems, either. Hate is too strong of a word, and not worth the effort. But I sure do dislike a bunch of women, and most of the ones I dislike happen to be democrats, who want to be taken care of by the social democrat party. So much for your women libbers and feminists. I never could quite understand how feminists could be dems, as they sure don't want to be taken care of by men. Then why would they let the government try to take complete control over their lives. Explain that one for me, please. I just shake my head at you all, I really do. And by the way, do you have some crystal ball that you know exactly why McCain chose Palin to be his running mate? I sincerely doubt any women will come running over to his side to vote, but you can sure bet he shored up his conservative base, which I believe was his intention. And it's going to work, too. Obama/Biden don't stand a chance. Just wait and watch. We will....and so will a lot of women out there in America... who identify with her. THere is a reason Obama said to leave her alone. |
|||||||
 |
 |
||||||
marks the location of current message within thread
