Jerry Cornfield writes about the effort by former Governor Booth Gardner to bring Oregon’s assisted suicide law to Washington. His “Death with Dignity” initiative will be filed this morning at 10am.
Oregon’s law has functioned as expected since its inception 10 years ago. Despite the howling of those who claimed that the law would lead to mass suicides, only a tiny fraction of Oregonians take advantage of this law each year to legally end their lives on their own terms. Unfortunately, as David Postman reports, this initiative will have opposition from the Governor’s office:
Gov. Chris Gregoire is talking to reporters in Olympia. She was just asked her position on the assisted suicide initiative that former Gov. Booth Gardner will file tomorrow. Gardner, who has Parkinsons, has been a mentor to Gregoire. Gregoire’s voice cracked when she answered the question:
“I love my friend Booth Gardner and my heart goes out to his condition and what he’s had to face. He was my motivation for the Life Sciences Discovery Fund. I pray every day that we will find a cure. But I find it on a personal level, very, very difficult to support assisted suicide.”
That’s interesting, because back in 2004, when she was running for governor, the following appeared in the Seattle PI:
State Attorney General Christine Gregoire, the leading Democratic candidate for governor, said she does not see a conflict between her Catholic faith and protecting abortion rights, said Morton Brilliant, her press secretary.
Gregoire is “deeply faithful and also strongly committed to a woman’s right to choose,” Brilliant said. “And she believes a woman’s right to choice is a fundamental right.”
Directly bucking [Seattle Archbishop Alex] Brunett’s edict, he added that Gregoire does not believe abortion is immoral.
“(Gregoire) does not see her role as governor as requiring her to impose her faith on the entire state,” he said. “Washington is clearly a pro-choice state, Gregoire will not shy away from that belief and will not waver in her support of that right.”
[Emphasis mine]
I find it extremely difficult to understand how a person can see abortion as a fundamental right, but also see the right for a terminally ill individual to control their own death as being subject to other people’s moral qualms.
I catch some grief from my friends for having voted for Dino Rossi in 2004, but it’s days like this (and there have been many recently) that remind me why I just couldn’t fill in that circle next to Gregoire’s name. She ran a hollow campaign with no ideas and has since become a governor that nearly always reverts to the most authoritarian solutions, rather than being concerned with the state constitution, the rights of Washington State citizens, or even the foreseeable results of her actions. In almost everything we’ve seen, she seems more interested in doing the symbolic than the sensible.
As I was researching this post and looking for Gregoire’s past statements on abortion, I found that it’s nearly impossible to find statements directly from her that affirm her support for a woman’s right to choose. In fact, this page reports that she told Archbishop Brunett in the meeting referenced above that as a Catholic, she was “against abortion.” At this point, I have no idea who’s really telling the truth. But what I do know is that if she really is pro-choice, her stance on assisted suicide clearly makes her a hypocrite. If I had to guess, I’d say her stance on assisted suicide is the real Gregoire and her pro-choice position is a pander.
Dino Rossi is the only openly anti-choice politician I’ve ever voted for in my life, and as the election was unimaginably close, I became overly concerned about casting what was essentially a protest vote over Gregoire’s lethargic campaign that could’ve been the deciding vote in the entire election. After watching the entire Republican Party establishment act like a bunch of toddlers in the months after the election, I seriously doubt I can vote for Rossi again – but at this point, I can’t vote for Gregoire either. As the Bush era collapses into itself and gives Democrats incredible gains in Washington DC, we’re heading into a new progressive era where civil liberties actually matter again to voters, but this November Washington State residents won’t have anyone on the ballot who reflects these values.
UPDATE: Back in October, the Seattle Times had a nice story of someone in Oregon who took advantage of their right to choose.
I’m certainly OK with assisted suicide. Once again, it’s personal choice and not what your religious dogma dictates. Sorry Queen Chrissie, but keep your Catholic ethics out of it.
Rossi owes his political rise to BIAW who is more or less fascist.
You can’t put Gregoire’s position on this issue in that camp.
To support Rossi is to support greedheads run amuck. I’d take Gregoire’s flaws and our leverage to influence her anytime, anyday, anyweek, any anything.
Lee,
1st i do not beleive in the “protest vote” and feel that if we want a true change to the “Business of Politics as Usual” we need to let go of the idea of only an Elephant or an Ass being elected.
we MUST let go of the idea that backing the winner is the best vote…it sounds very close to what a sports fans says….”yea, he killed a mother and child in a drunk driving crash but he can plug the running holes so he can play for my team”
just sick….why is it so hard for the US to vote for what they want and stop voting against their best interests?
assisted suicide, what kind off tax are they going to add to it?
Unborn children? Lets rip them right out of the womb. Want to die? Lets help you out of your misery. Elderly? Lets pull the plug on grannie too!
The complete and total disregard for human life is utterly frightening!!
Do you people practice eugenics?
Lee, there will, in all probability, be someone on the ballot who supports civil liberties.
That person will be a Libertarian. Whether s/he has a chance of winning is another matter, as is the other Paulesque baggage they’re likely to come with. But give credit where it’s due.
@6
That person will be a Libertarian. Whether s/he has a chance of winning is another matter, as is the other Paulesque baggage they’re likely to come with. But give credit where it’s due.
You’re right, and a Libertarian will probably get my vote this time (and should have last time).
Lee, “But what I do know is that if she really is pro-choice, her stance on assisted suicide clearly makes her a hypocrite.”
Your “logic” in voting for Rossi last time is every bit as flawed as this statement.
But first lets get a few facts up front. First, I am a strong supporter of Booth’s assisted suicide measure. Second, the Gov is not campaigning against this measure and has not said she would block a bill if it came to her after passing both houses. All she stated was her personal view on the issue when she was asked.
As for being pro-choice, the gov has and continues to be a strong supporter of a woman’s right to choose. Supporting the right to choose does not make the Gov or me pro abortion.
AS for your claim of hypocrisy, well let us look at the facts. The fundamentalist view is that life begins at conception and this is Rossi’s view, hence his opposition to stem cell research and the day after pill as well as choice. This is not the gov’s view in any of the areas.
The assisted suicide issue is a substantially different one since Booth, for instance, is undeniably living.
I do not hold the Gov’s view as it relates to the freedom of choice Booth seeks to make legal, but it is not hypocritical and does not impact my support for her.
Get a grip man!
I we did practice eugenics mr. pest-infested at 5…I would have preferred YOU be the first to go.
The Queen NOT supporting abortion? I don’t think so.
So……It’s OK to kill defenseless unborn children but NOT ok for grown adults to make a “choice?”
WTF???
I wouldn’t chime in if at least you have the decency to stop partial birth abortions. Otherwise, I could leave the rest to the constitutional process.
in 2004 I wasn’t particularly happy with Gregoire, her reign as Washington State Attorney General wasn’t particularly impressive, with the office dropping the ball on several high-profile cases which resulted in huge verdicts against the state. I thought she was too infatuated with her future political prospects that she wasn’t minding the store at home. But once she was the nominee, I (reluctantly) voted for her of Rossi.
The 2004 post-election battle disgusted me, the Republican media campaign was blatantly dishonest. The Republican party was using it to raise money from their base on a national scale, and to mobilize the local Republicans for future elections, not so much because the governor’s office was worth the effort. The only bright spot was Rossi dropping the appeal. I’ll give him credit for at least realizing that the voters wanted the issue ended, and that continued conflict would kill any future political career he might have, even though that was just fine with the national Republican Party, as long as it served their other purposes.
I’ve mentioned before (here) that I am a Democrat who happens to be Pro-Life, and (also) against assisted suicide laws. It’s a religious issue with me, I believe that life begins with conception, and in any conflict between conflicting rights of individuals (including a fetus), you err on the side of life. I think Roe vs. Wade was a very poorly crafted legal decision. But I can see how others would reasonably disagree with my positions.
Therefore, don’t agree with the party’s platform on the abortion issue. But I also realize that a majority of American voters agree with the pro-choice position, and unless or until that changes, it’s foolish to make it a wedge issue. I also think the Republicans have spent the last three decades taking advantage of Evangelicals on this issue, calling for them to contribute their money and votes in support of Republicans in order to “stop abortions”, but once in office they don’t exert one iota of political capital to try to achieve that result. I feel certain that while many Republicans oppose abortions in the abstract, personal experience (among friends, relatives, and acquaintences) indicate that for many, their opposition tends to stop at their personal lives – when their own daughters, wives, or mistresses become inconveniently pregnant.
I agree, then, with Lee that Gregoire’s position is logically inconsistent. You might be able to rationalize it by saying a fetus isn’t a life (a point I disagree with), but a dying person is inarguably an existing life, although not a quality one. But I’m not about to give Rossi and his fellow BIA and Republicans the key to the state’s treasury and its future over this issue. The last seven years of the Bush administration show how bad it can be when you put the Republicans in charge. Sure, the Democrats would likely still control the legislature, but with Rossi wielding a veto pen, and using Bush’s obstinance in 2007 as an example, a lot of damage can be done.
Why do I dislike Rossi so much? Well, I don’t. I really don’t know him that well. But he seems to me too much like a tool being propped up by the Republican special interests to do his bidding. Without significant experience running a government or large business, and without a political power base of his own, he will be much like Bush – subject to being controlled by those around him, with their own agendas. As the Bush administration showed, that can be a very dangerous situation.
@8
OK, so let’s say that abortion were illegal in this state and the Governor was asked to comment about an initiative making it legal and she said “But I find it on a personal level, very, very difficult to support abortion”. Would that be seen as being neutral on the issue, or would that be seen as being against the initiative?
I certainly agree that a person can be morally opposed to something while still believing that it should be legal, but the way Gregoire responded to that question makes it fairly clear that she does not believe it should be legal.
The assisted suicide issue is a substantially different one since Booth, for instance, is undeniably living.
This doesn’t really help your case unless you also believe that there’s no real difference between taking your own life and taking someone else’s.
Read my post again oh Lee. The post by rhp6033 also may help. The Gov, I believe is coming from the belief that an embryo at conception does not constitute a life. So the point I was making is that someone who is sick is living. Thus the ethical questions for anyone who holds these beliefs do not justify the claim of hypocrisy.
Your question regarding abortion and your made up response by the Gov is not worth expanding upon except to say that you misrepresented what she believes and would say.
It is for instance, not hypocritical to feel strongly that you would never have an abortion and to also feel strongly that the right to choose should rest with the woman involved and not with the state.
One can logically draw a distinction between abortion and suicide, and do so from either side of the issue.
Some people believe that both unborn babies and living people are human beings with souls, and therefore it is worse for another to kill a defenseless fetus than for a mentally competent adult to kill oneself or procure assistance in doing so.
Other people believe that an unborn fetus is different in various ways from a living person. They may not believe that a fetus has a soul or consciousness. Or they may believe the soul intended for the fetus will have another chance at life (i.e. end up with some baby who is born alive) if the fetus is not born. Or they may consider the rights and interests of the woman carrying the fetus. In such cases, one could consider it worse for a living human being to end their life, than to abort the opportunity of a fetus to be born.
But to condemn the Governor as a hypocrite because she is at worst hesitant about backing a given initiative? Not logical!
Oh where oh where are all the pseudo-libertarians here, eh?
If I am terminally ill and wish not to continue horrendously expensive and ultimately ineffective treatment…and then wish to no longer suffer and be a burden financially and emotionally to those I care about…just who’s business is it to stand in my way?
@13
Read my post again oh Lee. The post by rhp6033 also may help.
You may want to read rhp6033’s post again too since he explicitly agrees with me that Gregoire’s views are inconsistent.
The Gov, I believe is coming from the belief that an embryo at conception does not constitute a life. So the point I was making is that someone who is sick is living.
I think you’re probably wrong about what the governor thinks here, but since she’s obviously been very, very careful about actually talking about abortion, I have no idea. But regardless of what the Governor actually thinks, a fetus is a life, it’s just not a “human” life because it lacks the human awareness that mandates the special protections we all have under the law. But both abortion and suicide are moral choices that involve the end of a life, and in both cases, those moral choices should be fundamental rights for the individuals involved, and not for the state to dictate.
Your question regarding abortion and your made up response by the Gov is not worth expanding upon except to say that you misrepresented what she believes and would say.
You have Google. Find a direct quote from Gregoire (not from a surrogate) in support of the right to choose (for either abortion or assisted suicide). I’m not saying there’s nothing out there or that I absolutely know what her position is. I’m just saying that I looked for about an hour yesterday and couldn’t find one. Some pages actually have her listed as having not taken a position. I was surprised to see that, although that’s obviously not proof of anything.
It is for instance, not hypocritical to feel strongly that you would never have an abortion and to also feel strongly that the right to choose should rest with the woman involved and not with the state.
Absolutely. But when it comes to assisted suicide, if Gregoire felt this way, she would have made a very different statement yesterday when asked about it.
@14
Or they may believe the soul intended for the fetus will have another chance at life (i.e. end up with some baby who is born alive) if the fetus is not born.
Richard, we’re trying to have a serious discussion here. This is about as ridiculous as giving credence to people who want to outlaw abortion because it confuses the storks.
@16: Lee
Sorry – I agree with Goldy on this one. Gregoire’s private beliefs on Abortion and Assisted suicide may be to be against both – but her private beliefs do not necessarily make her positions against government mandated law for people who don’t agree with her – to be inconsistent. The people who say abortion is murder (and human life can only be taken by G-d) – period – but are for the death penalty, have a much greater moral quandry or inconsistancy, I think.
She can privately be against abortion and assisted suicide – but she doesn’t want a law that makes them illegal for those who don’t share her beliefs – that is the more libertarian principle. Just because I have a belief, doesn’t mean I will impose my morals on this on people who don’t share this belief.
On the other hand – there are certain societal beliefs that are (or should be) more common – rape, incest etc.
@18
She can privately be against abortion and assisted suicide – but she doesn’t want a law that makes them illegal for those who don’t share her beliefs – that is the more libertarian principle. Just because I have a belief, doesn’t mean I will impose my morals on this on people who don’t share this belief.
I guess what I’m having trouble understanding is that – if you and Goldy and others are right about what the Governor believes – then why didn’t she say that she supports the initiative? Right now, assisted suicide IS illegal. Wouldn’t it have been a no-brainer for her to say, “Personally I’m opposed to assisted suicide, but I support Gardner’s efforts?” Maybe the way Postman reported it made it seem different than what it really was, but I doubt it.
I disagree with YLB @ 2 the BIAW is Facist. I think they can more accurately be categorized as being ultra Libertarian. Their positions are consistantly anti-government authority to regulate private business or real property use.
I just hate to see the term Facist thrown around too loosely, since it loses its meaning. Dick Cheney, now there’s a Facist. If it were up to him we’d have a federal government that answers to no one, and operates solely in the interest of big business.
we’d have a federal government that answers to no one, and operates solely in the interest of big business.
BIAW wants a State government that answers to noone but them and operates solely in the interest of Real Estate.
Another thing – I’ve worked for real estate developers and what I’ve noticed is that the path from contractor to millionaire developer to mult-millionaire to gazillionaire is from middle-of-the-road Dem to far right nutcase.
Not always of course but more the case than I’m comfortable with. I wouldn’t trust anyone from real estate with the State House and neither should anyone else.
Lee, you didn’t! Say it ain’t so.
@19: Lee
I am not sure that Gregoire believes as I hypothesized – but that is the position that a number of Catholic legislators have taken, that a private belief should not be a mandatory law for everyone.
Of course, there have been priests that have come out and said (so-and-so (for example: John Kerry)) wouldn’t be getting communion from ME because they don’t support the church doctrine as I see it.
As someone, like all of us, who someday may be faced with wanting to make this heart wrenching decision (well heart wrenching for the family I might leave behind), I see it as peaceful control over my end of life. No one has a right impose their moral values over me when it comes to my life or death decision.
I do not want tubes shoved into every orifice of my body to keep me alive for another day, week or month of non-living life. What constitutes quality is up to each individual. For some, the fear of death is overwhelming. Others may see it as peaceful and comforting. No one knows with out any doubt who is right.
For the religious right to suggest that they KNOW is disingenuous and duplicitous. For the liberal left to say that they know there is no God is the same amount of malarkey. NO ONE KNOWS. Those that KNOW, if there is anyone who knows, are DEAD.
This is not the same issue as abortion. In this instance the person involved has complete choice and knowledge and, hopefully, understanding of the consequences of this kind of action. Lets be grown ups and not confuse the issues with each other.
Carl Grossman
Hey rhp6033: I bet not many of the libbies here are members of http://www.democratsforlife.org/.
If one wants to die with dignity, that should be their decision. If someone wants their life prolonged at all costs that’s their decision.
You all know my position on unborn children.
Why is suicide unlawful?
Do not the left and the right agree?
If a right wing person believes there should be government regulation interfering with this part of liberty, then….that person is a moralist, not a libertarian, correct? They are only a provisionsal libertarian. (“I believe in freedom from government regulation …unless the regulation is something I support for another reason.”
DO not most libertarians think this way? I have not met one who is truly libertarian; they all say they are but when questioned they tend to say yes there should be schools, yes there should be zoning, yes there should at least be some requirement of educating children, yes, there should be laws about contracts and wills and such, yes there should be roads, and so on. But then when I say there should be other social programs, they say oh no, that is a violation of liberty.
Lee voted for a Republican.
And I thought you were the brains of this operation.
You voted for Dino Rossi.
THAT is rich.
Oh brother Lee. You deserve any grief that comes your way from your friends. Ever try listening to them?
You don’t seem like the type……to listen to people.
To any of you blowtards that give the BIAW any shit about
anything. You think houses are expensive in this area? Do
you retards have any idea what is is that BIAW does on a
daily basis to keep dozens or hundreds of new regulations
on building and land development. If it weren’t for them
nobody except the very very wealthy could own a house.
There is absolutley very little common sense to many of
the things that are proposed. The BIAW fights for all of
us.
How many times have you looked back in life and said, “Man, now that I know how it feels to walk in their shoes, I was wrong.” Well, those opposed to death with dignity should probably go fetch a terminal illness – stat – and try it out for a bit. I watched someone suffer for 4 years. He was 34 when he died. Cancer took his eyesight, his ability to bathe himself, and to care for himself. He sat in a chair listening to TV for 4 years, heavily medicated from the pain. His only trips out were to the doctor. All of his friends stopped visiting after a while because it was depressing. Had he ever wanted to end it sooner, I never would have judged him. I don’t know what it’s like.
Please keep your religion out of my government. Or I’ll start forcing my Darwin into your church.