Editorials

FOCUS: OREGON'S DEATH WITH DIGNITY LAW
Here are excerpts from newspaper editorials elsewhere on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Oregon's Death With Dignity Law:

The Seattle Times: ``By allowing Oregon's assisted-suicide law to stand, the U.S. Supreme Court says a person with a terminal illness may make a deeply personal decision about his or her life. We support such a law. The ruling would have been better, however, had it also helped define the constitutional limit of federal power. ...

"The 6-3 ruling in Gonzales vs. Oregon is about how to interpret the Controlled Substances Act. It was not about the broader and more interesting question of whether assisted suicide is any of the federal government's business. Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent raised that issue and cast it aside, saying that if the federal government can ban marijuana, it can ban assisted suicide.

"We don't think assisted suicide should be a federal issue. We did not support the court's decision last year, in Gonzales vs. Raich, that made a federal issue of California's law allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana to the chronically ill. That seemed the sort of question California could decide for itself.

"Tuesday's ruling would have been better had it stated that assisted suicide is a question Oregon could decide for itself."

Sacramento Bee: "This ruling is important for two reasons. First, it should open the door for California, and other states, to have a lively debate on end-of-life issues that were in suspended animation until the court acted. Assembly members Patty Berg, D-Sebastopol, and Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, have introduced a bill modeled on Oregon's Death With Dignity Act called California Compassionate Choice Act.

"Equally important, this ruling should open the door for the Supreme Court to scrutinize broad claims of executive branch power in other areas."

Los Angeles Times: "There was no conflict here between the will of Congress and the will of a state legislature. The Bush administration was merely seeking to impose its social agenda, and shame on justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as well as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., for seeking to act as a rubber-stamp.

"But however satisfying the outcome in this case, we are not prepared to conclude that the federal government cannot under any circumstances undermine a state position on a contentious social issue like assisted suicide. If Tuesday's case had been about a state law banning gay marriage, instead of one allowing assisted suicide, many of today's liberal believers in states' rights would suddenly rediscover the joys of national power.

"If Congress had intended to address assisted suicide at the national level, or if an individual assisted-suicide case came before the Supreme Court raising a federal constitutional question, we would be less comfortable championing the supremacy of state law.

"And some rights, such as the right to an abortion, are part of a core right to privacy that is protected by the Constitution. These rights belong to all Americans regardless of which state they live in.

"This case was rightly decided. But the broader trend it represents - a court marked more by ideology than by reason - is disturbing."

The Denver Post: "It's curious that (then-Attorney General John) Ashcroft advanced an argument so blatantly at odds with the 10th Amendment: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'

"We were sorry to see Chief Justice John Roberts siding with intrusive government on his first major decision. Apparently it hasn't occurred to the new justice (nor colleagues Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas) that the people of Oregon have the right and wisdom to govern their medical affairs. By allowing terminally ill patients the option of ending their suffering, Oregonians have expressed their will, and the Supreme Court was wise to keep the U.S. attorney general out of the way."

The Chicago Tribune: "Oregon residents argued long and hard before they passed a 1994 initiative that allowed doctors to prescribe drugs to help terminally ill patients end their lives.

"Both candidates for governor that year campaigned against the measure, as did the Catholic Church and the American Medical Association. The state's own medical association declined to vote on a resolution in support of the proposal because its membership was polarized. Following this vigorous debate, the presumably well-informed people of Oregon voted, not once but twice, to approve the Death With Dignity Act. That should have settled it.

"On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that it did, rejecting former Attorney General John Ashcroft's end run around states' rights."

>> back to top

home | search | site guide | contact us | privacy policy