“WE hold these truths to be self-evident…”
By Brian Johnston
The Right to Life is asserted as an observable, self-evident fact. “The laws of nature and of nature’s God” are to be seen in the objective reality of unique human lives.
The purpose of the Right to Life movement is to show forth those self-evident facts of human life, and to assure the protections of government for those lives. We do not assert our personal faith or idiosyncratic beliefs regarding those lives, we simply show the self-evident uniqueness of the individual. According to America’s founders, the just powers of all governments is derived from the intrinsic value and worth of the lives governed. The ‘power over lives’ is directly related to recognizing the value and uniqueness of those lives.
On Nov 10, 2016, the French Supreme Counsel shocked caring people world-wide, when they ruled that the mere image of a Down’s syndrome child could not be broadcast on national television. The smiling images were part of a campaign by the Down’s Syndrome Association, ‘Dear Future Mom,’ it showed the hope and joy of Down’s syndrome individuals.
The State Counsel said that allowing people with Down’s syndrome to smile on television was “inappropriate” because it was “likely to disturb the conscience of women who had lawfully made different personal life choices”. Note that the High Court has ruled ending the life of a Down’s child is not to be considered ‘inappropriate,’ but the true offense against humanity is the showing images of those joyful children.
In our movement the most difficult challenge is not merely the opposition of those who disagree, but the imperious use of government authority to suppress and dismiss the ‘self evident’ nature of the Right to Life, of the value and significance of each life, even the seemingly insignificant life. For Government to war against ‘self-evident’ truths, it must first commit itself to suppressing the evidence. In France, 96% of Down’s children are ‘eliminated’ via abortion.
To: State Affiliates and Board members
From: Jennifer Popik, J.D. Director of Medical Ethics at National Right to Life
Re: URGENT emails and phone calls needed to the American Medical Association (AMA) over next several weeks
Date: September 15, 2016
There is an effort currently underway within the American Medical Association (AMA) to abandon its decades-long position opposing assisted suicide and take a neutral stance. At its July 2017 annual meeting, the AMA will consider taking a “neutral” position which essentially sends a green light to the states that legalizing is acceptable. However, we have recently been made aware that the AMA will hold an interim meeting on November 13 and 14 in Orlando where a special breakout session will be held on assisted suicide.
Both the national and state medical societies’ opposition to doctor-prescribed suicide have been instrumental in stopping the spread of these dangerous laws. In fact, when the Vermont and California medical societies took neutral positions, it was devastating to the efforts in the legislature to block legalization. Assisting suicide is now legal in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and California, and the practice may have some legal protection in the state of Montana.
We are asking the following things:
1. Please have your members contact one or both contacts below via phone or email.
2. Please restrict arguments to the suggested bullet points, in the person’s own words.
3. Speak with any physicians you know and urge them contact the AMA.
4. Ask for a written response/ report any information received back to NRLC.
1. Who to contact:
Dr. Andrew W. Gurman, MD, AMA President, email@example.com
330 N Wabash, Ste 43482
Chicago IL 60611-5885
Bette Crigger, PhD, CEJA’s Secretary, firstname.lastname@example.org
Secretary, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs
American Medical Association
330 N Wabash, Ste 43482
Chicago IL 60611-5885
Based on both polling and the positive experience of many states fighting these assisted suicide laws, please try and restrict your arguments to one or two of the following:
2. What to Say:
(Select one or more of the following statements and re-word or add your own thoughts.)
The AMA should retain its longstanding position in opposition to the legalization of assisted suicide because:
· Medical professionals should focus on providing care and comfort to patients – NOT becoming a source of lethal drugs. I would not want my doctor to have this power and suggest suicide to me as an “option.”
· Will the government and insurance companies do the right thing – pay for treatment costing thousands of dollars – or the cheap thing – pay for lethal drugs costing hundreds of dollars?
· Everyone knows someone who has been misdiagnosed or outlived a terminal diagnosis.
· Wanting to die because of depression is treatable. Millions of people are living proof.
· Everyone agrees that dying in pain is unacceptable, however nearly all pain is now treatable. A patient in pain should find a new doctor.
· Oregon is proof that general suicides rise dramatically once assisted suicide is promoted as a “good.”
· My family member could die from taking lethal drugs and I wouldn’t know about it until he/she is dead because no family notification is required in advance.
· Assisted suicide is a recipe for elder and disability abuse because it can put lethal drugs in the hands of abusers.
· A relative who is an heir to the patient’s estate or an abusive caregiver can pick up the lethal drugs and administer them without the patient’s knowledge or consent. There is no oversight and no witnesses are required once the lethal drugs leave the pharmacy
Please send any replies to email@example.com
California ProLife Council is a non-sectarian and non-partisan organization. That being said, in the current political environment, the stated policies of the two dominant political parties are inescapable.
The Republican Party has a solid pro-life platform, and in addition to protecting the unborn, sees a need to assertively protect the elderly and medically vulnerable.
The Democrat Party is committed to unlimited abortion funded by the government, and to the voluntary euthanizing of vulnerable patients.
In this important election year, we would be remiss to not point out this clear and bright distinction.
Dear Friend of Life,
The Republican party was founded for the specific purpose of ensuring that the dignity of the human person was protected in the law and in public policy. This was unlike the rest of the inchoate and at times confused abolitionist movement, which employed many non-policy related efforts from Harper’s Ferry to the Underground Railroad to address slavery.
Lincoln was VERY clear that the Republican Party was dedicated to, and in fact designed to use the civic process to change the policies that many others complained of and lashed out against. Lincoln, in the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, made clear that the Republican Party was unique in its anti-slavery efforts, and that unlike some abolitionists, Republicans were dedicated to using the civic process to the utmost, as both the principle tool and the ultimate tool for ending slavery.
Lincoln was right to focus the concern of America on the immediate electoral and policy opportunities at hand in order to bring an end to slavery. Employing these civic avenues is still our greatest hope for bringing an end to the legalized culture of Death, and the Republican Party remains our most effective tool to do so.
The California bureaucracy proposed a dramatic policy last week. It was essentially unreported. The Department of Corrections issued new regulations proposing that no prisoner shall be allowed to avail of the so called “Death With Dignity” Act. The law itself, currently under litigation, has been allowed to remain in effect for all other Californians until a ruling expected later next month. But in the meantime it is proposed that no prisoner, no matter how ill, may avail of the ‘right’ that other ill people have been offered; the supposed ‘right to be dead’. This might indeed be a good idea, but it reveals much deeper problems with the law. Problems other countries have also faced.
Individuals in California are currently ‘free to be dead’ when given a terminal diagnosis and an MD approximates that within 6 months they could die. If despondent and ‘hopeless’ in their own judgement, the patient is free to simply ‘get things over with.’ And ‘accommodating individuals’ may attend. They may be given a lethal dose of medicine. No psychological evaluation or counseling is required for those patients. As in Oregon and elsewhere, only certain physicians who view mercy killing as benign, are inclined to employ medicine in a deadly manner.
As in Oregon, no investigation is launched into the intentional killing, and as in all ‘assisted suicides’, the ‘assistant’, the third-party agent, is free to go, unquestioned and unhindered, even if he or she is an heir or should they in some other way benefit from the intentional killing.
So why should prisoners be denied this new, ‘human right’? Are prisoners in similar circumstances not human beings and also suffering? If medical killing is indeed both a benefit to the patient and all involved, wouldn’t the authorities be glad to be done with a sickly miscreant? Though they made mistakes, why are these poor captives of fate denied this supposed, ‘basic human right’ to not exist?
Perhaps because it is not a ‘right’ at all.
In California we have seen many inversions of what was once governing law, and its principle purpose, protection of the vulnerable innocent. Law is now routinely being used in California not to order society and protect its members, but to alter society; to dramatically change the values of society’s members. Public institutions from the schools on up are seen as tools of social manipulation. Instructive guidance, the basis of all law throughout history is now being employed in an effort to ‘progress’ society toward some new destination, a new cultural-Utopia we have somehow been denied.
Perhaps the experience of Belgium can give us insight into the Brave New World our voluntary euthanasia laws are attempting to impose on both the vulnerable as well as murderous prisoners. There, ‘assisted suicide’ via medicine is authorized even for the non-terminal, provided the patient themselves feel their lives have no purpose. This ‘freedom’ was given new meaning in January 2015 when serial-rapist and murderer Frank van Den Bleeken. He was denied execution at trial, though he desired it, as the death penalty is outlawed in Belgium.
Several years later and diagnosed with incurable illness, van Den Bleeken did not wish to spend the remainder of his life in prison. Initially the courts ruled that he indeed could kill himself at his own hand, since anyone can in Belgium. Grieving family members of his victims were content with the ‘self-execution’ – justice would finally be done. But it was not to be.
The courts in their newfound sense of justice ultimately ruled that what Mr. van Den Bleeken needed is what all despondent and suicidal individuals should always be offered, psychological intervention and counseling. In Belgium only innocent people may be killed. Murderers must get counseling and protection.
Today capitol criminals cannot be killed in California even if they desire it. The finest counseling and interventions are instead offered. There have been no executions since Clarence Ray Allen in 2006, and complete prohibition is proposed for the November ballot. To be killed in a California prison you will still have to rely on the age-old ‘shiv’ secretly offered by an accommodating murderer.
On the other hand, the most vulnerable and emotionally needy in California are, on a wholesale level, being ‘offered’ medical elimination by society. Nursing homes, hospitals, medical facilities of all kinds can make this available. No counseling is required for those who are depressed and despondent due to their serious illness. No physician need be in attendance.
Thoughts of suicide are the number one indicator of depression. Dispensing poison instead of counseling to those with terminal diagnosis indicates the objective reality that assisted suicide is designed, not for those we care for, but for those we no longer wish to care for.