News
Featured Image
The Minnesota Capitol Building in St. Paul.Henryk Sadura / Shutterstock.com

CONTACT YOUR MN State Legislators: Urge them to reject euthanasia! Click to contact MN State House Member or Senator, now.

ST. PAUL, Minnesota, February 22, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Last week, two Democrat lawmakers in Minnesota proposed a bill to the state Legislature that would allow terminally ill Minnesotans to “receive a prescription for medical aid in dying medication” if they are assessed as having six months or less to live.

The “End of Life Option Act,” S.F. 1352, was sponsored by Sens. Chris Eaton and John Marty, both members of the Democratic Party. If successful, their legislation would usher in an assisted suicide statute to the state of Minnesota, making it the ninth U.S. state to do so, as well as Washington, D.C.

The act demands that an attending physician “determine whether an individual has a terminal disease with a prognosis of six months or less and is mentally capable” before prescribing the lethal medication. It also stipulates that the physician ensures “that the individual’s request does not arise from coercion or undue influence” by simply “asking the individual about coercion and influence.”

In order to procure the “dying medication,” all a qualifying patient must do is “make one oral request and one written request to the attending health care provider and one oral request to the consulting health care provider.”

Scott Fischbach, executive director of Minnesota’s oldest and largest pro-life organization, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MMCL), excoriated the proposal in a press statement, saying “Assisted suicide is a danger to all of us.”

“This legislation has gone nowhere in past years, and state lawmakers must firmly reject it again. Contrary to the assertions of activists trying to generate public support, legalizing assisted suicide would pose real risks to Minnesotans.”

Noting many of the dangers that arise from implementing assisted suicide legislation, the MMCL press release pointed to the lack of any safeguarding measures in place after the drug has been dispensed “to prevent pressure, coercion, or abuse,” adding that “no one is required to witness the death.”

Additionally, the pro-life organization made the observation that, in the past, states which already have so-called “Death with Dignity” legislation, like Oregon, have seen local health insurers “steer patients toward suicide rather than expensive life-extending treatment.”

They point to the example of Randy Stroup, a 53-year-old Oregon man who was suffering from prostate cancer. Given the high cost of chemotherapy and his lack of insurance, Stroup was forced to seek financial help, which he applied for through Oregon’s state-run health plan.

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Oppose taxpayer-funded abortion #SaveHyde
  Show Petition Text
43752 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 45000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

The Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of most federal funds for abortions, except in some limited circumstances.

But, with the Democrats in charge of the Congress and the presidency, the Hyde Amendment is now under severe attack.

That's why 200 Republican Congressmen vowed in a letter addressed to U.S. House and Senate leadership their "unified opposition to Congressional Democrats’ efforts to repeal the Hyde Amendment and other current-law, pro-life appropriations provisions."

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition to signal your support of the effort to keep the Hyde Amendment firmly in place, and prevent our federal tax dollars from funding abortion.

After signing the petition, please take a few minutes to quickly and easily contact your congressmen to politely voice your opposition to the repeal of the Hyde Amendment. Simply click on the link in the 'For More Information' section below, and follow the directions.

No-one should be forced to pay for any abortion, ever, against their will. Forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion would be a gross violation of freedom of conscience, and should be vigorously resisted.

Although President Joe Biden was originally in favor of the Hyde Amendment, even as recently as 2019, he has dramatically altered his position to align with the Democratic Party platform, which has promised to repeal the amendment throughout the 2020 presidential campaign and, indeed, since taking the presidency.

The Democrats officially support unlimited abortion on demand, funded by taxpayers. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris marked the anniversary of Roe v. Wade by pledging to make abortion available to "everyone."

But, Americans overwhelmingly disagree with this proposed policy change. A 2019 Politico/Morning Consult poll found that 49% of Americans agree with the Hyde Amendment, while only 33% oppose it.

Regardless of polls, though, abortion is always and everywhere wrong.

Abortion is not necessary medical treatment, it is the deliberate destruction of unborn human life at its most vulnerable stage. Forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion would be unconscionable.

Please SIGN and SHARE this petition, telling Congressmen of both political parties, to supports efforts to keep the Hyde Amendment in all federal budgets.

Thank you!

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Please CLICK HERE to CONTACT your congressmen. It only takes a couple of minutes and the platform is very user-friendly. Thank you!

'200 GOP congressmen slam Democrats, say they’ll never vote for tax-funded abortions' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/200-gop-congressmen-slam-democrats-say-theyll-never-vote-for-tax-funded-abortions

2019 Poll on the Hyde Amendment - https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/11/poll-abortion-funding-reversal-helps-biden-with-primary-voters-1359210

**Photo Credit: Shutterstock

  Hide Petition Text

Instead of offering Stroup assistance with his expensive cancer treatment, the health association sent him a letter offering to cover the cost of a physician-assisted suicide.

The bill proposed to the Minnesota Senate is based on Oregon’s assisted suicide legislation.

MMCL also raised concerns about the fact that the act does not include a provision for necessary psychiatric assessment prior to dispensing the drug to the patient, rather leaving the decision to evaluate a patient’s mental health with the prescribing doctor.

Looking to those states which already have similar legislation in place, the MMCL cited a study by the National Center for Biotechnology Information into the “Prevalence of depression and anxiety in patients requesting physicians’ aid in dying” in Oregon. The authors concluded that “the current practice of the Death with Dignity Act may fail to protect some patients whose choices are influenced by depression from receiving a prescription for a lethal drug.”

The researchers urged that “increased vigilance and systematic examination for depression among patients who may access legalised aid in dying are needed” to protect mentally ill patients.

A final observation made by MMCL is that patients with prognoses of six months or less to live often outlive these predictions by many years, thus demonstrating the unreliability of an attending physician’s assessment of a qualifying patient, a key factor in the “attending provider responsibilities” subdivision of the proposed legislation.

“People who are at risk of suicide deserve our protection,” Fischbach said. “Those facing an adverse prognosis or the challenges of disability deserve our protection no less than physically healthy and able-bodied people. We all count.”

Minnesota legislators have attempted to have assisted suicide legalized in the state from around 2016. At that time, the proposal was withdrawn following the Senate hearing, which featured two hours of public testimony, including that of 17 physicians, nurses, attorneys, and members of the disability community who warned of the grave dangers assisted suicide poses to vulnerable members of society.

Since then, assisted suicide measures were floated and rejected a further three times in Minnesota before the latest iteration, S.F. 1352, was introduced.

In countries and states where euthanasia has been legal for decades, there has been a marked increase in the number of people electing to die by euthanasia. Antonia Tully, of the SPUC Lives Worth Living Campaign, said: “It is sad that people see death as the solution to their problems. But this is how people start to think once euthanasia has been legalized.”

Tully noted the enormous growth in number of people dying by euthanasia, between some three and ten times the amount in 2019 versus in 2002 in the Netherlands and Belgium, respectively, according to a Vienna-based bioethics institute.

“This is devastating data and each death is a tragedy. We know that in countries where assisted suicide is legal, many who ‘choose’ to die report that they want to avoid becoming a burden on family and carers,” Tully said. “Over a third of Canadians who were killed by assisted suicide in 2019 claimed that they feared being a burden on family, friends and caregivers if they continued to live.”

“There is a creeping culture of death spreading around the globe as euthanasia laws are passed in one country after another. During 2020, New Zealand, Spain and Portugal all passed bills to allow assisted suicide,” she observed.

“[We] must resist all attempts to normalize this dangerous practice and instead promote a society where each human life is valued and respected.”

Comments

Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.

0 Comments

    Loading...