The right to die overwhelmingly popular with Montana voters

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 13:32:13 PM MST

It turns out that the right to die is a popular concept in Montana, that a large majority of Montanans support the court's Baxter decision. Compassion and Choices, the advocacy group for the right to die, commissioned two surveys (pdf) from David Binder Research that showed only 25 percent of all voters think the state legislature should "overturn the Supreme Court decision, make doctor-assisted suicide a crime," while a whopping seventy percent feel "the state should allow the Supreme Court decision," either with additional safeguards (31 percent) or to stand as written (39 percent).

Of course, that the right to die is popular with Montanans won't discourage conservative Christians who oppose the policy from fighting it. And, as with the recent Missoula anti-discrimination ordinance, they're not letting the facts discourage them, either.

Check out the comment left on the April 10 Missoulian report, in which "Celebrating the Abundant Life!" compares the court's decision to the "perils of the...doctrine of eugenics and euthanasia that were defeated in World War II...We in Montana will not be coaxed down the old Humanistic path of ethnic cleansing and disposal of the 'unproductive' disabled and elderly all for the supposed good of the 'State'...", completely ignoring that the decision (pdf) explicitly states that it pertains to only those patients given 6 months or less to live, who are ruled mentally competent, and who self-administer the drugs. In no way does this decision - or any policy favored by right-to-die advocates - allow people to be killed against their will, and on the basis of their age, disability, or race.

More insidious, the Montana Family Foundation "issued an analysis" stating the court's decision "didn't legalize the practice," and that any physician who aids, in any way, a terminally ill patient's death "may still be charged for homicides..."

"The purpose of the analysis is to place the decision in perspective, and to dispel much of the misinformation surrounding the issue," said Jeff Laszloffy, president of the Montana Family Foundation.

"Contrary to recent headlines, the Supreme Court did not legalize physician assisted suicide. Medical personnel and institutions must understand that if they participate in assisted suicide they expose themselves to potential civil and criminal liability, and may even be charged with homicide," the pro-life former state legislator added.

Which, of course, directly contradicts the Montana Supreme Court's decision:

The Montana constitutional rights of individual privacy and human dignity, taken together, encompass the right of a competent terminally patient to die with dignity. That is to say, the patient may use the assistance of his physician to obtain a prescription for a lethal dose of medication that the patient may take his on his own if and when he decides to terminate his life. The patient's right to die with dignity includes protection of the patient's physician from liability under the state's homicide statutes.

Obviously the Montana Family Foundation is looking to intimidate the state's physicians.

And Montana Republicans have already begun talking about banning physican aid in dying - although, and again, on a completely bogus premise unrelated to the court's decision:

[SD7's Greg] Hinkle explained that physician assisted suicide does not deal with someone who is terminally ill or on a life support system where their family members can decide turn it off. Hinkle used the example of going into diabetic shock, which is under the terminally ill category and something a person can recover from. However, now that this bill has passed, a doctor can say that a person is permanently ill and can decide to kill that person, even if they could have the potential to recover.

Be assured that neither right to die's popularity with Montana voters (see the 2008 legislature's battle over CHIP funding), nor the actual facts of the Supreme Court's decision and policy (see NotMyBathroom) will deter these folks from ramming their particular view of Christianity down our collective throat.

Hinkle muddled on death with dignity

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:42:04 AM MST

The rush is on, led by Republican state Senator Greg Hinkle.

Now, no one ever claimed Hinkle was the sharpest tool in the toolbox, but check out his statement on physician-assisted suicide, and why he's passing a bill outlawing it:

On top of working on drafting a bill for stricter DUI laws, Hinkle currently introduced a bill to illegalize physician-assisted suicide, which was made legal in a Supreme Court decision this past year.

Hinkle explained that physician assisted suicide does not deal with someone who is terminally ill or on a life support system where their family members can decide turn it off. Hinkle used the example of going into diabetic shock, which is under the terminally ill category and something a person can recover from. However, now that this bill has passed, a doctor can say that a person is permanently ill and can decide to kill that person, even if they could have the potential to recover.

"You no longer have control of your own life," said Hinkle. "I'm laying the groundwork, the bill has just been drafted and will get really big as time goes on."

Er...what? Senator Hinkle's obviously confusing a "living will" with "physician-aided suicide."

This is such a bone-headed "understanding" of what physician-aided suicide is that it makes me wish the state legislature had a penalty box for legislators, where the worst incompetents could be stashed away for the session and allowed to do no harm to the body politic.

Judy Stang drops out of SD7, endorses Paul Clark

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 09:36:15 AM MST

You may remember that Judy Stang was the candidate funded by two Republican staffers, and has close ties to the Montana Contractors Association, the organization pushing gravel pits on the state. Paul Clark worked on gravel pit regulation while serving as a state representative. It seemed that Stang's role after the primary was as spoiler, to oust Clark from the legislature. (Though to be fair to Stang, commenter johnqmurray pointed out Stang entered the race before Clark, and johnqmurray sees the difference as between "urban enviros" against "blue-collar workers." Which would make sense...if she weren't taking money from contractors and using the rhetoric of, and working with, the big-business bane of working Americans, the Montana Republican party.)

So, why the change of heart? Apparently Hinkle is too extreme for Stang. Among other things, Hinkle wants the state to accept no federal funding. Stang, in her press release, advocated "reasonable" development, bringing jobs to rural Montana, and increased access to "affordable health care," all solid Democratic issues, and issues supported by Paul Clark.

For a glimpse into the political minds of all three SD7 candidate, check out this questionaire from the Clark Fork Chronicle. Both Clark and Stang appear knowledgeable about issues, both have a lot of obvious experience with the issues of Mineral county, both do share a lot of similar views on increasing local control, using federal funds wisely to build useful infrastructure, expanding jobs, and encouraging small businesses. Not so Hinkle, who would appear to find a more comfortable home in the Constitution party with his outbursts on only allowing a "strict" interpretation of the Consitution.

So, Clark's really the only choice for thi s thing. Donate.

Stang's full press release is below the fold.

Pony up for Paul!

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 15:39:08 PM MST

Not in our yard, folks! Five dollars is enough to show you care!

Paul Clark v. gravel pits

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:42:28 PM MST

But wait. There's a twist. The loser of the Democratic primary - Judy Stang - has filed to run as a write-in candidate. Stang lost the primary narrowly, and you've got to believe she'll poach a few votes in November.

Clark, being generous:

"It (could) introduce a big unknown and make this race a lot more complicated, but I certainly don't hold it against her," he said. "I'm one of those who think that democracy works in strange ways."

Stang, you may remember, was funded by two Republican staffers and had strong ties to the MT Contractors Association. Lamnidae speculated that Stang was placed and funded in the primary to get Clark out of Helena, because of Clark's work on gravel pit regulation while a member of the House Natural Resources committee.

Apparently the mission continues.

Classy, eh?

Luckily there's something you can do about it. Let's raise $250 for Clark before I leave for the Convention.