End Of Life Choices-A Community Conversation

by: Carla

Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 15:57:20 PM MST

A few months ago, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that aid in dying is legal in the state. On Friday April 9th in Helena, cancer patient Steve Johnson will be asking physicians to honor his choice to die with dignity.  Compassion & Choices will be there as well to update on how the option of aid in dying for terminally-ill adults is being applied under the Montana ruling. Details on the news conference can be found here.

In addition, a community conversation on end-of-life choice is set to take place at Carroll College on Saturday, April 10. Hosted by the ACLU of Montana, the event will feature both proponents and opponents of aid in dying, including representatives from the legal, civil liberties, faith, medical and disability rights communities as well as patients and families.

This conversation is a great opportunity to hear the full scope of opinions on Death With Dignity.

The choice of legal aid in dying in Montana will undoubtedly be taken up by the state legislature next session. GOP State Senator Greg Hinkle has already introduced a bill to make Death With Dignity illegal in Montana. Compassion & Choices will be working with hundreds of Montanans across the state who believe in that simple premise of freedom. Please help us retain and protect this freedom by joining our effort. Become a fan of Compassion & Choices-Montana on Facebook for legislative updates, news, events and opportunities to help. You can also follow us on Twitter for a more comprehensive view of our national and state efforts on end-of-life choice.

When people are terminally ill and death is near, they should be free to decide whether to prolong life as long as possible or to end their suffering more quickly. Terminally ill patients want the right to have some measure of control over their lives. The right to request aid in dying places the power to choose solely in the hands of the patient.

My life. My death. My choice.

More Children! Less Health Care!

by: Matt Singer

Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 09:19:14 AM MST

GOP legislators this week endorsed a measure to massively restrict abortion rights and also called for massive cuts to children's health insurance programs. Barney Frank said conservatives believe life begins at conception and ends at birth and this is a pretty example of that line of thinking.

Look, I'm a safety netter, a social Democrat, whatever. I think the government should ensure that all Americans have access to health insurance. But why the hell do conservatives think that compelled birth coupled with no assistance to low-income families to provide the basics like health care and food is a great idea for the little ones they're bringing into the world?

Last night, we had a class for Forward Montana and MontPIRG interns and we talked progressive values. I offered one approach that I'm a fan of -- Rawlsian justice. I just can't imagine the mindset that thinks that a fetus 3 days before being born is a defenseless human, but upon departure from the womb should be a self-actualized individual fully capable of providing health care for itself.

I should note -- to their credit, Sens. John Brueggeman and Ryan Zinke voted against the McGee abortion measure. And the CHIP cuts haven't faced a wider hearing. There may be more sanity yet. Time will tell.

Montana Court Decides Terminally Ill Patients Have Right To Death With Dignity

by: Carla

Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 13:29:11 PM MST

Judge Dorothy McCarter held that mentally
competent terminally ill Montanans have a right to a dignified death protected by the Montana Constitution's guarantees of privacy and individual dignity.

Accordingly, plaintiff Robert Baxter has the right to obtain medications he can self-administer to bring about a peaceful death, if he finds his suffering intolerable. The physician plaintiffs can write prescriptions for their mentally competent, terminally ill patients who want to control the time and manner of their deaths without the fear of criminal prosecution.

Compassion & Choices Legal Director Kathryn Tucker, lead counsel in the two federal cases asserting a right of this nature under the U.S. Constitution, teamed with Montana litigator, Mark Connell, in arguing for Bob Baxter and the
physicians.  

The ruling by McCarter is consistent with a long line of Montana cases which recognize the decision making power of the individual in the most personal and intimate decisions of their lives. The court found that the decision of a dying patient whether to endure suffering is intensely personal and private. And it should remain with them.

Montana's State Constitution contains exceptional rights to privacy and dignity. The court's result is consistent with the belief that government should have a limited role in such matters.

Montana is now the third state to legally affirm aid in dying along with Oregon and Washington.

Carla Axtman
Online Community Builder
Compassion & Choices
www.compassionandchoices.org
 

CI-100 Will Not Qualify for the Ballot

by: Matt Singer

Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 15:21:22 PM MST

This is a big victory for the pro-choice movement in Montana -- so hats off to them.

It's also good news for progressives of all stripes headed into this fall. Increasingly, one has to wonder just what exactly will motivate a conservative to turn out to the polls -- John McCain, Bob Kelleher?

Birth Control Prices Set to Skyrocket

by: Allyson

Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 09:49:21 AM MST

At U of M's campus, the cost of the Nuva Ring has already doubled from $18 a month to $36, and unless there is a fix nationally, other birth control options are likely to do the same in January going from $20/month to $50.

Here's the deal: the Deficit Reduction Act, a federal bill that went into affect in January of this year, had the inadvertent effect of raising the prices of birth control.  In turn, college clinics and other family-planning clinics were no longer able to receive the discounts they used to receive from pharmaceutical companies.  Many of the women who rely on these clinics for contraception are students or low-income women, and now they may not be able to afford birth control.

In response, NARAL Pro-Choice Montana's U of M Students for Choice held a "Day of Action" on campus Wednesday, calling on Congress to fix the federal law that spurred these increases in birth control, and it was a wild success.  After kicking off the day with a press conference at the University of Montana's Curry Health Center, members of Students for Choice collected 692 signatures for their petition.  This petition called for the state's congressional delegation to support a change in the federal law which inadvertently caused this price change in birth control.  The petitions were then delivered to the Missoula offices of Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester.

The legislative fix is quick, easy, and doesn't cost the government one penny - click here to join with Students for Choice in making it happen.

Rehberg Joins Attack Against Birth Control

by: Allyson

Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 15:16:51 PM MST

Each year approximately three million low-income women receive basic health care through 4,600 Title X clinics nationwide, including 575 Planned Parenthood clinics. For many women, particularly those who do not qualify for Medicaid and those who have no health insurance, Title X clinics provide the only basic health care that they receive. Disqualifying these clinics from Title X would have put hundreds of thousands of couples immediately at risk of losing family-planning services.

Not surprisingly, our state's lone Representative,  Denny Rehberg, supported this amendment.  Rep. Rehberg, who has a 0% voting record on reproductive rights issues apparently didn't get the memo that increased access to birth control and family planning services reduces unintended pregnancy rates and the need for abortion.

Please take a minute to express your outrage at Rep. Rehberg's vote against access to birth control and family planning.

http://prochoiceacti...

The Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

by: Matt Singer

Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 14:38:22 PM MST

Ironically, it is Roe that would also be the strongest safeguard against a One Child policy or other totalitarian ideas we could import from abroad.

And worth noting, at the heart of this struggle, is the difference between moral, legal, and policy ideas. The legal concept here is quite distinct from the moral reasoning. The legal concept is that the government is not a fit arbiter of the propriety of abortion. Given the divisiveness of the issue, it may be for the best that we keep our government out of it.

The policy aspects are quite distinct. It is possible to disagree with an action and still oppose making it illegal. In fact, I'd say this is probably the median position of the American public on abortion -- as evidenced recently in South Dakota. Once again, the voters are right. Even if abortion is a moral evil, from a policy perspective, the government should only intervene if it can end that moral evil. I'm not much of one for using the government as a purely moral actor. And evidence indicates that anti-choice policies do little to prevent abortion, but do a lot to make it more dangerous.

In more contemporary news, if you're in the Helena area and are pro-choice, I'd urge you to get on over to Benny's tonight -- NARAL Pro-Choice Montana is having a benefit (sugg. donation - $25).

Meanwhile, one of the few abortion-related bills in the Montana legislature goes to hearing tomorrow -- it's a proposal for parental notification of abortion. This would be a good time to contact your legislator on the issue.

I understand the reason for the strong feelings on the issue, but I think the real question people on both sides need to ask themselves is -- what will parental notification with a judicial bypass option actually do? My guess is three things:

1) A few more young women talking to their parents than would otherwise happen.
2) Women using the judicial bypass and having later-term abortions as a result.
3) More young women being thrown out of their homes or getting beaten by their parents when notified of what they are doing.

On net, I think that's a bad result. If we're going to reduce abortions, let's have a real discussion about how to do that.

Valuing Life By Murder

by: V

Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 11:39:53 AM MST

An anti-abortion extremist defending himself against charges of killing a doctor decided not to cross-examine the man's widow.

Instead, he gave her an apology.

"Mrs. Slepian, I just wanted to say I'm sorry. I respect you and your family," James Kopp, 52, said quietly to Lynne Slepian, wife of Dr. Barnett Slepian, after her testimony Tuesday at the start of Kopp's federal trial.

His respect for her family and reverence for life could not be clearer in his murder of her husband and her sons' father.

His defense against premeditation is equally outrageous:

He has acknowledged planning the shooting for a year and then firing a high-powered military rifle with telescopic sights from the woods behind the Slepian home, but he has said he meant only to wound the doctor to prevent him from performing abortions.

"Shoot them in the head, blow up a car, riddle their body with bullets like they do in the movies. That's how you kill someone" with premeditation, Kopp said.

We will the consequences of our actions even if we cannot see the full scope or possible complications that might arise.  I used to have a zippo lighter that carried the message "Killing for Peace is like Fucking for Virginity."  For whatever reason this article reminded me of that lighter.