LifeNet

The Scarsdale suicide debate - video, links, and highlights

This past Monday, April 24th; at the Scarsdale Library, which WAS NOT fully equipped for the disabled! Disability rights advocate and one of the evening's guest speakers, Anna Fay was unable to access the raised section - the speaker's area - because there was no permanent or temporary ramp. You can see it in this picture and the brief videos below.

Since Scarsdale is home to Assemblywoman Amy Paulin who is the bill's primary sponsor, this oversight was an embarrassment and particularly ironic since the disabled community fears this type of legislation would overlook their needs and quite possibly target them because of their vulnerable state.

LoHud in their article estimated 150 people attended - but we think it was more like 160-180. The room was filled - standing room only. Here is a picture before the debate -

 

Gary Stern and Nancy Cutler from LoHud moderated the evening and asked the questions, but audience questions accepted for response were very limited. LoHud said they would publish online instead those questions not addressed that evening.

We doubt if anyone there hadn't already made up their minds on the issue of assisted-suicide or physician-assisted suicide - when the Doctor writes a script and participates in the killing of his patient.

Here is the pre-debate publicity about the participants:

Arguing for the legislation will be: Assemblyperson Amy Paulin; David Leven, executive director of End of Life Choices; and Stacey Gibson, volunteer advocate for Compassion & Choices. Opposing the legislation will be: Edward Mechmann, Esq., director of public policy for the Archdiocese of New York; J.J. Hanson, president of the Patients’ Rights Action Fund; and Anna Fay, a board member of Westchester Disabled on the Move and senior vice president for Independent Living Services in New York City.

Paulin and Gibson related family situations involving loved ones with serious, long-term debilitating illnesses. The sort of situations that everyone dreads. And the sort of situations that almost everyone has had to face within their own families or circle of friends.  While everyone should empathize with these tragic stories, legislating to the "hard case" is never a good practice, legally or otherwise. J.J. Hanson's story of recovery after being given a devastating prognosis for his illness sought to balance the emotional quotient that drives this "solution" and this type, in J.J.'s words, of hopelessness in legislation.

From the perspective of preaching to the pro-suicide choir, David Leven was overly aggressive at times, shouting down other speakers. He did a fair bit of screaming and on at least two occasions said that Ed Mechmann was lying (once when Mechmann was quoting law!), and once quoted a NY Times editorial - which of course is equivalent to the Bible if you are pro-assisted-suicide. 

Bizarrely - yet another example of the Culture of Death using verbal engineering to implement social engineering - they all claimed that a situation where the doctor dispenses poison for the patient to kill his/herself was not assisting in a suicide. It must be called "aid in dying" - the death certificate is going to show an underlying disease as cause of death, not the poison or overdose.

Here is the article on the LoHud/Journal News  website. Thanks to Ed Riely for organizing the graphics and people protesting - see the picture when you hit the link for the article.

Of course LoHud, "progressive" publication that they are - uses the title "Aid in Dying".

http://www.lohud.com/story/news/health/2016/04/25/aid-in-dying-debate/83513370/.

Tara Taryn was attending, and had an excellent facebook posting with some pictures. Tara did a great job describing the pro-life participation:

Tara wrote: "Debate on assisted suicide (should New York allow 'aid in dying?') Our PRO-LIFE movement had a great panel of experts on why it should NOT be legalized, including Ed Mechmann, Attorney of the Archdiocese of New York; JJ Hanson, a young man given a prognosis of four months in 2014; and A. Fay, a disabled woman, who testified to how the disabled don't really get the care they deserve. So proud of the turnout by our PRO-LIFE people. We filled up at least half the room. Thanks to Fr. Rojos of St. Joseph's church in Yonkers for your presence and your strong message, and thanks to some religious Sisters who were also present. I think we all made a very strong impact and statement for the sanctity of LIFE!! #prolifegeneration #respectlife #lifematters #lifeissacred #teamlife #whywemarch"

Here are two brief videos - part of Ed Mechmann's introductory talk and all of Anna Fay's.

Mechmann:

And Anna Fay:

 

Mary Wagner, pro-life prisoner of conscience, released

In Canada, after one of her innumerable individual non-violent protests at an abortion mill.

Little Sisters of the Poor v. Obamacare - a probable satisfactory settlement

This is from Ed Mechmann, the NY Archdiocese Director of Public Policy.

His posting is eight paragraphs long - we are excerpting two - plus the concluding paragraph. We strongly recommend you hit the link and read the entire posting.

A Light at the End of the Tunnel?

Now the religious organizations and the government have filed their briefs. The Little Sisters et al. readily agreed to the Court's suggestion, saying that they could comply with an arrangement where they are not required to take any action that would trigger the provision of the services, and if the services are actually provided by a separate insurance plan (even if it is run by their regular insurance carrier). This is all that the religious organizations have ever wanted -- to be left alone to do their work, without getting dragged into anyone's sex lives. In effect, they were saying to the Court, "This is the solution that we would have suggested to the government years ago, if they had only asked".

The government, for its part, reacted by quibbling, complaining, and digging their heels in. They complained about having to file a new brief. They insisted that no further concessions were necessary to protect the religious groups' consciences -- as if they knew better what is in violation of Catholic or Protestant moral teachings. They groused that the Court's suggestion would require changes to other sections of the law and regulations, as if that were something unheard-of, rather than the commonplace result of any litigation of this type. They continued to fantasize that any further accommodation would lead to a parade of horribles -- endless further litigation, thousands of women without health care, etc. And in the end, as if they were swallowing nasty-tasting medicine, they kind-of, sort-of, very reluctantly maybe agreed that the Court's suggestion would be barely acceptable. 

This ungracious reply hurts the government's credibility, and is cause to be hopeful for a positive result. The Court now has reason to wonder why the case is even before them, and has a clear way to resolve it.

>>>>>>>>

That would end this long nightmare, and vindicate the right to conscience of religious organizations. But it also raises a troubling question -- if such a common-sense solution was available all this time, why did the government insist on forcing the cooperation of the religious groups? I know of no other answer, other than the dministration's well-established hostility to traditional religious values, and their complete dedication to the spread of the ideology of sexual liberation, against any opposition.

 For more details - also forwarded around from Ed Mechmann - here are links to the Scotusblog website.

  The religious non-profits (e.g., the Little Sisters) accepted the Supreme Court's suggested resolution of the HHS mandate litigation: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/religious-non-profits-fully-endorse-courts-birth-control-access-idea/.  The Government, predictably, was less than enthused: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/u-s-would-accept-modest-change-on-birth-control-mandate-warily/.

REMINDER! NYSRTLC Lobby for Life Day in Albany on Tuesday, April 13, 2016

Every year, New Yorkers have the opportunity to address our lawmakers, actively making a difference in our state. Use your voice for the voiceless!

April 13, 2016, 9 a.m. to Noon;

Location: "The Well" legislative Office Building 198 State Street, Albany, NY 12210.

Contact Thomas Buff for more information. [email protected], OR CALL 518.434.1293.

Other contacts include Alan Mehldau at 914.232.1168 or Ed Riely at 914.271.5585.

Center for Life Breakfast - Saturday, April 16, Holiday Inn, Mount Kisco, 9 a.m.-11:45 a.m.

Please plan on joining us for a wonderful morning at

 

THE NORTHERN WESTCHESTER & PUTNAM CENTER FOR LIFE

SIXTEENTH ANNUAL PRO-LIFE BREAKFAST

SATURDAY, April 16^th, 2016 at the HOLIDAY INN - MOUNT KISCO

ONE HOLIDAY INN DRIVE   MOUNT KISCO, NY

9:00 AM - 11:45 AM (Registration begins 8:45 AM)

 

OUR GUEST SPEAKER IS

Father Charles Caccavale

Professor of Moral Theology at St. Joseph’s Seminary, Dunwoodie

 

Speaking on

“The Moral Perspective on Physician Assisted Suicide”

 

Our Honorees are:

Joy Dechiario of Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church, Pelham Manor

& Michael Garber of St. Joseph’s Church, Somers

 

GREAT MANOR BUFFET BREAKFAST   $50 Per Person ($40 Early Registration prior to April 8^th)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please mail this form, with your check payable to the "Center for Life", to:

 

CENTER FOR LIFE                 

P.O. Box 111

KATONAH, NY       10536-0111

(914) 232-1168

 

NAME________________________________________________________________________

 

ADDRESS____________________________________________________________________________________

 

PHONE ___________________­­­­__________________

NUMBER ATTENDING ____________________

HVCL speaks out against Assisted Suicide

The following HVCL Community View was recently printed in the Letters to the Editor in Croton-on-Hudson's local paper, The Gazette. At this posting Assemblywoman Amy Paulin and Mr. Martin Smolin of Sleepy Hollow have responded. Ms. Paulin's response is quoted below HVCL's co-director and editor Judith Anderson's commentary.

Community View: The Semantics of Suicide                               

“… suicide is painless it brings on many changes, and I can take or leave it if I please.” (by Johnny Mandel/Mike Altman)

Words from the familiar instrumental theme song of the hit movie and TV show M*A*S*H., have lost some of their sardonic bite. The unforgettable images of Korean War Army medical doctors, surgeons, nurses and chaplain running to incoming helicopters to quickly give aid to the injured and dying (despite personal anti-war feelings) seem quaint. Some today would define compassion differently. Some would define the role of medical doctor differently, too.

Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, D-Scarsdale has introduced legislation she and Sen. John Bonacic, R-Mount Hope, now refer to as “aid-in-dying”. The bill (S.5814/A.5261-b) according to Ms. Paulin would have safeguards to prevent wrongdoing. We are not reassured.

First, why advocate again for death? Do we really want to continue to create a society that finds new ways to kill its most vulnerable citizens? Many disability groups oppose it for obvious reasons. Why not legislate for expanded state-of-the-art hospice care? Rosary Hill in Hawthorne, NY and Calvary Hospital in the Bronx are only two examples of compassionate end of life care. Visit them before forming Paulin’s opinion on natural death as “horrific, painful, degrading” (Karl Evers-Hillstrom, The Legislative Gazette, 2/16/16).

Why not connect depression with assisted suicide abuse and seek broader protections and treatment for individuals who suffer mental stress or illness?

Why not listen to the majority of medical professionals who find this latest corruption of the medical calling as offensive as abortion?

If suicide is tragic, why is assisted suicide enlightened? Too often an increasingly secular culture will seek to solve problems, despite other humane alternatives, in this way.                                                          

“Suicide in my mind implies that you’re not terminally ill, and going to die anyway. As unfortunate as it is, it’s a matter of when it’s gonna (sic) be. This has to do with compassion for the person who is dying and their families. It’s not assisted suicide,” says the Assemblywoman.

“Suicide is suicide. Assisted suicide also brings other people into that process, it may be the physician, it may be the nurse, it may be the pharmacist, in a very negative way,” so says Stephen Hayford, legislative director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms.

The debate on assisted suicide has been heating up since California passed assisted suicide legislation last fall. Belgium and the Netherlands have already moved beyond to the inevitable euthanasia with staggering statistics. The question before us again is the dignity of human life and the narrow notion only perfect human life is worthy of care and protection from its natural beginning to its natural end.

While we empathize with her recent loss of a family member, we find Ms. Paulin’s view shortsighted in its lack of reflection on the inevitable effects to citizen rights and to the broader culture in dangerous ways. Just debating the probable abuses inherent in such legislation should humble us. Instead, like abortion, we legislate to the hard case and pretend that unavoidable, unintended consequences will not harm in profound ways, like the “aid-in-dying” movement.

Call your representatives and say NO to this destructive State-approved, State-promoted legislation and yes to a greater appreciation of the value and purpose of human life at all its stages, joys and sufferings. Pragmatism should serve us, not kill us.

Judith Anderson

Co-director, Hudson Valley Coalition for Life

3/15/16

 

To the Editor:

I'd like to respond to the issues raised by Judith Anderson concerning my legislation to enable terminally-ill patients to access medical aid in dying.

My legislation is based on a respect for every individual's personal beliefs. While Ms. Anderson is clearly opposed to medical aid in dying, the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers believe that individuals facing the end of their lives should have access to it. I would defend her right to refuse this option - but in doing so, I would not deny it to terminally-ill patients who desire it.

Medical aid in dying empowers dying patients - through means they alone control - to engage the dying process on their own terms. It is complementary to - not something offered instead of - hospice care. In Oregon, which has had a medical aid in dying law for 18 years, over 90% of patients who have used the law were in hospice care when they died.

It is already legal in New York to end your life through various means, including the refusal of treatment, food and hydration. Rather than a dramatic departure from accepted social practice, medical aid in dying is simply one more option we can provide patients to cope with the end of their lives.

Sincerely,

Amy Paulin, Member of Assembly, 88th A.D., Scarsdale