Hooray for state’s rights…I think
I’m not really sure how to interpret this. Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Gonzales v. Oregon, a case deciding the fate of Orgeon’s doctor-assisted suicide law. For a more thorough summary of the decision, read the Washington post, the BBC, or the NY Times.
I’m not one for strong states’ rights. I’d prefer the states to be administrative bodies to the federal government. That being said, I do like the outcome of this case. While I may not like for Oregon to have the right to create law unique to Oregon, I do respect it as a part of our legal system. Likewise, the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) argument that the Attorney General’s office was making was weak at best. As the court ruled, the CSA was not intended to limit a state’s ability to regulate pharmaceutical usage within its borders, only to prevent trafficking in illegal drugs. This ruling was a narrow legal decision regarding a narrow legal question.
The rhetoric coming from the White House now only further confuses the matter in the public’s eye. Rhetoric about a so-called “culture of life” grossly misleads the view on this matter. The state of Oregon has overwhelmingly accepted this law, brought by voter referendum and renewed on multiple occasions since its inception. The People condone the idea of euthanasia; moreover, it is their right to do so.
