Idaho Chooses Life

The Idaho House voted 51-18 to approve SB1353, legislation designed to protect the conscience rights of all licensed health care providers practicing in Idaho. Only two Republicans voted against the measure (George Eskridge of Sandpoint and Tom Trail of Moscow).

Two courageous Democrats, Jim Ruchti (Pocatello) and Branden Durst (Boise) broke with the majority of their party to support the measure; in fact, Rep. Ruchti was a co-sponsor of the bill.
After some two years’ work on this issue, today’s floor debate was somewhat anti-climactic.

Reps. Rusche and Burgoyne made formal statements of opposition and debate was closed. Much of the energetic opposition to the legislation was spent yesterday during a floor session, in which Rusche attempted to move the bill to the amending order in order to remove conscience protections in end-of-life situations.

As the legislation moved through the Capitol, the focal point of opposition shifted from emergency contraception to end-of-life treatment and care.

By the time the legislation arrived in the House, the AARP became the most vocal opponent, expending big resources to mislead seniors into believing that SB1353 would deprive them of rights under Idaho’s Living Will statute. In fact, the legislation which gained final legislative approval today does nothing to change patient rights.

But it does make clear that no patient can force a medical professional to violate his or her conscience.

This legislation may, in fact, become a vital part of protecting patients under the threatened health care rationing now on the verge of passage by Congress.

There are many heroes in this long struggle, but the victory belongs to the Lord.

Thanks to all who carried us through prayer and legislative contacts and financial support.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

The House State Affairs Committee approved SB1353 this morning on a party-line vote, 13-5.

After two days of testimony, the committee voted for Rep. Crane’s motion to send the bill to the floor with a “do-pass” recommendation. Democrats Higgins and King made substitute motions to kill and/or amend the legislation. Those motions failed both failed 4-14.

The legislation will now go to the House floor for final legislative action.

more to follow …

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

Despite the serious threat posed to every Idaho family by ObamaCare, three Idaho Senate liberals joined with their Democrat compatriots in opposing the Idaho Health Freedom Act this afternoon.

The legislation is part of a strategic defense of Idaho against the threatened federal take-over of health care called for by Gov. Butch Otter. It authorizes the state to resist federal legislation, and prohibits the enforcement of mandatory provisions by any state or local official.

Senators John Andreason, Joe Stegner and Chuck Coiner are the only Republicans in the Legislature to oppose this crucial bill.

These gentlemen also joined Democrats in undermining the religious liberties of Idaho health care professionals when they voted against SB1353 – the Freedom of Conscience for Health Care Professionals Act this session.

With candidate filing now open to the voters of Districts 7, 15 and 24 – one can only pray that righteous men and women will answer the call to public service at this difficult time in our nation’s history.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

By a vote of 21-13, the Idaho State Senate gave its approval to SB1353 this morning following lengthy debate.

In contrast to the committee hearing, much of the debate this morning was focused on the consequences of acknowledging the conscience rights of providers in end-of-life situations.

Sen. Les Bock (D-Boise) made one of the more emotional arguments against the bill by describing the decision-making of his family when faced with the challenge of creating a “peaceful resolution” for their mother’s life. He lamented the notion that a doctor or nurse might impose their moral or ethical concerns into a family’s plans for administering legal procedures designed to hasten death. Bock contended that acknowledging the conscience rights of medical professionals would only complicate already-difficult situations for families.

But, of course, what Bock failed to acknowledge is that families in such difficult circumstances do not have the right to forcibly implicate another – even their doctor — in immoral actions. Moreover, his argument failed to recognize that SB1353 only protects the right of a nurse or pharmacist or doctor to withdraw from treatments they find morally challenging.

Sen. Russ Fulcher responded by noting that it was the medical community itself which offered the language referring to “end of life treatment and care”, and that this broader definition would afford medical professionals an opportunity to exercise their moral and scientific judgment when faced with difficult situations.

Sen. Chuck Winder skillfully led the debate on behalf of the legislation, arguing that it struck a practical balance between the rights of medical providers, employers and patients.

Sen. Shirley McKague joined in defense of the legislation by reminding senators of the constitutional principles at stake in safe-guarding liberty. She offered a quote from Thomas Jefferson which featured conscience rights as our most precious liberty.

Republicans John Andreason, Joyce Broadsword, Chuck Coiner, Tim Corder, Shawn Keough, Joe Stegner and Gary Schroeder joined Senate Democrats in opposing the legislation.

SB1353 now goes to the House for a committee hearing.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

The Senate State Affairs committee voted 6-3 to send SB1353 to the Senate floor with a recommendation that it be approved by the full Senate.

The legislation will create statutory protections for health care professionals in specific areas of medical practice – including the dispensing of abortifacients and in end-of-life situations.

Opposition to the bill came largely from the Abortion Lobby because of their fears that it will create impediments to easy distribution of so-called “Emergency Contraception”. Much of the morning debate was taken up with a debate of how the drug works.

Oddly enough, the debate was settled by the closing testimony of retired abortionist Duane St. Clair, who acknowledged that “Emergency Contraception” can sometimes cause the destruction of an embryo by making the uterine wall inhospitable to the new human life.

Important supporting testimony was provided by Idaho Right to Life and the Catholic Diocese of Boise.

Dr. Will Rainford, representing Bishop Driscoll, emphasized the spiritual gravity of forcing Christian medical personnel to participate in medical procedures they know to be wrong.

Sen. Chuck Winder (R-Eagle) is the lead Senate sponsor of the measure.

The measure was passed with six Republican votes: Chairman Curt McKenzie, Pro Tem Geddes, Sens. Bart Davis, Russ Fulcher, Monty Pearce and Denton Darrington supported the measure. Sen. Joe Stegner (R-Lewiston) joined Democrats Kelly and Stennett in opposing the bill.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

The State Affairs Committee voted Wednesday to approve HB391, the Health Freedom Act on a vote of 6-3.

Sen. Joe Stegner (R-Lewiston) was the only Republican on the panel to vote against the measure which seeks to lay a defense for Idahoans, based upon the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, against a likely federal take-over of the health care industry.

While some in media have predicted that ObamaCare is dead, it is clear that Speaker Pelosi is hard at work trying to convince members of her caucus – as well as Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid – that her party should take the plunge and abuse the budget reconciliation process to secure nationalized health care.

Idaho Democrats in the Legislature continue to defend ObamaCare, with Senate Democrat Leader Kate Kelly opposing the Idaho Health Freedom Act, sponsored by Reps. Clark, Luker and Labrador.

The Health Freedom Act now awaits action by the full Senate.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

There has been some real push-back to a guest opinion we published by Mary Ann Kreitzer entitled, “Terminal Sedation: Abortion for the Elderly”. There have been some very good points made. It is wrong to cast a wide shadow of condemnation on those many men and women who devote themselves to caring for people as they face death.

At the same time, it is just foolish to ignore disturbing trends in modern medicine, in which seniors and the disabled are being ushered into premature death.

To help encourage a fuller understanding of these threats to the sanctity of human life, we republish here a news story which appeared yesterday in The Gazette, a Montreal newspaper:

Doctors back ‘right to die’

Consultation; But MDs oppose assisted suicide

By KEVIN DOUGHERTY
The Gazette
February 16, 2010 2:59 PM

Euthanasia is already a reality in Quebec hospitals, the president of the federation of Quebec medical specialists, told a National Assembly committee yesterday.

Doctors know when death is “imminent and inevitable,” Gaétan Barrette explained.
But doctors are aware they can be charged with murder if they administer a “palliative sedative” before a patient is on his or her last breath.

Geoffrey Kelley, chairman of the committee, explained that MNAs will hear about 30 expert witnesses on “dying with dignity” to prepare a paper for a travelling public consultation this fall.
Barrette told the committee the issue of euthanasia could not be discussed in Quebec 50 years ago, comparing it with the evolution in thinking about abortion.

“Doctors are ready to debate euthanasia,” Barrette said. And like abortion, he said, limits must be established. Not every patient will want euthanasia and not all doctors will agree to perform the procedure.

Barrette explained that a patient who is lucid consults with a doctor, friends and family members before requesting euthanasia.

For patients who are not lucid, a biological will can guide relatives who must decide.
The patient could have a terminal disease, like cancer. And patients at the “end of life” could be babies born with serious medical difficulties or seniors whose bodies are shutting down, one system after another.

“It’s a cascade,” Barrette said. “We can’t invent it. We see it. There are safeguards.”
Barrette said palliative care, using opiates to ease the pain, is also an important facet of end-of-life care.

“The choice of the patient is his choice,” he said. “We want legislation in tune with the wishes of the public.”

Polls indicate a high percentage of Quebecers favour euthanasia, including doctors.
But Barrette and Yves Lamontagne of the Quebec College of Physicians told the committee that doctors do not want to perform assisted suicides.

“We are not there to execute people,” Lamontagne said.

Euthanasia, the decision to end life when death is imminent and inevitable, is “extremely complex and emotionally charged,” Lamontagne added.

Yves Robert, secretary of the College, told the committee that Quebec is the only jurisdiction in Canada where patients can refuse medical treatment, which can lead to death.

“It doesn’t exist elsewhere in Canada,” Robert said. “We are ahead. Can we go farther?”

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

On Friday morning, the Idaho Senate State Affairs Committee voted to introduce a revised conscience protection bill, SB 1353, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Winder and nine other members of the Idaho Legislature. It provides for “Freedom of Conscience for Health Care Professionals” working here, in six critical areas of health care.

The new bill clarifies some key language and creates an exception for life-threatening emergencies, a change requested by the Idaho Hospital Association.

While there were many Abortion Lobby representatives in the room, things went pretty smoothly at the print hearing. That is likely to change when the bill comes up for formal consideration – hopefully late next week. Probably the biggest battle will come over giving pharmacists and other health care professionals the right to object to dispensing so-called “Emergency Contraception”.

We did get an early signal that opposition to the bill will be led by Democrat Leader Kate Kelly. She made quite a point at the hearing of having her opposition to even considering the bill recorded in committee minutes. It seems that the only “choice” Sen. Kelly will tolerate is one which conforms to her worldview.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

Our dear friend, Judie Brown, published a powerful piece yesterday on the powerful trend in modern medicine to dehumanize the vulnerable, specifically the disabled.

Judie focuses on the recent story of a man long dismissed as “brain dead”. New medical tests demonstrated that he is anything but. While unable to communicate with his keepers in the normal fashion, it turns out that he is quite conscious. He accurately responded to various questions by changing his brain wave patterns in a measurable way.

She goes on to challenge what can only be described as the arrogance of today’s medical industry, and attacks the new utilitarian morality which seems to dominate medical ethics today. Persons are being evaluated on the basis of their perceived functionality – as if a person’s inability to do something we demand is the ultimate measure of whether that person is actually a human being worthy of life.

Such thinking is not just troubling, it is a dire threat to all of us. But it is equally obvious that this “morality” is the logical extension of the values embodied by Roe v. Wade.

Writes Mrs. Brown:

“[Functionality or utility has] nothing to do with the fundamental fact that a human being is. He exists from his beginning to his death regardless of his attributes or abilities. Neither his human rights, nor his identity as a person should be subjectively weighed by other individuals.”
We would add – especially weighed and discarded by those professionals empowered to withdraw life-sustaining treatment on the basis of such personal judgments.

You won’t read about this in the mainstream media, but did you know that credible studies, going back to 1991, have found that as many as 43% of those labeled “vegetative” are misdiagnosed? And that was before doctors were able to access this new technology.

The fundamental problem here is that man’s natural inclination toward arrogance and God-rebellion is showing. Without God, and His law … everything is up for debate. One opinion is as valid as another, even if it results in the death of the innocent pre-born child or the vulnerable senior.

Here’s how Wesley Smith puts it:

“The bio-ethics mainstream has rejected the sanctity of life ethic and replaced it with the so-called ‘quality of life’ ethic. It began with the claim that the inability to communicate meant that one had lost ‘humanhood’ (now called personhood). Thus today, not only unconscious but conscious patients are dehydrated to death in all fifty states and it is shrugged off as medical ethics.”

Just to raise your anxiety even higher – we must point out that this is the state of affairs even before ObamaCare is forced upon America.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

The Idaho House of Representatives passed HB391 on Tuesday by a lopsided 52-18 vote. Sponsored by Reps. Labrador, Luker & Clark, this legislation lays the groundwork for the State of Idaho to fight ObamaCare should it be shoved through the Congress.

Sadly, the vote was a strictly partisan affair. All Democrats voted against it, all Republicans voted for the measure. One would have hoped that at least some Democrats would have joined the effort to push back against Nancy Pelosi’s

frightening plan to take over America’s health care system. The current versions of this scheme would fundamentally alter the relationship of citizens to their government. It is arguable, in fact, that much of the driving mania behind ObamaCare is not compassion for the uninsured, but a deep desire to impose a European-style socialism upon the last bastion of capitalism.

Citizens would be required to buy health insurance, and private companies would be required to compete against a taxpayer-subsidized government entity as a first step toward us all into a single-payer system controlled by government bureaucrats.

The worst features of ObamaCare, of course, are the threats to life mandated by its cut to Medicare, its massive subsidies for abortion-on-demand, and the absence of conscience protections for health care providers.

HB 391 declares that “the power to require a person’s choice in securing health care services is not found in the Constitution of the United States, and is, therefore, a power reserved to the people pursuant to the 9th Amendment, and to the states under the 10th Amendment.” The legislation makes it illegal for any state official to enforce or otherwise participate in a federal health care system that violates this public policy.

You can read the legislation yourself by following this link:

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2010/H0391.htm

The battle in the Idaho Senate is likely to be more intense. We encourage our readers to contact their state senators to urge their support for this critical legislation.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.