I've always detested former US Attorney General John Ashcroft. I learned the following today when reviewing a case before the Supreme Court:
"In 1994 and then again in 1997, Oregon voters passed the Death With Dignity Act, which allows doctors to prescribe lethal doses of legal but regulated drugs to dying Oregonians who ask for them. John Ashcroft, who was then a senator, asked Janet Reno, who was then Clinton's attorney general, to stop the Oregon doctors. Reno declined. In 1998 and 1999, Ashcroft introduced two bills in Congress that would have explicitly scuttled Death With Dignity. Both bills failed. "
"Then Ashcroft became President Bush's attorney general. In 2001, he announced that the federal Controlled Substances Act—passed by Congress in 1970 to 'conquer drug abuse' and control the trafficking of legal and illegal drugs—gave him the power to revoke the licenses of doctors who assisted suicide with a prescription drug. The doctors could also be criminally prosecuted. When Ashcroft made his move, Oregon squawked its way to court. (That's why the name of today's case could be improved on a bit—it should really be called Ashcroft v. Oregon.) "
.jpg)
10.22.2005
I'm So Confused About What "Limited Government" Means To Republicans
I've always detested former US Attorney General John Ashcroft. I learned the following today when reviewing a case before the Supreme Court:
"In 1994 and then again in 1997, Oregon voters passed the Death With Dignity Act, which allows doctors to prescribe lethal doses of legal but regulated drugs to dying Oregonians who ask for them. John Ashcroft, who was then a senator, asked Janet Reno, who was then Clinton's attorney general, to stop the Oregon doctors. Reno declined. In 1998 and 1999, Ashcroft introduced two bills in Congress that would have explicitly scuttled Death With Dignity. Both bills failed. "
"Then Ashcroft became President Bush's attorney general. In 2001, he announced that the federal Controlled Substances Act—passed by Congress in 1970 to 'conquer drug abuse' and control the trafficking of legal and illegal drugs—gave him the power to revoke the licenses of doctors who assisted suicide with a prescription drug. The doctors could also be criminally prosecuted. When Ashcroft made his move, Oregon squawked its way to court. (That's why the name of today's case could be improved on a bit—it should really be called Ashcroft v. Oregon.) "
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Yeah, you know I've always been confused too. I thought Republicans didn't like government interfering in their business and were for limited government, criticizing Dems for wanting too much government. But why do Republicans want the government involved in deciding who a person can marry--that amendment were going to vote on outlawing gay marriage. Isn't that the government interefering in someone's personal business?
Moral issues should never be considered Democrat or Republican. What is right need not be either. I suppose anyone could understand not liking someone who tries to preserve life.
I've always been confused at how putting down a suffering animal is "humane", but euthanasia where people are concerned is often deemed "immoral". To preserve life is one thing, but to preserve suffering is another.
Regardless of what is right or wrong, it was God who gave man free will; it was government that took it away.
If we saw somebody put a gun to their head wanting to end their life (who had a diagnosed terminal illness), would we just stand there and watch it or try to stop it? I'd call that the person's personal business too. Suicide or euthanasia?
We should call Precinct Four Justice of the Peace C. D. Archer on this one.
:)
I suppose anyone could understand not liking someone who tries to tell them who they can or can't marry, who they can or can't sleep with, etc. You are right, 3:28. moral issues should never be considered Democrat or Republican, but the Republican party has masterfully made moral issues the focus of their platform for the last 10 years or so. Whether its euthanasia or first trimester abortion, it is no one's business but the individual's, not state government, not the federal government, not any religious group, and not my neighbor's. Believe what you want to believe, but no one has the right to force their beliefs on someone else.
What galls me is how the religious right have infiltrated the Republican Party. Even from the pulpit, some ministers (here in Wise County) have said this political party represents the moral values most akin to those proclaimed by Christ.
Ah, yes, let us now be about categorizing sins. It's one thing to keep unzipping one's zipper (Bill Clinton) and quite another to dupe the American people into thinking the Republican Party has the market cornered on morality.
How funny and how sick so many non thinking people buy into it.
You are so right, anon3:33. Have you noticed on this Blog, virtually anytime anyone dares criticize Bush or any Republican, they are automatically named a "liberal" or a "Democrat" by other bloggers. Apparently, we have alot of people both in this county and the nation who are non-thinkers who buy into it. It's scary. "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"--I'm not sure that's an exact quote, and I'm not sure who said it, but you non-lemmings out there (and you know who you are) will get my drift...
anon 9:29....lol... I like the way you think. I'd say both suicide and euthanasia. I hope to live my whole life without seeing something like that, but if it were me holding the gun to my head, I'd hope anyone who saw me would have sense enough to mind their own business and step back to avoid the splatter. Warped? Maybe.... Practical?... Definitely....lol
I'm glad John Ashcroft knows what is best for me, cuz I sure as hell don't know.
Post a Comment