Oregon case reveals Ashcroft’s true colors: (Anti-Catholic/Anti-Christian Bogotry on Parade)

After nearly a year in moderate camouflage, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft is at last preening his ultraconservative plumage.

Promoted to the government’s top law enforcement position after losing his U.S. Senate seat a year ago, Ashcroft at first sought to alleviate fears that he, as attorney general, would pursue a doggedly right-wing agenda. In his first days on the job, he even called for a nationwide re-examination of the practice of racial profiling by police. That initiative was forgotten on that September day when anyone who looked even remotely like he could be named Mohammed became subject to intense scrutiny, surveillance or worse.

The national crisis and subsequent reaction would have driven anyone in Ashcroft’s position to take dramatic measures. The biggest single act of premeditated murder in our nation’s history calls for a strong response. Ashcroft has not disappointed in that regard, though some would say he has flailed ineffectually in the fight against terrorism while making serious inroads into Americans’ constitutional freedoms. Those debates will be settled in time - and probably in court.

You would think the head of the U.S. Department of Justice would have his hands full figuring out how a couple of dozen terrorists managed to slip through airport security and slay 5,000-plus Americans and assorted others - and beefing up procedures to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Ashcroft, however, doesn’t just want to protect us from terrorism. He is determined to protect us from ourselves.

Somehow, he found time in his busy schedule to challenge Oregon’s assisted suicide law. Last week, he ordered the Drug Enforcement Administration to go after the licenses of doctors who prescribe drugs in compliance with the state’s Death With Dignity Act.

A word about this Oregon law that was approved by statewide referenda in 1994 and again in 1997: It rigorously ensures that the patient is both sane and in pain. The sufferer must petition once, then wait 15 days and petition again. Two physicians must approve, and the requests must be witnessed by at least one person who is not a doctor or related to the patient. About 70 people have availed themselves of the option. Not a one was coerced or tricked, and there is every reason to believe that each one shuffled off this mortal coil with real relief.

Have you ever watched anyone dying of bone cancer? It’s hard to imagine how hell could be worse. What sort of compassionate person could ignore someone who sobs for release from such agony? Strangely, it is religious conviction that fuels the sentiment against laws like that in Oregon.

It has long been a bedrock tenet of the Roman Catholic Church that suicide is a mortal sin, that anyone who takes his or her own life is cast automatically and irrevocably among the damned. As a doctrinal matter, I do not know whether the same proscription exists for the Assemblies of God churches, in which Ashcroft is an ordained minister. But I bet assisted suicide, like slow-dancing and abortion rights, is opposed by the church fathers with vigor and certainty.

As a legal and political question, Ashcroft’s stance reflects a violent contradiction in modern conservativism. A fundamental principle of conservative thinking is that people have a right to govern themselves on the individual, local and state levels without interference from the federal government. That premise has been the basis for almost every conservative issue since World War II. "States’ rights" was the chosen battle strategy for the defense of local Jim Crow laws and other forms of racial segregation. Federal clean air and water statutes were deemed an unwarrantable intrusion on more lenient state standards.

There are dozens of examples. Remember last year’s Republican primary, when George W. Bush was asked his opinion about the Confederate battle flag flying over the state Capitol of South Carolina? Some people called it a dodge when he answered that it was properly a question for the people of that state, not for an aspiring federal officeholder. It wasn’t a dodge; it was the statement of a committed conservative.

The philosophy is not unsound, provided it is backed by conviction and not merely convenience. It runs off the rails when it conflicts with Republican opposition to state and local laws that are more liberal than the federal standards. Such a conflict is starkly outlined in Ashcroft’s attempted subversion of the Oregon law, which clearly provides for individual choice and has been overwhelmingly approved by the state’s voters.

Ashcroft contends the Oregon initiative should not supercede federal regulations that do not include assisted suicide in the catalog of "legitimate medical purposes." His predecessor in office felt differently, and so did the federal district judge who ruled to block Ashcroft’s maneuver late last week. The case will be adjudicated, ultimately, by the U.S. Supreme Court, but only if the attorney general decides to pursue it.

Why is a conservative like Ashcroft likely to push a greater role for federal bureaucrats in the regulation of state law and private lives?

This is precisely the sort of thing that happens when clergymen get their hands on the machinery of government, as is the case in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. They shape the laws to suit their faith. And every time they restrict our freedom, they tell themselves in all sincerity that it is for our own good - to save us from our own mistakes or just our out-and-out sinfulness.

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

Forrest Rose is a Tribune columnist. You can reach him via e-mail at editor@tribmail.com.

A fundamental principle of conservative thinking is that people have a right to govern themselves on the individual, local and state levels without interference from the federal government.

True, unless that local or state government contradicts a fundamental aspect of the US Constitution. In this case, the "Assisted Suicide" law allows a doctor to end the life of a patient, with certain safeguards and procedures. However, by condoning homicide, the state law is denying the patient his right to life, which is arguably the most fundamental inalieanable right enshrined in the Consitution, indeed first of the three enumerated inalienable rights, "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness".

So there is no contradiction with states rights. To contrast guaranteeing the right to life with Federal overreaching under the auspices of the commerce clause indicates that this author just wants what he wants, and will make whatever argument is convenient at the time.

This guy has his facts wrong. He states:
It has long been a bedrock tenet of the Roman Catholic Church that suicide is a mortal sin, that anyone who takes his or her own life is cast automatically and irrevocably among the damned.

Wrong. Here is the Church's position on the eternal destiny of suicides, taken straight from the Catechism:

Suicide
2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.
2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.
2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.
Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.
2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

The Church's stance against so-called "death with dignity" is rooted not in any desire to extend the powers of government, but in its fundemental respect for human life. Here is the official teaching on euthanasia:

Euthanasia
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care [i.e., the treatment of the terminally ill with pain-relieving drugs] is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.