Legal Assisted Suicide on the ballot in Washington State

AmP reader Bryan:

Please pray for us in the State of Washington, as we have a very difficult initiative on our ballot, known as I-1000, which would legalize assisted suicide. It is going to be very tough to defeat, although many people are working hard. Here is the website with more info: http://www.noassistedsuicide.com.

Also, here is a good homily by a good young priest in our archdiocese (mp3 here).

You should also know that our Gubernatorial election is going to be very important as well. It's a Pro-Choice Catholic Democrat (Christine Gregoire) vs. a Pro-Life Catholic GOP Candidate (Dino Rossi). This is a rematch of the 2004 election which was decided by a mere 100 votes.

Video: Barack Obama on Terri Schiavo

Video of Barack Obama's comments on Terri Schivo:

My full commentary on this story is available here.

related: "Obama pledged to Planned Parenthood: “I will not yield” to pro-life concerns" (CNA):

The senator said he had a long tradition of support for legalized abortion, citing his efforts in the Illinois State Senate and his classes as a law professor. “I have worked on these issues for decades now,” he said. “I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women’s equality.”

...

Senator Obama said he was “absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties,” saying it was “time to turn the page.”

“We’re tired about arguing about the same ole’ stuff,” he continued.

update 2: "Obama Under Fire for Terri Schiavo Remark"- Christian Post

Obama's biggest regret? Not more energetically letting Terri Schiavo die.

In last night's democratic debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama - their last one before the Texas/Ohio showdown on March 4th - Barack Obama made a surprising (to me, shocking) statement:

RUSSERT: Senator Obama, any statements or vote you'd like to takeback?

OBAMA: Well, you know, when I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo. And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decision making process of the families. It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better. And so that's an example I think of where inaction...

RUSSERT: This is the young woman with the feeding tube...

OBAMA: That's exactly right.

RUSSERT: ... and the family disagreed as to whether it should be removed or not.

OBAMA: And I think that's an example of inaction, and sometimes that can be as costly as action.

Obama's choice of example and statement about the Terri Schiavo case confound me quite a bit. For one thing, this represents a clear case of him reaching out to an extreme position, and therefore distancing himself from the more conservative position on end-of-life issues that many Americans hold, thus reminding us how liberal Obama actually is on these types of issues. He went looking for it.

Furthermore, the proposition that "the American people understood that [getting involved in the Terri Schiavo case] was a mistake" I don't personally agree with, and at any rate, I'd like to see the poll numbers on it. Since when did this become a consensus position, that it is wrong for there to be laws to protect the disabled from having their ordinary care and nutrition removed?!

Regardless, Obama's lack of action was ultimately fruitless, as Schiavo did indeed have her feeding tube removed and was indeed starved to death, several legal battles later.

In the end, all Obama managed to do with his response to the moderator's question was to inform the American people, "Yes, I was in favor of letting Terri Schiavo be starved to death."

If anything, that was the inaction he chose: not helping Terri live.

LifeNews points out that Obama, in fact, said basically the same thing back in 2007:

This isn't the first time Obama has said the biggest mistake he made as senator was voting to help try to stop Terri from being euthanized.

During an April 2007 debate, Obama said, "I think professionally the biggest mistake that I made was when I first arrived in the Senate. There was a debate about Terri Schiavo, and a lot of us, including me, left the Senate with a bill that allowed Congress to intrude where it shouldn't have.”

"And I think I should have stayed in the Senate and fought more for making sure [Terri's parents couldn't take their case to federal court to save her life]," he explained.

Again, it's scary to think that Obama has to say this sort of thing to win over democratic voters.

Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO's The Corner has this to say:

"I thought Terri Schiavo was a jarring presence at the debate last night. When Senator Obama was asked what legislative regrets, he didn’t try to walk away from his radical ways any by citing his votes against born-alive infant protection or against banning the transport of children across state lines to circumvent parental notification/consent laws. Instead he said he would have voted to stop Congress from intervening to save the life of Terri Schiavo.

On Meet the Press, John McCain left open the possibility that Congress wasn't wrong to get involved. He should embrace life (and autonomy!) and get comfortable with running against Barack Obama, a radical on these issues."

To which Andrew Sullivan responds "is she nuts?"

Oh wait, that's right, McCain shouldn't point out Obama's anti-life positions, that would be foolish.

If anyone has YouTube or other embedded video of Obama's response, I'd appreciate the link.

update: coincidentally, look at what the Vatican was just wrapping-up yesterday:

"The Pontifical Academy for Life has concluded a 2-day conference on ethical and pastoral questions involving care for those who are terminally ill.

... At the conclusion of the conference one participant, Dr. John Haas of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, told Vatican Radio that a key concern had been the desire to counteract mounting pressure for euthanasia in the case of patients who are terminally ill. The spreading acceptance of euthanasia, he said, is the result of a utilitarian approach to human life that is "increasingly dominant" in medical circles." - CWNews

Breaking: CDF releases clarification (confirmation) re: nutrition & hydration

Via Amy, the CDF responds to a request from the USCCB today:

First question: Is the administration of food and water (whether by natural or artificial means) to a patient in a "vegetative state" morally obligatory except when they cannot be assimilated by the patient’s body or cannot be administered to the patient without causing significant physical discomfort?

Response: Yes. The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented.

Second question: When nutrition and hydration are being supplied by artificial means to a patient in a "permanent vegetative state", may they be discontinued when competent physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover consciousness?

Response: No. A patient in a "permanent vegetative state" is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means.

Also published, a lengthy commentary by CDF on the history of the teaching that artificial nutrition and hydration is ordinary and proportionate means. More backstory when I get a chance.

Update: This is the first time Ratzinger, as Pope Benedict, has gotten involved in this particular question (as far as I know). CDF hereby has confirmed Pope John Paul II's teaching given in 2004 that artificial hydration and nutrition is, in principle, ordinary care and as such always to be administered. The CDF commentary specifically states, "the Responses now given by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith continue the direction of the documents of the Holy See cited above, and in particular the Address of John Paul II of March 20, 2004."

I'm guessing, but don't know for sure, that President Skylstad submitted this question to CDF because many Catholic hospitals are still ignoring the directive of Pope John Paul II.

Well, now they're ignoring the recent teaching of two popes.

Update 2: Reuters coverage.