California Assisted Suicide Law Violates Free Speech Rights Of Objecting Doctors [Court rules]

Religion Clause ^ | 9/6/22 | Howard Friedman

[marshmallow]

In Christian Medical & Dental Association v. Bonta, (CD CA, Sept. 2, 2022), a California federal district court held likely unconstitutional a provision in the California End of Life Option Act which requires doctors who refuse on conscience, moral or ethical grounds to participate in procedures set out by the act to nevertheless document in a patient's record the date of the patient's request for an aid-in-dying drug. This notation serves as one of two required requests by a patient before the patient may obtain the drug. The court rejected the argument that this violates the free exercise rights of medical providers who object on religious grounds, saying in part:

The court recognizes that Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs, and that compliance with the documentation requirements contained in Section 443.14(e)(2) infringes on the free exercise of their religion. However, under clearly established doctrine in Smith, Lukumi, and Fulton, strict scrutiny does not apply to a neutral and generally applicable law, like the Act here.

The court also rejected equal protection and due process challenges. However, the court did conclude that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their free speech challenges to the requirement, saying in part:

[RWGinger]

I get confused on language
So did the Ca court rule a doc who didn’t agree with easy euthania, that doc’s objection was weighed?

[MRadtke]

“aid-in-dying drug.” why don't they just say “poison”?