This is a horrible law, but I have long thought the way to overturn it is to take it to the voters again after a lengthy period of voter education.
I do not believe any government local or federal has a right to legislate the taking of life.
Gods law is clear, Thou shalt not Kill. That does not come with a caveat, for suicide.
Ops4 God Bless America!
This was voted on twice in Oregon. After the first passage, the legislature repealed it. Second time around the initiative passed again and the legislature has since left it alone.
I have mixed feelings about it. First, I think whether or not a person chooses to end his life is his business and none of the state or federal government's. Before this was passed, folks did themselves in with drug overdoses all the time. There is no need for this law, and the government should have been kept out of it.
Second, there is no such thing as assisted suicide. Having assistance sort of flies in the face of the definition of the word suicide if you ask me. The same sort of logic applies to gay marriage. In the real world, where words have well established and understood meanings, legislation that attempts to rewrite the dictionary is no less absurd than those that would try to rewrite history. I'd probably oppose such things less often if they were written using words that actually described what they are trying to do (of course those words would be uglier than the less appropriate ones they have chosen, it seems to me).
But the state has passed this law, not once but twice, so here is a states' rights issue that has been running in parallel with the similar issue of medical marijuana. And how the court could rule against that and for this, based upon assertion of the exact same power by the federal government (one which I don't believe is legitimate in any event) seems a tad fickle and inconsistent. Our nation's greatest legal minds seem to have goofed on one side or the other, if you ask me.
Now - some folks view this case as important as a "right to life" issue. Simply put, I don't. To be sure, there are issues with the possibility of coercion of the not entirely willing for economic or other reasons, but those issues existed even without this law.
I could go on but I'd be typing all night. As for myself, I can't imagine a scenario where I would not want to live and breathe each and every breath of air that I am able. Those who would choose otherwise, I say fine for them, it's their decision. But still and all, there is no reason for it to be any of the government's business. Can't un-ring that bell though, can we?
What Oregon voters need is an educaiton on The Law Of Unintended Consequences.