Church-State Separation, at Top 10 2009 List.

From the fantastic Howard Friedman at Religion Clause, his top ten list of Church-State Separation/Free Exercise:

Here are my nominations for the 2009 Top Ten Developments in Church-State Separation/ Free-Exercise of Religion. The choices are based on the long-range implications of the developments on legal doctrines and on future of relations between government and religion. Some of this year's top picks continue trends selected last year. (2008 Top 10.) Others reflect new concerns. I am sure that some readers will disagree with the picks, so I invite your comments. Most of these developments were reflected in a number of Religion Clause postings over the year. Links are to representative posts on the issue.

1. U.S. Catholic bishops are at increasing odds with President Obama over abortion. Very public disputes, sometimes splitting the Catholic community, erupted over Notre Dame's award of an honorary degree to Obama and over the USCCB's insistence on strict language in health care reform bills to limit abortion coverage.

2. Conservative Christian groups mount extensive but unsuccessful attempt to prevent passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

3. The Freedom From Religion Foundation becomes a major player in pressing for church-state separation by challenging a wide variety of practices, from sectarian prayers at city council meetings, to the tax code's parsonage allowance, to engravings at the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center.

4. The Rifqa Bary case requires Florida and Ohio courts to become involved in run-away teenager's claim that her Muslim father threatens her life because of her conversion to Christianity.

5. U.S. Supreme Court rules that a Utah city can refuse to allow the religious group, Summum, to put up a monument containing its "Seven Aphorisms" in a public park, even though a 10 Commandments monument and other monuments are already there.

6. Britain's new Supreme Court holds that a Jewish school's admissions policy using the traditional Orthodox definition of who is a Jew amounts to ethnic, and therefore racial, discrimination.

7. Courts around the country decide disputes over ownership of property after numerous conservative Episcopal parishes move to Anglican affiliations.

8. South Carolina's attempt to issue state-sponsored "I Believe" license plates is ruled a violation of the Establishment Clause.

9. France convicts Scientology and its leaders of fraud while German court limits tactics of German government against Scientology.

10. A Utah trial court rejects a settlement proposed by Utah's Attorney General in the complicated attempt to reform the FLDS United Effort Plan Trust, while the estate of a deceased leader of the polygamous FLDS Church seeks control of the $120 million trust.

There are at least two other Top 10 lists published this month on religion related stories. You may find it interesting to compare their picks, many of which differ a good deal from mine, though they were using somewhat different criteria. They are Don Byrds' Top 10 Religious Liberty Stories of 2009; and Religion Newswriters Top 10 Religion Stories.

Abstinence-Only Education and the Establishment Clause.

Yeah! Legal Theory Blog points out a new paper by Naomi Shatz that argues abstinence-only education should be challenged on the Establishment Clause!

I damn well hope someone gets the balls to challenge faith-based sex education and health care by separation of church and state issues and not just privacy. I would like my religious freedom some day.

Won't that be a righteous day!

The abstract:

This article argues that current federal funding for abstinence-only sex education violates the Establishment Clause. Previous establishment clause challenges to the abstinence-only education system focused either on overt religious messages included in curricula or on federal funding going to religious groups to teach abstinence-only education. These challenges have ignored the religious history of abstinence-only education and the particular religious values that are endorsed by even the allegedly "secular" curricula. This article demonstrates that the current funding of abstinence-only education violates the Supreme Court's test for religious neutrality as set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzmann.

Bloomberg on Baxter v Montana.

Linky:

Physician-assisted suicide is legal in Montana, and doctors who help terminally ill patients die are shielded from prosecution, the state Supreme Court ruled.

Montana is the third state, after Oregon and Washington, to allow physicians to help such patients end their lives, and today’s decision is the first from a U.S. state high court to protect the choice, said Steve Hopcraft, a spokesman for Compassion and Choices, a group that advocates the practice.

A lower court in Montana ruled last year that the state’s constitutional privacy and human dignity rights allow a terminally ill patient to “die with dignity.” The court ruled patients may use a doctor’s prescription, and that the physician is protected from prosecution under Montana’s homicide laws. Montana appealed that ruling to the state’s high court.

“We find nothing in Montana Supreme Court precedent or Montana statutes indicating that physician aid in dying is against public policy,” the high court said in its opinion.

Montana law “explicitly shields physicians from liability for acting in accordance with a patient’s end-of life wishes, even if the physician must actively pull the plug on a patient’s ventilator or withhold treatment that will keep him alive,” according to the ruling.

The case was filed by Robert Baxter, a retired truck driver from Billings who was terminally ill with leukemia, according to court filings. Baxter sought a lethal dose of medication prescribed by his doctors, who also joined Baxter in the case challenging whether they could be prosecuted under Montana law for helping mentally competent, terminally ill patients to die.

Baxter died before today’s decision, according to a statement from Denver-basedCompassion and Choices.

‘Additional Options’

With today’s ruling, “terminally ill Montanans can work with their doctor and have additional options at the end of life,” Hopcraft said in an interview.

A representative for Nightingale Alliance, a Wisconsin- based group that opposes assisted suicide, didn’t immediately return an e-mail message seeking comment.

Judy Beck, a spokeswoman for Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock, didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment.

The case is Baxter v. Montana, 09-0051, Supreme Court of Montana (Helena).

Top 10 Conservatives of the Decade.

Well, this will be little belly-laugh for your hangover, a top 10 list I can get behind. The Examiner.com (a confirmed conservative shill rag) has a list of the top ten conservatives of the decade.

Read on for a hefty dose of persecution paranoia and gag-reflex-inducing bit of self-righteous discrimination. And remember, they know what is good for you, not you. That's why God put them in positions of power and influence:

Clarence Thomas, courtesy of the Supreme Court
(obtained from civilliberty.about.com)

Conservapedia.com, "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," today published its list of the Ten Conservatives of the Decade. These are the ten men and women who, in the past ten years, had the greatest impact on American politics and attitudes, according to Andrew Schlafly, founder and chief administrator of Conservapedia.

The number-one Conservative of the Decade isClarence Thomas, Justice of the Supreme Court since 1992. Conservapedia contributors cite him for his opinions clarifying the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, and holding that capital punishment is not "cruel or unusual" within the actual meaning of the Eighth Amendment. In addition, another senior administrator at Conservapedia described Thomas thus:

Thomas is a distinguished black jurist who understands that the Constitution is not a Ouija board, plus he can relate to Americans (RVing, raising a twelve year old). His silence at oral arguments indicates that he is more interested in what the people are saying, and he is a quiet force behind the scenes.

Schlafly went further:

For ten years he has withstood intense pressure to become more liberal in order to win the media accolades given to less accomplished men. With sincerity, insight, and good spirit, Justice Thomas has become an inspiration for a generation of Americans at a time when there seem to be few role models in public life. His autobiography, published in 2007, traces his path from the most humble roots to the pinnacle of power, and yet he never flinched from his principles as so many others in Washington do.

The immediate runners-up to Thomas were those who propounded, supported, voted for, and defended California's Proposition 8, the proposition declaring that California's constitution would recognize marriage as between one man and one woman, and not dignify any other combinations (man and man, woman and woman, man and animal, etc.) with the term "marriage." Proposition 8 set the so-called "homosexual agenda" back considerably, especially since at last Californians managed to so amend their Constitution and not have California's courts invalidate that amendment.

The full list of Conservatives of the Decade is as follows:

1. Clarence Thomas
2. Proposition 8 supporters
3. Antonin Scalia (for his opinions supporting Rule of Law, the Second Amendment, and textualism)
4. Sarah Palin (for advocating less government, standing up to inhuman liberal abuse, and opposing "death panels", er, "end of life counseling")
5. Ron Paul (for advancing the vision of Barry Goldwater, mobilizing activism, and scrutinizing the Federal Reserve)
6. Michele Bachmann (taking on liberals in the House, exposing the global currency, and winning in Al Franken's State)
7. Dick Cheney (protecting America in a dangerous world, and standing up for others who do likewise)
8. Samuel J. Alito (standing up to liberals during his confirmation hearings, and writing superb opinions soon afterward)
9. Ann Coulter (taking it right to the liberals with courage and wit)
10. Michelle Malkin (blogging across-the-board conservatism and speaking on college campuses)

In addition, Conservapedia remembers these famous conservatives who died in the decade just passed:

1. Charlton Heston, who famously said, "Cold dead hands."
2. Jerry Falwell, founder of Liberty University.
3. Ronald Reagan, the fortieth President of the United States.
4. Karol Cardinal Wojtyla, better known to history as Pope John Paul II.

Robert Baxter.

Today was a success for a man no longer alive to see it. It is an odd decision by the Montana Supreme Court, not one that states aid in dying is guaranteed by the state constitution, but one that protects doctors from prosecution for helping those in pain end their suffering. I for one am thankful for Robert Baxter's courage.

From the NYT:

The Montana Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that state law protects doctors in Montana from prosecution for helping terminally ill patients die. But the court, ruling with a narrow majority, sidestepped the larger landmark question of whether physician-assisted suicide is a right guaranteed under the state’s Constitution.

Enlarge This Image

Larry Mayer/Billings Gazette

Robert Baxter

Related

Constitutional Rights Outlined for Montanans (September 1, 2009)

Montana Court to Rule on Assisted Suicide Case (September 1, 2009)

Times Topics: Assisted Suicide

Readers' Comments

Share your thoughts.

• Post a Comment »

The 4-to-3 decision, in a case closely watched around the nation by physicians and advocates for the disabled and terminally ill, was a victory for the so-called death-with-dignity movement. But it fell short of the sweeping declaration advocates had hoped for.

And by avoiding the question of constitutional rights entirely, the court kept the debate in the Montana Legislature, where passions over the issue run high and where tinkering with existing laws is much easier than changing the Constitution.

The state attorney general’s office, which had argued to the court that the Legislature and the democratic process — not seven Supreme Court justices — should decide the weighty philosophical questions raised by the case, Baxter v. Montana, said in a statement that the questions were still alive and still to be answered.

“The Montana Supreme Court recognized that physician-assisted suicide is a policy question for the people of Montana and their Legislature,” the Montana state solicitor, Anthony Johnstone, said in the statement. “As we have argued, that is where the resolution of this important issue belongs.”

A spokeswoman for Compassion and Choices, a group that supports physician-assisted death for terminally ill people and which participated in the case as a plaintiff and co-council to the lead plaintiff, Robert Baxter, conceded that a broader ruling would have been better for their interests.

Mr. Baxter, a retired truck driver from Billings, died last year of complications related to lymphocytic leukemia at age 76.

“We would have welcomed a broad and robust constitutional ruling,” said Kathryn L. Tucker, the legal affairs director for Compassion and Choices. But Ms. Tucker said there was also no doubt that the court had expanded the choices available to the dying in Montana, and extended protection to their doctors, too.

“The court recognized that this is a right patients have,” she said.

The court, which heard oral arguments in the Baxter case in September, was deeply divided, with four separate written opinions among the seven justices — a four-justice majority; a two-justice dissent, and two concurring opinions.

One justice, James C. Nelson, concurred in part, saying he would have upheld the lower court ruling and found a constitutional right to die with dignity.

Two states, Washington and Oregon, allow physicians to help terminally ill people hasten their deaths, but in those states the laws were approved by voters in statewide referendums, and neither state’s highest court has examined the issue of a constitutional right to die. Montana would have been the first.

“This right to physician aid in dying quintessentially involves the inviolable right to human dignity — our most fragile right,” Justice Nelson wrote in a passionately worded opinion.

The majority’s language, by contrast, was muted and lawyerly. A measure passed by the Legislature in 1985, which addressed the withdrawal of treatment for terminally ill patients, created “public policy,” the majority said, that in effect shielded a physician from prosecution for helping hasten the death of a consenting, rational, terminal patient.

The dissenting justices said the majority had misread the intent and meaning of the 1985 law and given it a breadth it was never intended to have.

“The statute provides no support for physicians shifting from idle onlookers of natural death to active participants in their patients’ suicides,” they wrote.

WJS on Baxter v. Montana.

From the "pro-life" Wesley J. Smith:

The Supreme Court of Montana vacated a trial judge’s ruling that the Constitution of Montana prohibited assisted suicide for the terminally ill–but construed the state’s living will law as permitting doctors to prescribe lethal overdoses if the patient self administers. This is odd because that approach was barely addressed, and it would seem to me that a motion for reconsideration is in order so this approach can be more fully briefed. From the conclusion of the majority opinion:

In conclusion, we find nothing in Montana Supreme Court precedent or Montana statutes indicating that physician aid in dying is against public policy. The “against public policy” exception to consent has been interpreted by this Court as applicable to violent breaches of the public peace. Physician aid in dying does not satisfy that definition. We also find nothing in the plain language of Montana statutes indicating that physician aid in dying is against public policy. In physician aid in dying, the patient—not the physician—commits the final death-causing act by self-administering a lethal dose of medicine.

Furthermore, the Montana Rights of the Terminally Ill Act indicates legislative respect for a patient’s autonomous right to decide if and how he will receive medical treatment at the end of his life. The Terminally Ill Act explicitly shields physicians from liability for acting in accordance with a patient’s end-of-life wishes, even if the physician must actively pull the plug on a patient’s ventilator or withhold treatment that will keep him alive. There is no statutory indication that lesser end-of-life physician involvement, in which the patient himself commits the final act, is against public policy. We therefore hold that under § 45-2-211, MCA, a terminally ill patient’s consent to physician aid in dying constitutes a statutory defense to a charge of homicide against the aiding physician when no other consent exceptions apply.

Like I said: Very odd–particularly since in Vacco v. Quill, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that there is relevant and legal distinction between removing unwanted life support and assisting suicide.

The good news is that it isn’t a constitutional right but permitted by the Court’s construction of a statute (despite that the authors of the legislation almost surely never intended advance directives to apply to assisted suicide). And since the analogy is to withdrawing life support, it will be harder to expand the category of people to whom doctors can legally prescribe without running afoul of the homicide statutes. Best of all, because it is statutory, the law can be changed or clarified.

The bad news is that the case seems to accept “aid in dying” as a legitimate medical procedure, and indeed one in which the physician is less involved in a patient’s death than when he or she withdraws life support. But we are generally not talking about patients on life support. Thus, this invented approach–again that was never argued one way or the other before this court as far as I know–will now be attempted by Compassion and Choices in other states.

Let us hope this matter is reconsidered to allow full briefing on the point. Absent that, let us hope that the Montana Legislature clarifies the law as not applying to prescribing lethal doses for suicide.

Happy New Year.

ACLU Press Release on Baxter v. Montana.

from email:

HELENA, MT — The Montana Supreme Court today ruled that physicians may aid mentally competent, terminally ill patients who request assistance to die with dignity. The ruling on the case, Baxter v. Montana, however, failed to declare this right to die as protected under the Montana Constitution, but rather as an act permitted under state statutes.

“We’re pleased that the Court ruled in favor of physicians who prescribe medication to terminally ill patients who want to end their suffering and die with dignity, but are disappointed that the justices did not uphold the right to die as constitutionally protected,” said ACLU of Montana Executive Director Scott Crichton.

The ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting death with dignity as a protected right under the Montana Constitution’s rights to privacy and dignity. The Court’s 5-2 ruling does not address those points, but rather states that under state statute patients may consent to their own deaths and physicians who help them are protected under state law. Though physicians can still be charged with a crime, consent is an allowed defense.

In a special concurring opinion, however, Justice James Nelson wrote that aid in dying is constitutionally protected.

Robert Baxter sought relief from his suffering from leukemia. He died last December on the same day the lower court ruled in his favor.

The Montana Supreme Court’s ruling creates uncertainty that death with dignity will always be protected under state law. It places the issue in the lap of state legislators, who in the 2011 legislative session could choose to regulate the process or could even outlaw it.

The ACLU of Montana is currently organizing an April 10 conference on the issue in Helena, inviting legal, medical, religious and patient representatives from all sides of the debate to present their views and aid in the community discussion about this important issue.

“The Court’s ruling reinforces how important community understanding and discussion of death with dignity will be in the coming years,” said ACLU of Montana Public Policy Director Niki Zupanic. “The ACLU is committed to facilitating that process and ensuring that individuals’ right to determine their own medical decisions is protected.”

LifeNews on Baxter v. Montana

From conservative LifeNews:

The Montana Supreme Court has officially paved the way for the state to become the third to allow the practice of assisted suicide. The high court considered a case from a now-deceased terminally ill patient who wanted the right to kill himself with assistance from a physician.

The high court did not determine if the Montana constitution guarantees a right to assisted suicide but said nothing in state law or the precedent of the court prevented assisted suicide.

“We find nothing in Montana Supreme Court precedent or Montana statutes indicating that physician aid in dying is against public policy,” the high court said in its opinion.

The decision essentially has Montana joining Oregon and Washington as the only three states in the nation to allow assisted suicides. It declared assisted suicide as legal and could prevent doctors from almost any prosecution for engaging in them.

Montana law “explicitly shields physicians from liability for acting in accordance with a patient’s end-of life wishes, even if the physician must actively pull the plug on a patient’s ventilator or withhold treatment that will keep him alive," the court said.

However, assisted suicides in Montana will likely go further as the state doesn't have even basic limitations, restrictions or guidelines in place and the ruling could pave the way for the practice of euthanasia with little or no state oversight.

Brian Johnston, author of Death As A Salesman, a book against assisted suicide, told LifeNews.com he is disappointed by the decision.

"The medically dependent and emotionally vulnerable are in immediate danger of their lives," he said.

He urged the pro-life movement to do more to prepare for coming battles in other states such as his, California, where assisted suicide advocates are looking to expand.

"Far too many pro-life people are unprepared for this debate," he said. "This is a battle of ideas, and lives are truly at stake."

The case is an appeal of a ruling District Judge Dorothy McCarter issued last December misusing the privacy clause of the state constitution to allow people to kill themselves with the help of a physician.

During the arguments, Anthony Johnstone, the state solicitor at the Montana attorney general’s office, opened the case for the state.

He said that if assisted suicide was a constitutional right it would not be limited to only the terminally ill and that no limits would be in place to prevent abuses, as there are in Washington and Oregon. Even then, pro-life advocates have noted several problems that have occurred following allowing it there.

Johnstone also said that physicians who don't know a patient who wants to kill himself could write a prescription for a lethal drug to do so without previously having a doctor-patient relationship.

The judges asked questions that made it appear their mind may have already been made up.

Justice Neilsen asked, "What happens if a competent person goes to a store and buys a gun and tells the person selling it to them,'I am going to kill myself.' Does that count as homicide? The state's attorney says it could be homicide."

Attorneys for Compassion & Choices, the pro-euthanasia group behind the lawsuit, asked why the state should be allowed to argue that people's lives ought to be continued beyond the point at which they want to do.

The attorney asked: If doctors can give people enough medicine to dull the pain, why can't they take it further to the point of death. He said if we know the person is going to die, we are not taking their life away.

Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock, in documents filed with the court, said the issue of assisted suicide should be decided by the voters or the state legislature -- not the courts.

"The questions posed are important, and each person's reactions to them are deeply felt, but the answers are not to be found anywhere in the history, text, or interpretation of the Montana Constitution," Bullock said

"Plaintiffs debate at length the semantic questions surrounding the unspecified acts they call 'aid in dying.' This Court, however, must confront a legal question that euphemisms cannot illuminate: whether the homicide laws are unconstitutional across a broad set of vaguely defined circumstances," he added.

"Plaintiffs' principle would extend beyond physician-assisted suicide to medical marijuana (as a constitutional matter), the sale of organs, and human cloning. This absolute conception of liberty is alien to this Court's privacy jurisprudence," he says.

Fr. Frank Pavone, the national director of Priests for Life, weighed in on the case after the oral arguments were completed.

"Assisted suicide is an act that violates the victim's dignity," he told LifeNews.com.

"It is a declaration that a person's life is worthless and devoid of respect," he said. "If the Montana constitution states that the dignity of every human is inviolable, then there can be no room in that constitution for the protection of a fabricated 'right' that threatens the very existence of the disabled and medically vulnerable."

Oregon became the first state allowing assisted suicide following two statewide votes and legal battles.

Washington voters made the Pacific coast state the second last November after approving I-1000, a statewide ballot initiative that saw euthanasia proponents vastly outspend pro-life groups, doctors and disability rights advocates.

Sensing an opportunity to advance assisted suicide further, given the state's expansive constitution with language promoting privacy and individual rights, euthanasia advocates filed a case for a disabled man in Montana.

Robert Baxter is the patient who won his case at the lower court level. He has since passed away.

The Montana Supreme Court received 19 amicus briefs, including one from attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, a pro-life group who filed their brief in April.

"Legalizing assisted suicide diminishes compassionate treatment of pain because...assisted suicide encourages the elimination of patients themselves rather than of their suffering,” the brief states. “The dignity and privacy rights of vulnerable patients require that they not be propelled into a society where they can be successfully pressured to die. Their lives are valuable and protectable by law.”

“Doctors are licensed to heal, not to kill. It should seem obvious, but the law should never allow private individuals to poison one another," ADF senior legal counsel Steven H. Aden told LifeNews.com.

ADF filed its brief on behalf of the Family Research Council, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Catholic Medical Association, and numerous Montana physicians.

Following the initial decision, the Montana Medical Association indicated it refused to get involved and came under fire for not submitting an amicus brief supporting McCarter's attempt to overturn the ruling.

The case is Baxter v. Montana, 09-0051, Supreme Court of Montana.

Related web sites:
ADF brief - http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/UserDocs/MontanaAmicus.pdf
Death As A Salesman: What's Wrong with Assisted Suicide - http://www.deathasasalesman.info

Buzz up!

Compassion & Choices Press Release on Legalization of Aid in Dying in Montana..

Montana physicians, terminally-ill patients and Compassion & Choices, the nation’s largest and oldest nonprofit organization working to improve care and expand choice at the end of life, today hailed the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling that terminally ill Montanans have the right to choose aid in dying under state law. There is no further appeal from this decision, as the Montana Supreme Court is the highest court available to decide State issues.

Compassion & Choices Legal Director Kathryn Tucker, co-counsel to the plaintiffs/respondents, said, “This case was about the right of mentally competent, terminally ill patients to request a prescription for medication from their doctors which they can ingest to bring about a peaceful death. The Montana Supreme Court has determined that this is a choice the public policy of Montana supports. Montanans trapped in an unbearable dying process deserve, and will now have, this end-of-life choice. This is the first state high court to find protection of this choice, and makes clear that in Montana, patients are able to make this choice and physicians can provide this care without risking sanction.”

Roberta King, of Missoula, the daughter of plaintiff Bob Baxter, said, “My father died without the peace and dignity he so dearly wanted for himself and others. He feared when he filed this lawsuit that he would not live long enough to benefit from it. I’m sure he would be deeply gratified that other terminally ill Montanans will have the choice and comfort that aid in dying affords them.”

Dr. Stephen Speckart, a Missoula cancer specialist and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said, “This decision affirms that a terminal patient’s fundamental right to self-determination will guide end-of-life health decisions. I regularly treat patients dying from cancer, and many of these deaths are slow and painful. Terminal patients will no longer be forced to choose between unrelenting pain and an alert mental state as they approach the end of their lives from terminal diseases. The comfort this brings to their last days can have an immeasurable benefit.”Compassion & Choices news release, Montana Supreme Court ruling; page 2 Missoula attorney Mark Connell, who argued the case to the Supreme Court on behalf of the plaintiff physicians and patients, described the decision as "a victory for individual rights over government control." Connell added: "The Montana Supreme Court has now recognized that, where intensely personal and private choices regarding end-of-life care are involved, Montana law entrusts those decisions to the individuals whose lives are at stake, not the government. I know Bob Baxter would be very pleased that the court has now reaffirmed that these choices should be left to the terminally ill people in our state."

Steve Johnson, 71, of Helena, is terminally ill with brain cancer, hailed the decision and asked the Montana medical profession to provide patients like himself with aid in dying. “I approach the end of my life with a clear mind, and I would like to work with my doctor to minimize the pain and maximize the peacefulness in my dying. I would like my physician to be able to respect and honor my choice to die with dignity. Adults like myself should have the option, if terminally ill, to request physician aid in dying.

It’s only compassionate to minimize unnecessary suffering at the end of life, and to let me make the choice about how much suffering to endure, based on my own values and beliefs,” said Johnson.

Montana State Sen. Christine Kaufmann, Rep. Dick Barrett and twenty-nine other state legislators; the American Medical Women’s Association, the American Medical Students Association, and a coalition of Montana clinicians; the American College of Legal Medicine; the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana; the Montana Human Rights Network; the Northwest Women’s Law Center; terminal patients’ surviving family members; Montana religious leaders; and Montana’s leading constitutional law experts had urged the Court to find in favor of the terminal patient’s right to receive aid in dying from their physicians.

Compassion & Choices encourages terminally ill patients to call 800 247-7421 if they would like information about aid in dying, or suggestions on how to open a dialogue with their physician and loved ones.

For more information please visit www.compassionandchoices.org