Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but I would like to make a couple of comments about why I do not think we should support this bill.

I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.

I disagree with the Oregon law. If I were in Oregon, I would vote against that law. But I believe the approach here is a legislative slippery slope. What we are doing is applying this same principle of Roe versus Wade by nationalizing law and, therefore, doing the wrong thing.

This bill should be opposed. I think it will backfire. If we can come here in the Congress and decide that the Oregon law is bad, what says we cannot go to Texas and get rid of the Texas law that protects life and prohibits euthanasia. That is the main problem with this bill.

Also, I believe it will indeed dampen the ability of doctors to treat dying patients. I know this bill has made an effort to prevent that, compared to last year, but it does not. The Attorney General and a DEA agent will decide who has given too much medication. If a patient is dying and they get too much medicine, and they die, the doctor could be in big trouble. They could have criminal charges filed against them. They could lose their license or go to jail.

Just recently, I had a member of my family pass away with a serious illness and required a lot of medication. But nurses were reluctant to give the medicine prescribed by the doctor for fear of lawsuit and fear of charges that something illegal was being done. With a law like this, it is going to make this problem much, much worse.

Another thing is this sets up a new agency. For those conservative colleagues of mine who do not like the nationalization of medical care, what my colleagues are looking at here is a new agency of government setting up protocols, educating doctors and hospitals, and saying this is the way palliative care must be administered. My colleagues will have to answer with reports to the Federal Government.

As bad as the Oregon law is, this is not the way we should deal with the problem. This bill applies the same principle as Roe versus Wade.

I maintain that this bill is deeply flawed. I believe that nobody can be more pro-life than I am, nobody who could condemn the trends of what is happening in this country in the movement toward euthanasia and the chances that one day euthanasia will be determined by the national government because of economic conditions. But this bill does not deal with life and makes a difficult situation much worse.

• Mr. Speaker, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260) is designed for one purpose. It is to repeal the state of Oregon’s law dealing with assisted suicide and euthanasia.
• Being strongly pro-life, I’m convinced that the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973 is one of the worst, if not the worst, Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. It has been this institutionalizing into our legal system the lack of respect for life and liberty that has and will continue to play havoc with liberty and life until it is changed. It has been said by many since the early 1970s that any legalization of abortion would put us on a slippery slope to euthanasia. I agree with this assessment.
• However, I believe that if we are not careful in our attempt to clarify this situation we also could participate in a slippery slope unbeknownst to us and just as dangerous. Roe vs. Wade essentially has nationalized an issue that should have been handled strictly by the states. Its repeal of a Texas State law set the stage for the wholesale of millions of innocent unborn. And yet, we once again are embarking on more nationalization of law that will in time backfire. Although the intention of H.R. 2260 is to repeal the Oregon law and make a statement against euthanasia it may well just do the opposite. If the nationalization of law dealing with abortion was designed to repeal state laws that protected life there is nothing to say that once we further establish this principle that the federal government, either the Congress or the Federal Courts, will be used to repeal the very laws that exist in 49 other states than Oregon that prohibit euthanasia. As bad as it is to tolerate an unsound state law, it’s even worse to introduce the notion that our federal congresses and our federal courts have the wisdom to tell all the states how to achieve the goals of protecting life and liberty.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 27th, 1999 at 3:14 am and is filed under Speeches and Statements. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.