"Right to Die" bill sent to governor | Tim Talk | Tim Hunt | PleasantonWeekly.com |

Local Blogs

Tim Talk

By Tim Hunt

E-mail Tim Hunt

About this blog: I am a native of Alameda County, grew up in Pleasanton and currently live in the house I grew up in that is more than 100 years old. I spent 39 years in the daily newspaper business and wrote a column for more than 25 years in add...  (More)

View all posts from Tim Hunt

"Right to Die" bill sent to governor

Uploaded: Sep 17, 2015

Our legislators passed hundreds of bills on to Gov. Brown during the final week of this year's session that ended last Friday evening.

One of the surprises was a "right-to-die" bill that stalled in the Assembly Health Committee earlier in the session. It was re-introduced in the special session that was called to deal with funding for MediCal (no solutions were moved to the governor). It was a questionable maneuver and avoided the normal committee process. The bill won approval in the state Senate by a 23-14 vote that was largely along party lines.

Democratic Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis), urged passage, saying (as quoted in the Bay Area Newspaper Group), "By an overwhelmingly majority across all groups—religious, ethnic, geographic, no matter what age or gender—Californians want us to act to eliminate the needless pain and prolonged suffering of those who are dying."

The senator can be forgiven for legislative chamber hype, but she reached way too far claiming overwhelming majorities. This bill is one that people of good will can agree to disagree. For those who see nothing beyond life on this earth, ending pain and suffering is a noble goal. It's also an action that removes a loving Heavenly Father from the equation for those of us who believe that God creates all life and is sovereign.

While that bill dealt with a huge issue, the legislature also sent a common-sense bill to the governor that prohibits governing agencies from banning artificial turf—a particularly timely bill during these times. One challenge going forward will be maintaining natural green spaces that are important environmentally as well as aesthetically.

One troubling bill is AB 1461 authored by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) that would automatically registered any eligible citizen to vote when they receive a driver's license. A person would have to actively opt out not to be registered—something that is clearly backward.

More voters for the sake of more voters might seem like a reasonable goal, but our state will be served much better if those who cast ballots are well informed. Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, supports the bill and points out that there were 6.6 million citizens who are eligible to vote, but did not register.

There are many easy ways to register to vote. Requiring the registration step demonstrates a citizen's interest and commitment to the democratic process. Just filling the voter rolls with more people does not to ensure people know the issues when they come to polls.

It remains remarkably hypocritical that liberal folks continue to push measures such as this one, while refusing to require photo identification at the polls. There are very few activities you can do without photo ID (get on an airplane, cash a check), yet you can walk up to a polling place and simply sign a name, whether it is yours is not verified.

The governor has a month to consider the pile of legislation that was sent to his desk in the last week.

Comments

 +  Like this comment
Posted by Bradley Williams, a resident of another community,
on Sep 17, 2015 at 11:18 am

In Oregon and Washington heirs are allowed to participate from the start to the end, eviscerating intended safe guards. Everyone involved in the lethal process gets immediate immunity and family members are not required to be contacted. A witness is not required to confirm the dose was self-administered so if they struggled and changed their mind who would ever know? In addition these laws prohibit investigations or public inquiries leaving no recourse for surviving family members who were not contacted. Does that sound like good public policy to you? This is very dangerous public policy that does not serve the common good. It serves the health insurance corporations very well. All of these loopholes are embodied in California?s ABX2-15. A veto is in good order.
Oregon and Washington should amend their initiative-sound-bite driven dangerous laws.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Bradley Williams, a resident of another community,
on Sep 17, 2015 at 11:18 am

In Oregon and Washington heirs are allowed to participate from the start to the end, eviscerating intended safe guards. Everyone involved in the lethal process gets immediate immunity and family members are not required to be contacted. A witness is not required to confirm the dose was self-administered so if they struggled and changed their mind who would ever know? In addition these laws prohibit investigations or public inquiries leaving no recourse for surviving family members who were not contacted. Does that sound like good public policy to you? This is very dangerous public policy that does not serve the common good. It serves the health insurance corporations very well. All of these loopholes are embodied in California?s ABX2-15. A veto is in good order.
Oregon and Washington should amend their initiative-sound-bite driven dangerous laws.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Jennifer Bivins, a resident of Monte Vista High School,
on Sep 17, 2015 at 11:19 am

I thought such problems with identifying any person take place only at "grey" services like reviewed essay companies at Web Link. They main idea is to stay anonymous as you don't want to be caught, but here... I just cannot understand our politicians before each voting marathon.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Sep 17, 2015 at 7:54 pm

The above post by Jennifer Bivens is a PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The above post by Jennifer Bivens is a PRIVATE BUSINESS.

JENNIFER BIVENS IS PROMOTING A PRIVATE BUSINESS.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Dim Talk, a resident of Canyon Oaks,
on Sep 23, 2015 at 6:11 am

Tim, when you claim that the Right to Die bill removes God from the equation for people of faith, what do you mean? That it prevents you from believing in God? That the law requires people of faith to end their lives? I do think think so. Aren't you really saying that it protects others from having your superstitions forced upon them? Isn't that what you're really objecting to?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Mirando, a resident of Avila,
on Jan 29, 2016 at 4:42 am

"The governor has a month to consider the pile of legislation that was sent to his desk in the last week. "

Yeah but thats not the only reason actually !

Web Link
Web Link


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Couples: Philosophy of Love
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,258 views

Narum, Woerner win big in Pleasanton and Livermore
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 773 views

Remembering Gen. Pershing, 100 years later
By Jeb Bing | 0 comments | 480 views

Keeping Our Brothers, on Thanksgiving
By Tom Cushing | 6 comments | 324 views