Will assisted suicide hurt HRC among PA trad Dems? + poll

Hillary has spoken. Now, this isn't about how you or I feel about assisted-suicide laws. This is about how it plays in PA and other areas where there are moderate to conservative Democrats weighing whom to support. As a point of contrast, from talkleft.com, Obama has said "I'm mindful of the legitimate interests of states to prevent a slide from palliative treatments into euthanasia" which is pretty artful. OK, and I will update this with saying that this very issue might well concern a Bob Casey-type Democrat who obviously resides in PA.

So sayeth Hillary in an Oregon newspaper interview here:

It starts out with typical HRC speak, but the intriguing bit below the fold:

[HRC]: I believe it’s within the province of the states to make that decision [re assisted suicide law]. I commend Oregon on this count, as well, because whether I agree with it or not or think it’s a good idea or not, the fact that Oregon is breaking new ground and providing valuable information as to what does and doesn’t work when it comes to end-of-life questions, I think, is very beneficial.

And if there is in fact a whole lotta Bama between Philly and Pittsburgh, will this play? Now of course it comes as no surprise that in the above quote Hillary wants it all ways. It's beneficial to provide information, whether she agrees with it or not, blah, blah, blah.

The very next question:

Q: Would you have voted for it if you were a resident of the state?

A: I don’t know the answer to that. I have a great deal of sympathy for people who are in difficult end-of-life situations. I’ve gone to friends who have been in great pain and suffering at the end of their lives. I’ve never been personally confronted with it but I know it’s a terribly difficult decision that should never be forced upon anyone. So with appropriate safeguards and informed decision-making, I think it’s an appropriate right to have.

Now we all know she needs to frame the answer first, and we all feel bad about those who are in great pain and suffering. But then she gets all sweet and incoherent on us with a "decision that should never be forced upon anyone." What, the status of not being able to "decide" due to the non-existence of the law? Or, even with an assisted suicide law in place, that legally approved decision should not be "forced" on anyone? Well, life and death dictate even if you support the law. So HRC would like to ban evil, bad death. Hurray.

Now to the meat of the issue. If you are a moderate or conservative Dem in PA and elsewhere, how do you react to such a "right"?

So Hillary, on this issue, tacks left. Away from her supposed core base.

Discuss.

•  tips/recs/walking towards the Big Light

  by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:43:31 AM PDT

  •  Don't really see this making waves

    I don't think this is the make-or-break issue of many people, not even more conservative voters. Obviously, end-of-life issues trouble many and Hillary's answer was appropriately nuanced. If anyone did attempt to break a sound bite out of it -- which I don't see why they would -- they run the risk of having it go all Schiavo on them.

    by anastasia p on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:51:46 AM PDT

    •  see your point, though my thought is that

      there might be the idea of any rock to pick up to throw in a close fight.

      Obama's thoughts on assisted suicide...I just edited the diary for this quote "I'm mindful of the legitimate interests of states to prevent a slide from palliative treatments into euthanasia" so technically he could make an argument, though I tend to agree he won't go there. But he might...his Schiavo comment IIRC was mainly against the congress intervening.

      So, arguably, if his campaign is scrapping for any votes they could play this to the trad Dems.

      Just saying.

      by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:58:16 AM PDT

      •  Maybe - just maybe - HRC said what

        she did because she believes it, and think it's the correct position.

        by burrow owl on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:05:24 AM PDT

        •  I do think she believes it, what's interesting to

          me is it becomes an issue. Much ink has been spilt on whether much if not all of what HRC does is contrived.

          I think she gives a bit of a long-winded answer here to get to the point.

          However, I do compliment her on stating what she evidently believes.

          And the diary wonders if this could affect her. Were it to become an issue, would we see a "clarification"?

          It's not inconceivable that a Casey-type Democrat might further ponder this.

          by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:10:54 AM PDT

•  Noteworthy only insofar as she

  appears to have gotten it right and expressed it without any subtle or not-so-subtle negativity or phony sentimentality.  I don't think this will be a problem.

  by Mother of Zeus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:49:02 AM PDT

•  Imo the Terri Schiavo religious fanatics

  are unlikely to vote for a pro-choice candidate under any circumstance, so it's not an issue.

  by Gator1980 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:53:23 AM PDT

•  Are you mocking her for being progressive?????

  This is the part I just don't get.  On almost every issue, she is to the left of Obama and yet Dkos, the supposed community of progressives (what a snide little name) can't stand the more progressive candidate.

  by Pumpkinlove on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:54:27 AM PDT

  •  no, I'm mocking her for convoluted answers

    traveling from "I don’t know the answer to that" to "I think it’s an appropriate right to have" all in one answer.

    Lotsa fluffy meringue in there. Enjoy.

    by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:00:31 AM PDT

    •  I don't think it was convoluted at all.

      I think she was dead on.

      by Pumpkinlove on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:01:31 AM PDT

    •  asdf

      If you think that was a convoluted answer....well, I wouldn't be proud of thinking her answer is convoluted.  Not something to trumpet, really.

      by burrow owl on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:03:21 AM PDT

      •  I withdraw "convoluted" hereby & simply

        replace it with "annoying". Thus a personal preference.

        The diary's point, ineptly put, let us say, is my wondering whether this will affect voters. Perhaps not, perhaps.

        by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:06:38 AM PDT

        •  You were clear that this wasn't about

          her position but if it could hurt her.
          She certainly would lose the pope's vote if he lived there (and if he further felt the sin of more war was greater than of not opposing abortion)

          Schiavo of course was not assisted suicide but might p.o. the pope. Earlier Catholic teaching would have not declared either option a sin if prayerfully considered but then
          Pope John Paul II spoke up during this case and declared food and water, even with feeding tubes, as morally obligatory. That old papal infallibility thing now makes it a mortal sin.
          Sort of beside the point except as to how the issues might affect the Catholic vote that listens to the pope at all. The feeding tube thing was only newly a sin and removal of a feeding tube had been consistent with a moral tradition. Many had to reconsider their end of life instructions.
          But active euthanasia has not been a gray area, just a big fat Catholic sin

          So that's a long way of saying if there were undecided voters it could cost her some Catholic votes although her statement might gain her votes against Dems in general.

          by joynow on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:19:56 AM PDT

          •  It seems up in the air a bit re Schiavo

            to me. IIRC there was commentary that John Paul knew he himself was going to die and refused extraordinary measures. It may be that the crucial point is from Schiavo's  parents, who allege that she herself would not want to be  taken off the tubes due to her Catholic beliefs. Of course to people who never knew her, who can tell?

            It isn't ex cathedra teaching though so it's not dogma AFAIK.

            John Paul's commentary as far as I remember was just about the vegetative state and the patient's wishes.

            A bit more complicated, I think, but you're right on the entirety of the assisted suicide law and the Church.

            by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:00:16 AM PDT

            •  Looking for his quote I found

              Catholic Stance on Tube-Feeding Is Evolving
              http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

              Still don't know. On page 2 it says

              In spring 2004, Pope John Paul II told the audience at an ethics conference that providing food and water was "morally obligatory."

              Now I see on the first page they have this.

              Pope John Paul II has said feeding tubes are "morally obligatory" for most patients in vegetative states, and high-ranking cardinals have followed up by referring to Schiavo, saying that removing her feeding tube could lead to legalized euthanasia.

              It also notes his own death was nearing and he'd needed a tracheostomy. I know the church requires no extraordinary measures but some felt his statement redefined what that was.
              "Morally obligatory" is the term I remember because "some" included my very Catholic local family. They used "morally obligatory" debating often first how it should affect their decisions with my grandmother (96, healthy until a couple years before but quickly unable to walk, had severe dementia and had just started refusing food). They also wondered about changing their own paperwork.
              It seemed so odd to me that the pope's words could change their sense of what was right but then again I left the church as a child because of disagreeing with some of their decrees)

              Anyway I am not surprised if I was off in what I said since I don't often have cause to pay attention.

              To show how long ago my church going days were...except times taking grandma...I was happy to hear they were making changes to some of the text during mass. They were changing back to the ones I knew as a child and had refused to give up even the times I went with my grandmother. I liked them better and so still said them.
              Peace be with you- "and with your spirit" sounds better to me than "and also with you"

              And the big one was the "new" but old to me
              "Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed."

              Maybe it's familiarity from going to mass every day in Catholic elementary school...but it just sounds richer, more meaningful. If I remember right it came at the one part of the mass that always felt most meaningful to me for some reason, with the host held over the chalice.

              All that wasn't important, just taking the rare chance to talk about Catholic memories. Thanks

              by joynow on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:06:32 PM PDT

              •  no, it's cool and I appreciate it...I for one am

                hoping a nearby parish goes back to Latin.

                It's a conundrum, but ain't life?

                Peace out.

                by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:16:27 PM PDT

•  You're not really making sense.

  But then she gets all sweet and incoherent on us with a "decision that should never be forced upon anyone." What, the status of not being able to "decide" due to the non-existence of the law?

  What she means here is that people ought to have the legal right to make end-of-life decisions, but that there need to be robust safeguards to prevent situations where the decision is less than freely arrived at (common example: someone agrees to die because they don't want to be a financial burden).

  by burrow owl on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:01:48 AM PDT

  •  hokay, I sit corrected still HRC-speak to me..eom

    by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:04:39 AM PDT

    •  (Sorry for being a crab apple in your diary,

      Belvedere.  I just quit smoking, and I haven't learned how to not smoke and also not be a dick.)

      by burrow owl on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:13:39 AM PDT

      •  'salright, burrow, you've got some good mojo

        stored up, as far as I'm concerned.

        I am thinking of looking up those damned cabbage leaf cigarettes but I'm too busy on smoke breaks just yet.

        Peace out.

        by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:16:57 AM PDT

•  As a nurse I have seen the pros and cons

  up close and personal.  It should be an individual decision.  Believe it or not, there are some disease that causes such pain, that pain killers don't cover.If living wills and durable power hold up in courts, so should a persons wishes, listed in said documents.

  by Owllwoman on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:08:13 AM PDT

•  This is not a prime issue

  this election cycle.  If it, were it would be REALLY big news and might hurt Hillary.  On the other hand, she is paving the way for discussion further down the road and I give her credit for saying what she did about a very controversial topic.

  by nolalily on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:13:59 AM PDT

•  I sure hope not

  After all the frustrating, wrong things she's done this campaign, it would really be a shame if what hurt her in Pennsylvania was her completely sensible support of a person's right to make decisions about their own life and death.

  I can't imagine euthanasia is really such a hot-button issue among Democrats anyway. Wouldn't anyone who was up in arms about the right to die also be up in arms about the right to choose? Hillary's always been staunchly in favor of that, so I don't see how this would push anyone over the edge.

  Any Democrat who's truly making decisions based on Catholic mores about life and death is just gonna have to sit this election out. Obama and Hillary are both pro-choice (thank goodness), and even McCain favors stem cell research (plus pro-life Democrats tend to also be anti-war, so McCain's a bzzzzzt)

  by tjekanefir on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:19:38 AM PDT

•  This is a bit tangential to your diary

  and I realize you're just using the language in the transcript, but if we in the progressive community wish to make progress with this issue, we should use the right terminology.

  To quote myself from elsewhere:

  Those involved in the movement to advocate for end-of-life choice prefer to use value neutral terms such as "aid in dying", "patient directed dying" or "physician aid in dying". It's helpful if people recognize that a mentally competent, terminally ill patient who self-administers medication to bring about a peaceful death is not committing "suicide", nor does a physician who prescribes such medications engage in "assisted suicide". Speaking accurately about this important choice is critical for continued growing acceptance.

   

  The California legislature came very close over the past couple of years to passing a law that was modeled on Oregon's successful Death with Dignity law, called The California Compassionate Choices Act.

  by bumblebums on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:21:04 AM PDT

•  Another way of looking at the politics of it.

  HRC's base can also be defined as middle-aged women. These disproportionately serve as caregivers and, ultimately, end-of-life decision-makers. It's been my experience that across class, religious and other differences, this is an issue where Americans in general respect individuals' choice under their specific circumstances.

  Moreover, HRC has to know at this point that the window of opportunity for the nomination is receding further into the distance. If, in concluding her campaign, she adds her voice to this cause, more power to her.

  by andydoubtless on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:23:32 AM PDT

•  What it shows, is Hillary uses old style politics

  The kind of politics that appeals to the demographic it needs for votes.  To tell you the truth, I have no idea of where Hillary truly stands on the issues.  What I do know about Hillary, is she understands demographics and pandering to those demographics, to get votes.  

  I want a president that can be honest and say what they personally believe.  

  by kanuk on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:27:22 AM PDT

  •  this is what intrigues me...she either believes

    in what she's saying here Option 1.

    If she doesn't really believe it, or in it that strongly let's say, is she couching it in terms to keep her "liberal" cred?

    And if so, my point was this could be a factor (albeit small) for trad Dems in PA.

    Whole lotta Bama there, as Tweety and Carville tell me.

    by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:31:09 AM PDT

  •  You don't know where she stands on the

    issue but assume she's pandering to someone.

    Sheesh

    by Pumpkinlove on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:31:12 AM PDT

•  Um ... here, in Oregon, we call it ...

  ... death with dignity. It's personal and cuts across a lot of political lines.

  by edison on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:43:36 AM PDT

•  No, it helps to hold wildly popular positions

  Most people, liberal, moderate and even most conservatives were mortified by the way the federal government injected itself into the Schiavo issue. Everyone went swarming to their lawyers to get a living will written up so that it doesn't happen to them. Most people support death with dignity. It polls at 70+%. It is not an issue that will alienate anyone.

  by fwiffo on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:53:58 AM PDT

•  if one could believe

  if one could believe anything she says I think it was a very good response. I think this highlights why she is going to have such a difficult time governing if elected. Even her most sensible comment is going to be dissected to search for the ulterior motive. This is direct result of trying to define what is is.

  by keepingitstraight on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:24:47 AM PDT