Initiative would allow government to intrude on all Nevadans' personhood

[Ozymanithrax]

JANE ANN MORRISON: Initiative would allow government to intrude on all Nevadans' personhood
don't doubt Richard Ziser's sincerity, but I am tired of him telling me how to live my life. Now he wants to tell me how to die.

The man who couldn't come within spitting distance of unseating U.S. Sen. Harry Reid in 2004, now wants sweeping changes in Nevada's abortion and end-of-life laws.

At my age, I'm not so concerned about an abortion, but I've made end-of-life decisions for myself in a legal directive, and now Ziser wants a say in that.

His initiative would ban abortion by adding a definition of "person" to Nevada's Constitution. Got human DNA? You're a person, inside the womb or out.

The initiative filed Wednesday also would intrude on end-of-life decisions and affect hospice care.

The American Life League, a Roman Catholic group opposing abortion and euthanasia, is supporting these efforts in eight states, but a representative didn't have answers to my questions about how this initiative would affect end of life and hospice, saying that would be up to the Legislature.

"This initiative will lay a groundwork for those decisions to be made," said Johanna Dasteel from American Life League. She couldn't say whether I would be forced to have a feeding tube against my wishes or whether pain medication that might hasten my death would be prohibited. She said someone in a coma couldn't be taken off life support if this initiative passes.

How's that for government intrusion?

This was sent to me by my sister, a long time resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, and a liberal, though I don't believe she is a member here. So I am curious what you other Nevadans think of this. Clearly, it is an attempt to get the right to life out to vote in the election, when turn out is usually low. But it is also insidious in its implications, and possibly a violation of the 14th amendment that recognizes corporations (entities without DNA) as human.

[shimmergal]

1. I think so-called "right to life people" are confused

about their audience for measures like this.

In my observation, the people most supportive of "right to die", a living will, and even self-chosen euthanasia are not necessarily liberals; they may be quite willing to have restrictions on abortions etc. The biggest motivator for being allowed to chose one's end-of-life arrangements (or those of a loved one when necessary) is fear of losing control over your own life. And of course avoiding useless suffering enters in too.

While anti-abortion measures are all about sex and not trusting women, end-of-life issues draw on other concerns.

It was interesting to read Jane Morrison's take on this. We have so many retirees here in the Las Vegas area. Maybe efforts to oppose the initiative should focus on them, and the measure's threat to their autonomy.

OTOH, what a neat thought-jump you've done, asking about its implications for that dreadful corporate personhood meme! Although I think one tack we might take with that is trying to get some of those fearsome four off of the Supreme Court. Sotomayer seems to have some doubts about the doctrine's worth. If she had some allies among her SC peers, maybe they'd reverse it!