Against Ashcroft

By William Blake

Attorney General John Ashcroft proved once again this week that he is the reactionary conservative part of a "compassionate conservative" Bush administration. Ashcroft used his regulatory power to effectively overturn an Oregon law that allowed for physician-assisted suicide. Under the new rules, federal drug enforcement authorities can penalize doctors who prescribe fatal doses of drugs to their patients.

The citizens of Oregon passed a referendum in 1994 to allow physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients under careful criteria. Two doctors must agree that the patient has less than six months to live and a psychiatrist must certify that the patient is able to make health-related decisions. After voluntarily making the choice to die, a patient must wait at least 15 days before receiving the lethal medication.

Oregon has clearly handled this issue responsibly and carefully and has given the will of its citizens the respect that it is due. Unfortunately, Ashcroft has no such respect. This decision is a slap in the face to the basic concept of states' rights. Not only that, Ashcroft also denied the right of the people to popular sovereignty in a referendum that passed not once, but twice.

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon put it best when he said, "I guess the Bush administration is frustrated by the inconvenience of the democratic process. They have administratively tossed the ballots of Oregon's voters in the trash."

I should point out that the Republican Party exalts itself as the party of federalism and devolution of authority. However, when it comes to important decisions, the Bush administration does not seem willing to defer to the states. Consider the education bill currently being debated in Congress. President Bush's proposal requires mandatory federal -- yes, federal -- testing of all grade school students.

I also find it interesting that the Attorney General has decided to make himself superior to the judicial system. Ashcroft decreed from on high using a constitutional justification that leaves much to be desired. He cited a Supreme Court case from last May dealing with medicinal marijuana. The decision did overturn the state law allowing for patients to receive marijuana to relieve pain, however. It simply made it more difficult to obtain.

The other decision that Ashcroft used in his ruling was a 1997 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to die. Before you jump to conclusions, there is an important proviso to state. The 10th Amendment states that all rights not assigned to the federal government or prohibited to the states are reserved to the states. Therefore, the Supreme Court left the decision about the right to die to state legislatures and courts.

What perverse interpretation of Supreme Court precedent gives the Attorney General the power to do the complete opposite of what the Court itself did in those same decisions?

Ashcroft's conservative zealotry in this case isn't surprising, considering some of his other moves as Attorney General. He delighted his allies in the National Rifle Association by committing the Justice Department to an extreme stance on the 2nd Amendment that has never been upheld in the judicial system. He has also expressed interest in settling the federal government's lawsuit against the tobacco industry, allowing the tobacco corporate giants to get off scot-free.

There are more important and legitimate drug problems facing this country that our federal drug agents could spend their time addressing. When did the war on drugs include hunting down doctors who help cancer patients end their suffering?

Regardless of anyone's view on physician-assisted suicide, this abuse of authority and disregard of states' rights should shock Americans of both parties.

William Blake is a columnist. His views do not necessarily represent those of The Flat Hat.