Thursday, June 12, 2025

Part I

---

The Culture of Death Advances in New York: New York Assisted Suicide Bill Now Goes to Governor

The culture of death is taking a giant step forward in the state of New York. Like California on the West Coast, New York on the East Coast is often a cultural bellwether. What happens in California rarely stays in California. What happens in New York rarely stays in New York. The news now comes that the state senate in New York has adopted, has passed legislation allowing for what’s euphemistically referred to as “medical assistance in dying.”The more accurate term is assisted suicide. That’s exactly what it is, but in an effort to try to avoid using the word suicide, which it is, you have politicians and others trying to refer to it as assisted death, medical assistance in dying. It’s all a matter of moral evasion. We need to name things for what they are.

And by the way, one of the hot spots on this issue is the fact that you have a society that tries to talk people out of committing suicide and then turns around and offers them a legalized form of suicide. Grace Ashford reporting for the New York Times tells us, “The New York State Senate approved a bill on Monday that would allow people facing terminal diagnoses to end their lives on their own terms, which the bill’s proponents say will grant a measure of autonomy to New Yorkers in their final days.”

Now, there is so much for us to consider here. As I say, the fact that the state senate has adopted this, already, the general assembly had adopted it, so it is going to the New York governor’s desk, that’s Governor Kathy Hochul, for the decision as to whether or not she will sign it into law. There is a sense of inevitability about it. There is also a necessary historical background. Efforts to try to legalize assisted suicide in New York go back more than a decade, and even as several other states, as many as 12 states plus the District of Columbia, have some form of physician-assisted suicide or medical assistance in dying or just assisted suicide legalized on their books, it’s a big thing when in New York, this kind of moral shift takes place.

Now, there’s another angle to this that’s kind of interesting and ominous, and that is that New York is influenced here by Canada. The New York legislation in some ways mirrors the original physician-assisted suicide or medical assistance in dying legislation that was adopted nationwide in Canada, thus becomes a far more ominous example than you might expect because in Canada, it has turned out that all the supposed limitations, boundaries, and protections that were in the original legislation are basically now gone. It’s just legally facilitated suicide.

Now, the culture of death trades on euphemisms. It rides on ambiguities and neologisms and evasive language. One of the legislative sponsors of the bill in the Senate said, “It isn’t about ending a person’s life but shortening their death.” Well, that is just a conscience that doesn’t reflect much reality there because you are indeed shortening someone’s life, not just shortening their death, and that is because when you look at the New York law, it doesn’t even put in some of the protections that the Canadians had put in at least in the beginning. And for one thing, there’s virtually no waiting period that is necessary. So you want to commit suicide in New York? You want medical assistance in doing so? Guess what? The State of New York is poised to assist you to doing that very thing.

“That same state senator,” the New York Times tells us, “framed the measure as a statement of New York’s values, citing efforts by Republicans to increase governmental control over people’s bodies, including by restricting gender-affirming care and abortion.” Now, let’s just pause for a moment. When conservative Christians argue, as I often argue, that all those issues are tied together, many on the Left cry out foul, but now, from the Left, they have put those issues together, and let’s notice how they did so. You have the affirmation here of personal autonomy. Now, as we just have to note in worldview analysis, autonomy is the great golden calf idol of the age. It’s also something of an artificial construct. Theologically defined, autonomy is some form of idolatry because it basically says we exist on our own. We exist for ourselves. There is no moral judge or moral authority over us. Personal autonomy means personal autonomy.

Now, let’s just be honest. Our society worships personal autonomy and has done so for a very long time. You think you’re a female, but you were born male? Guess what? Your autonomy means you declare who you are, and it’s not just that. Of course, personal autonomy is used on the issue of abortion. A woman is said to have the autonomy to make this decision, even terminating the life within her with no external authority or intervention legitimate in any sense. You have personal autonomy that just oozes through all of the pores of our society, but eventually, as we shall see, when you push personal autonomy to this kind of absolutely idolatrous degree, you have also pressed it to a deadly degree. We should note that when you look at personal autonomy on the issue of abortion and on the issue of euthanasia or assisted suicide, or whatever you want to call it with your euphemism, the reality is that you are pushing personal autonomy right into the jaws of the culture of death, and that’s what’s taking place here.

As the Times tells us, “Under the bill, people who have received a prognosis of six months or less to live confirmed by two doctors would be able to request a fatal cocktail of drugs. The request must be witnessed by two adults who do not stand to inherit anything in the case of the patient’s death. The doctors can refer the patient for a psychiatric evaluation if they feel it’s necessary.” The next statement, “Because the bill has no residency requirement, it opens the door for terminally ill patients from out of state to come to New York to end their lives.”

Now, it’s very interesting, it’s ominous, but it is absolutely necessary to note that when you had the arrival of assisted suicide or euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, medical aid in dying, when all these things came about, originally, it was always in almost every single case packaged as limited to those who have some kind of immediate or short-term terminal diagnosis, but pretty soon, it moves on to other things. As I mentioned, the original legislation in Canada was very similar to this, but in Canada, barrier after barrier has been dropped, boundary after boundary has been transgressed, and now, it is not just for those who have some kind of diagnosis of terminal disease or imminent death. It is for those who are even suffering in some sense emotionally, and we’ll return to that issue in just a moment.

The culture of death comes in saying, “It’s only this far. We’re only going to go this far,” and the next thing you know, all of those barriers are transgressed. The culture of death just continues to press death after death to death. One of the original legislative sponsors of the legislation described it in these terms, “It’s something that could give peace of mind, relieve extraordinary pain at the end of death, and give families comfort that they could be with their loved one when they’re dying. Why wouldn’t we do that?” Well, let’s just take that apart. She asked the question why wouldn’t we do that. She’s actually prioritizing here the ability to basically schedule a death so that the people who want to be there can be there. In what kind of dark worldview does that make sense? It’s presented here as if that is straightforwardly some kind of human good that we should applaud. It’s absolutely ridiculous. Worse than that, it’s ominous. It’s absolutely dangerous.

The dangers are at least acknowledged by some in this kind of report. The Center for Disability Rights, identified as a non-profit group, argued in a position paper, “In a for-profit healthcare system, assisted suicide is a lethal way to control costs.” That’s a dark message. It’s absolutely true. Societies concerned with spiraling health costs see a way out with physician-assisted suicide. Just allow people to schedule their deaths, tell them they’re doing so in the name of personal autonomy, but it’s not incidental that we’re going to save a lot of money going forward. One of the things we also need to note is that families in a very deadly way are given an economic incentive to move people along before they consume too much in terms of medical bills and the family wealth. You just say, “You know, she’s suffering. She’d be better off dead. Let’s go ahead and help her get there.”

Another state senator spoke about his own mother who died months ago at the age of 98. The state senator, identifies a Democrat from the Hudson Valley, said “Her mind was sharp. She was reading two newspapers a day. She read four books a week, but her body had failed her. She lost her dignity.” He says, “This bill will not help my mother, but it will help someone else’s.” He said, “I vote aye.” Let’s just think about this. You’ll notice this is the son speaking, not the mother, and we are told that her mind was still sharp. She was reading two newspapers a day, four books a week. Her body was failing. Well, that’s what bodies do at age 98. This son’s basically saying she lost her dignity. It would’ve been better if she had gone earlier. If this legislation had been in place for her, she could have ended her life earlier than her life otherwise had ended. Let’s just call that argument what it is.

Part II

---

There is No ‘Death Worth Dying’ — So-called Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) is Government Authorized Suicide

I deeply appreciate the candor and honesty of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. They ran a piece entitled “New York’s Assisted Suicide Mistake.” I’ll say it’s a lot more than a mistake. They began their statement with these words, “New York’s legislature embraces every progressive cause, and the latest is making it easier for people to kill themselves. The state senate voted 35 to 27 to pass the Medical Aid in Dying Act, and let’s hope that Governor Kathy Hochul has the courage to veto it for the sake of society’s most vulnerable. They then go on to remind us of this, “One irony is that New York passed the first US law that banned assisted death in 1828, but times and morals have changed. Life itself is less valued today than a life that is supposedly worth living. For Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, this means being allowed to ‘end unbearable suffering.’ 11 states and the District of Columbia have legalized assisted suicide since 1997.”

Okay, I hope you heard one particular phrase in this, and it comes back to the fact that moral change has taken place. The editorial board said, “Life itself is less valued today than a life that is supposedly worth living,” and then we are also told that there has been moral change. In the words of the editorial board, “Times and morals have changed.” Okay, let’s just again look at that statement. Take it apart for a moment. Yes, times and morals have changed, but what does that mean?

Well, from a Christian perspective, certainly, time has passed. The time is different. This isn’t 1828. We understand that, but what does it mean to say that morals have changed? This is one of the most seductive arguments that we will confront and Christians need to understand it for what it is. 

Number one, moral truth doesn’t change. Right and wrong don’t change. Cultural perceptions, cultural judgments do change. Certainly, legislation changes, public opinion changes, but for something to be right or something to be wrong in terms of objective moral truth, that doesn’t change. That means, by the way, that the admonition “thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not murder,” that hasn’t changed. The admonition of the Hippocratic Oath going back to ancient Greek medicine, “First, do no harm,” that hasn’t changed, and by the way, the Hippocratic Oath absolutely forbade doctors from being involved in bringing about death rather than life.

One at least somewhat heartening development is that the American Medical Association on Monday of this week went on and reaffirmed its opposition to physician-assisted suicide. They described it as, “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role.” They went on to say it is “difficult or impossible to control.” The basic point as the Wall Street Journal points out is that “once a right to die is enshrined in law, denying it to vulnerable classes can be deemed discrimination.” So there you see again, the actual moral code turned upside down. What was wrong is now right, at least they claim. What was right is now wrong, at least they claim, and you’ll also note that you have the physicians in this case, the American Medical Association, very concerned about the passage of this bill because after all, it is the role of physicians to protect life, preserve life, and extend life, not to extinguish life. We can be at least thankful at this point the AMA has that kind of moral sound judgment.

There’s another deadly dimension that is cited here by the medical association, and that is that if you talk about physician-assisted suicide or medical aid in dying as they try to claim it, you describe something as a right to die. “Denying it to vulnerable classes can be deemed discrimination.” That’s exactly how the culture of death has pressed itself in so many of these jurisdictions. This so-called medical assistance in dying is supposedly for those who have a certified, absolutely confirmed terminal diagnosis with imminent death and suffering. But then, pretty soon, you have people who say, “Well, if that person has a right to physician-assisted suicide, then someone else should have the right because they’re just a marginally different case. It is not necessarily on the near horizon that death is forecast, but nonetheless, the person ought to have the autonomy to exercise the same kind of choice.”

Before you know it, you leave the physical requirements in terms of some kind of imminent physical death, and you transform it into emotional suffering. That’s exactly how this has happened. It has happened in European nations where the same kind of laws have progressed. It has happened in terms of the medical and the moral arguments. It has happened in Canada most graphically. If you want to see evidence of how this works, you don’t have to look far. Just look north across America’s northern border. The worst case scenario is playing out there where you don’t even have to have any kind of qualified medical condition whatsoever to demand assisted suicide.

I also appreciate way the editorial board of the journal concluded their piece. They said this, “A healthy society treasures the value of life and helps people manage inevitable decline and death with care and dignity. It doesn’t abdicate that responsibility by helping them kill themselves instead.” Again, moral clarity and coming in a very influential secular newspaper. It’s lamentable that many groups, religious groups included, even some that claim a Christian identity, can’t seem to muster this kind of clarity or conviction.

Well, let’s look at that angle for just a moment by the way. The New York Times report says that the bill that is the Medical Aid in Dying Bill or Assisted Suicide Bill was backed by some religious groups including a Jewish congregation, a Westchester synagogue, and the group Catholics Vote Common Good. They acknowledge at the same time it was “staunchly opposed by the New York State Catholic Conference,” and indeed it was. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops is very clear about opposition to any such legislation, but when you’re looking at the existence of a group like Catholics Vote Common Good, that means they’re Catholic, basically only on name. They’re writing on the label. They’re in open defiance of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. That’s a pattern we need to note, and sadly, it’s not limited to Catholics.

Once again, in terms of candor, I really appreciate the statement made by Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of New York, in a piece that was published in the major media in recent days entitled Prevent Don’t Assist Suicide. He mentions the incongruity indeed, the moral insanity of a society that has hotlines to try to talk people out of committing suicide. At the same time, you have a legislator saying, “No, go right ahead.” Here’s what he said, “I am more than puzzled. I’m stunned when I read that New York lawmakers are on the verge of legalizing suicide, not by leaping from a bridge but by a poison cocktail easily provided by physicians and pharmacists.”

He says, “I can’t help but shake my head in disbelief at the disparity in official responses. Our government will marshal all its resources to save the life of one hopeless and despondent man.” He speaks of someone threatening to jump from a bridge. He goes on to say, “Yet, it may conclude that some lives aren’t worth living perhaps due to a serious illness or disability, and we will hand those despondent women and men a proverbial loaded gun and tell them to have at it.” Frankly, there aren’t that many religious leaders who would speak that way. There aren’t that many Catholic bishops who would speak that way. Archbishop Cardinal Dolan, well, he did speak that way, and it’s of note.

Another piece in the Times by Katie Engelhart, a very long piece looking at the slide in terms of whether or not you have to have a terminal illness to claim a so-called right to die. Well, she documents the fact that there are different scenarios now behind physician-assisted suicide, and she cites one person wanting to expand the categories, making an odd moral argument. Listen to this: “The phrase I find myself saying a lot is I’m not going to judge people for why they’re suffering.” “In some jurisdictions, you have to meet specific criteria for suffering, and I think it’s good that in Canada, you don’t. I don’t particularly care why you’re suffering. If you tell me that you’re suffering, who am I to question that?” So this is someone in Canada saying the morality of all this is you really don’t have the right to tell someone who wants to end their life that they shouldn’t. You shouldn’t put any barrier in their way. Who are you to judge?

As we’re thinking about the underlying worldview, I want to point to a statement by Ed Weiss, identified as a family physician in Toronto. He said, “I do think there’s a swing towards, you know, autonomy uber alles.” That means autonomy over all. That just underlines again the problem of this kind of horrifying exaggeration of human autonomy. There’s a certain definition of autonomy that’s legally important. No one has the right to come up to you and just punch you in the face. On the other hand, this kind of Herculean definition of personal autonomy is absolutely, as we said before, absolutely idolatrous. It is the idol of human autonomy, which by the way is an idol like every idol that turns out to be not only false, but not incidentally deadly.

When we point out the slippery slope that is involved here, people often say it’s not inevitable, but of course, it does turn out to be inevitable. Listen to this statement in this article, “In recent years, some ethicists have argued that Canada should make its Medical Aid in Dying Law even more liberal notably by doing away with the suffering criteria altogether. They argued that the suffering requirement is redundant. Of course, a person who wants to die is suffering and also that a patient shouldn’t have to be suffering in a way that is legible to her medical providers for her to be found worthy of death. It should be enough for her to decide autonomously,” that words used in the sentence, “for her to decide autonomously that her life is not worth living.”

There’s so much to impact there. It’s hard to believe that someone actually made that statement right out loud. Notice the statement that the providers might not find her “worthy of death.” What in the world is the phrase “worthy of death?” Someone has to prove worthiness of death as some kind of achievement that one has to be deemed worthy to receive. This is a horrifying way of morally turning the world upside down. That’s exactly what the culture of death does. It doesn’t respect life. It ends up embracing and worshiping death.

As I said, the New York bill, a sign of the times, a bellwether, we have to fear. That bill now goes to the New York governor’s desk. We’ll see whether or not Governor Hochul signs it. In the meantime, we know this issue is not going to go away. The culture of death doesn’t give up this kind of fight, and there are legislative, political, and cultural enablers who assist the culture of death in pressing its cause. And sadly, honestly, if all you’re left with is a purely secular worldview, just what kind of long-term argument do you have against death?

Part III

---

George Soros is Trying to Turn Texas Blue: Liberal Financier is Pouring Money and Effort into Liberalizing Texas Politics

I’m speaking to you today from the state of Texas, and it’s really interesting to see that the journal reports, “Soros-backed project seeks to turn Texas blue.” Ken Thomas is the reporter in the article, and Texas has been red, that is Republican red, conservative red for a very long time. As a matter of fact, Democrats haven’t won a statewide election in the state of Texas since 1994. Democratic and liberal groups are determined to try to turn that around. It’s not an accident, of course, that the first word in this headline is a name and the name of Soros as in financier, George Soros, who has been the liberal funder of so many leftist causes for a very, very long time.

The Wall Street Journal is absolutely right to put his name in the headline because he is such a major factor behind so many of these strategies. He’s putting millions of dollars into the state of Texas along with others, trying to come up with a strategy to turn Texas blue, and the understanding is that if they can turn a state like Texas blue, that that kind of change is usually a rather long-term change and that would just about end hopes of putting together a Republican victory for the presidency or for that matter in the Senate or in the House when it comes to legislation.

But there’s another very interesting acknowledgement in this article, and that is that it’s Democrats right now who are having a very hard time figuring out how they are going to be able to put together a winning coalition without a state as big as Texas. Now, just looking at the electoral map, looking at the cultural map, you might say, “Looking at the liberal East and the liberal West, the Democrats have counted on so many of those states, but you know, it’s interesting that the big fear of the Democrats is not just that what happened in 2024 will happen again. It is that the census coming is going to have a reset that’s going to reshape the electoral college map, and that means a lot of their strongest states are going to have fewer electoral college votes.”

The article tells us, “Soros, the billionaire investor and philanthropist, has devoted millions to turning Texas blue in the past and donated $2.1 million to Texas majority in 2024, a million dollars in April.” According to the journal, “Texas has been a Republican stronghold for decades providing the GOP with its largest batch of electoral votes and supporting President Trump in each of the past three presidential elections. The growth in the state’s Hispanic population during the past two decades has raised hopes among Democrats, but those demographic shifts have done little to change the balance of power. Earlier organizing efforts,” says the paper, “by Democrats have failed to yield significant results. Again, the Democrats haven’t won a statewide election since 1994.”

Well, they’re doing their best to pour millions of dollars into a strategy of figuring out how to turn that around. We’re told, “The Blue Texas Project will work with state and county parties to recruit candidates to sign up volunteers starting with a series of organizing rallies in June. Organizers plan to visit more than two dozen cities in July to recruit candidates.” They go on to say, in this case, it’s by Katherine Fisher, the deputy executive director of Texas Majorities PAC, “If a win is on the table in 2026, we don’t want to leave it there by not being organized.” Just a reminder, the fact that politics is now 24/7. It’s 12 months a year. It’s every single year. It’s a continuous process because both sides know there is so much on the line.

An interesting admission comes later in the article, “Democrats face a shrinking pathway to winning 270 electoral votes if they fail to compete in growing Sun Belt states. That includes states such as Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona, all carried by Trump.” The paper reminds us in 2024, those states “have seen population growth and are expected to add electoral votes while reliably Blue California and New York have experienced a decrease in population and will likely lose electoral votes.” But who’s counting? Well, this article tells you who’s counting. Both sides are counting. Both sides know exactly what is at stake, and that’s why in this case, this Soros-backed initiative is trying to pour millions of dollars in an effort to turn Texas blue. As we said, politics is now constant 24/7, and it’s not just in Texas. I assure you.