By Brian Bohl

President Bush’s administration has chided “activist” judges and any infringements on states rights during his reign. Ironically, those same principals are being challenged with an upcoming Supreme Court case which could have monumental ramifications.

The law in question is Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act (DWDA). The legislation, passed twice by voters in Oregon, allows doctors to help terminally ill patients end their lives by authorizing physician-assisted suicide. The law has been on the state’s books since 1997. The Bush administration has continually attempted to argue that doctors who assist patients pass on should have their federal prescription license revoked.

This is a case where Bush is abusing the power of his office to go after a valid law at the expense of taxpayers and his own credibility. In 2001, then Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a directive ordering DEA agents to track and prosecute doctors who were legally operating in compliance with DWDA. Ashcroft completely disregarded state law and exhibited total contempt for the voters of Oregon.

Fortunately, Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers was able to curtail Ashcroft’s attempts to railroad the state into doing the Bush administration’s bidding by issuing an injunction. The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Myers’ actions.

Oregon voters have been asked to express their opinion on this matter, and both times they have voted in the affirmative to allow physician-assisted suicide. The act was initially passed in November 1994. After three years of various appeals, the DWDA act was implemented in October 1997. The following month, voters again had a chance to vote on the act. The legislation was passed again 60-40 percent.

Two consecutive votes by the people should have been enough to institute the law, but still more challenges persisted. In 1998, both Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) and Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) complained that the act violated the Controlled Substances Act. The Department of Justice, then headed by Janet Reno, announced that it would not prosecute physicians who had assisted their patients’ deaths in full compliance with the Oregon law. The Department of Justice found that “Death with Dignity law fell well beyond the purview of the Controlled Substances Act.”

So to recap: the voters of Oregon voted and approved the act twice, all earlier appeals of the act were not substantiated, an attempted unilateral takeover by the White House was quashed, and a U.S. appellate court upheld the actions of the state. Case closed, right? The issue, however, is not yet resolved. Bush, down to his last option to oppose the law, has appealed to the Supreme Court to hear his case against the DWDA.

What happened to Bush’s view that states should have a high degree of autonomy? If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the administration, is it not engaging in activism? The term “activist” should not be applied just to justices that permit gay marriages or rule in favor of pro-choice groups in abortion cases.

For the Republican majority, states’ rights are a wonderful thing so long as what the states decided follows the conservative agenda. n