Donald Trump on Tuesday announced his pick to replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died suddenly last February. The president’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch, has been likened to the late justice by several media outlets.
If confirmed, one thing Gorsuch would have with Scalia is their view on assisted suicide.
In fact, Gorsuch published a book on the subject in 2006. “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia” cites Oregon law extensively, from the first chapter to the epilogue.
The book was published the same year the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a verdict in the case of Gonzalez v Oregon, where it ruled George W. Bush’s attorney general couldn’t use the Controlled Substance Act against state doctors who assisted their patients in dying.
Scalia was one of the dissenting votes in the 6-3 case. Throughout his book, Gorsuch argues against assisted suicide.
The seventh chapter, in particular, cites Oregon law extensively. If readers had any doubt about the Supreme Court nominee’s thoughts on the matter, the title would be illuminating: “Legalization and the Law of Unintended Consequences: Utilitarian Arguments for Legalization.”
The second paragraph Piabet of the chapter even refers to the practice as “consensual homicide.” Much of the chapter is free to preview on Google Books. The epilogue, which deals exclusively with the Gonzalez v Oregon decision, is not.
Gorsuch’s views on assisted suicide have been taken by many to assume he’d side with anti-abortion arguments in cases concerning the practice. He’s never ruled on an abortion case in his time on the Tenth Court of Appeals, although he has issued rulings against the Affordable Care Act’s requirements on contraceptives.
For much of the campaign, Trump vowed he’d choose a “pro-life” justice to fill Scalia’s seat on the court. The president even claimed he was open to appointing someone who would overturn Roe v. Wade, leaving states to make their own rules on abortion.
Although Gorsuch characterized the 1973 decision as “a new right in the face of substantially contrary history,” the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision seemed to placate his concerns with the older ruling.
–Eder Campuzano
503.221.4344
@edercampuzano
ecampuzano@oregonian.com
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.