Oregon

In Lane County, Ore., an attempt to grant rights to nature — specifically, to grant “watersheds” the right to “exist, flourish, regenerate and naturally evolve, free from contamination and degradation,” was rejected by voters, 63-37. Why did this attempt fail where nature rights referenda have elsewhere succeeded? Because opponents took it seriously. From the Your Oregon News story: Rob Dickinson, spokesperson for proponents of the measure, attributed its defeat to the ubiquity of advertisements raising fears about the initiative’s effects. Betsy Schultz, grass roots coordinator for opponents of the measure, said the healthy fundraising to defeat the measure reflected the strength of the arguments against the initiative. “Both the breadth of the coalition and the amount of funds that we Read More ›

After a bear was euthanized in California because she paw-swiped a human who owned a house under which the bruin and her cubs were living, there was a popular outcry. Now, a bill has been put in the hopper in the California State Senate promoting “coexistence” between people and wild animals. From S.B. 1135:

It is the policy of the state that the management of wildlife shall include an emphasis on the coexistence of humans and wildlife through department-led efforts to reduce, minimize, and mitigate conflicts. These efforts shall also seek to align with the state’s conservation, public safety, environmental planning, and climate adaptation goals and to be accomplished through coordination and cooperation between the department and wildlife coexistence partners.

Here are the details:

Upon appropriation by the Legislature, the department shall establish the Wildlife Coexistence Program to manage and promote wildlife coexistence by conducting all of the following activities:
(a) Managing, tracking, and responding to wildlife conflict calls, reports, and incident responses.
(b) Avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating conflicts between humans and wildlife by proactively and continuously implementing best practices that emphasize effective and ecologically appropriate nonlethal conflict resolution solutions developed using best available science and indigenous knowledge.
(c) Investigating, documenting, and analyzing reported human-wildlife incidents, including, but not limited to, depredation, perceived or actual human-wildlife conflicts, and wildlife health issues.
(d) Maintaining a statewide wildlife incident reporting tool.

Most of the media are in the tank (remember Brittany Maynard?) for the assisted suicide/euthanasia agenda and, as a consequence, are primarily interested in reporting on stories of “good deaths.” That criticism does not apply to The Atlantic, which recently published a scathing exposé of the cruelties inherent in Canada’s euthanasia regime. Now, staff writer Elizabeth Bruenig has published an important piece detailing how a mentally ill 31-year-old woman named Eileen Mihich was able to access poison drugs by writing herself a fraudulent prescription for death, which was filled unquestioningly by a willing pharmacy.

Eileen apparently had no discernible diseases but complained about severe abdominal pain. From, “It Was Too Easy for Her to Kill Herself“:

Mihich had told her family that she was debilitated by a mysterious abdominal pain and was interested in a medically assisted death. But her suicide still shocked her two closest relatives: her cousin Sarah (who asked to be referred to by her first name, to protect her privacy) and aunt Veronica Torina…Nearly a year on, they are still trying to solve the mystery of her death.…

At the medical examiner’s office weeks later, they received her phone, her wallet, and pharmacy receipts for prescription drugs commonly used to end the lives of patients with untreatable illnesses.

They also learned that Mihich’s body bore no signs of illness. Mihich had been suffering, but she had not been on the verge of death.

Animal rights activists pretend to be about animal welfare, but in reality, they want to outlaw all instrumental uses of animals.

We can see this illustrated in Oregon, where animal rights activists are attempting to qualify Initiative Petition 28 for the November ballot. Proponents claim it is about ending cruelty. But the actual purpose is to effectively outlaw animal agriculture and hunting in the state.

First, if passed, the law would create a legal equality between animals and people. From the Yes on IP28 website:

We believe everyone should be equally protected under the law, and that all animals deserve equal consideration, regardless of whether or not we consider them our companions. All animals deserve a life free from cruelty.

Yesterday, I posted about a Vermont bill that would allow nondoctors to prescribe death. I found out today that Oregon has similar legislation pending that would allow “providers” to lethally prescribe. SB 1003 specifies that “provider” can mean a licensed physician, a licensed physician assistant, or a licensed nurse practitioner. I wouldn’t trust a PA or NP to diagnose me with six months to live. Would you? That is not a putdown. These valuable medical professionals’ primary roles are to provide generalized care, monitor and manage chronic conditions, and provide wellness services. But they are not physicians. They receive less education and specialized training as compared with physician-certified specialists like cardiologists, oncologists, nephrologists, or neurologists. I suspect that the reason for expanding categories of eligible lethal Read More ›