logo
NY state Senate approves doctor-assisted suicide bill, sends it to Hochul's desk for approval

NY state Senate approves doctor-assisted suicide bill, sends it to Hochul's desk for approval

Yahoo10-06-2025
ALBANY – State Senate Democrats passed highly controversial legislation that would allow terminally ill people to take their own lives with the help of doctors in a razor-thin vote Monday — leaving it up to Gov. Kathy Hochul whether to sign it into law.
'This is one of the great social reforms of our state,' state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal (D-Manhattan), the bill's sponsor in the upper chamber, touted at a press conference earlier in the day Monday — putting the measure on the same tier as the legalization of gay marriage.
'This is about personal autonomy, this is about liberty, this is about exercising one's own freedom to control one's body,' Hoylman-Sigal continued.
The measure passed 35 to 27, with six Democrats – Senators April Baskin, Siela Bynoe, Cordelle Cleare, Monica Martinez, Roxanne Persaud, and Sam Sutton – voting against it.
'The governor will review the legislation,' a spokesperson for Hochul said.
The bill's passage follows a years-long campaign that was fought tooth and nail by a diverse group of critics, including disability rights activists and the Catholic church, as well as many black and Orthodox Jewish communities.
'The Governor still has the opportunity to uphold New York's commitment to suicide prevention, protect vulnerable communities, and affirm that every life—regardless of disability, age, or diagnosis—is worthy of care, dignity, and protection,' The New York Alliance Against Assisted Suicide wrote in a statement following the vote.
A Catholic group slammed the bill's passing as 'a dark day for New York' and also called on Hochul to refuse to sign it.
'For the first time in its history, New York is on the verge of authorizing doctors to help their patients commit suicide. Make no mistake – this is only the beginning, and the only person standing between New York and the assisted suicide nightmare unfolding in Canada is Governor Hochul,' Dennis Poust, Executive Director of the New York State Catholic Conference, wrote in a statement.
Ahead of the vote, the nearly three-hour debate on the Senate floor got emotional, with several lawmakers holding back tears as they explained their votes.
Syracuse-area state Sen. Rachel May (D-Onondaga) shared the story of her late husband, who was receiving morphine in the final stages of his battle with cancer, which he eventually succumbed to at 32 years old.
'I don't know if the last largest dose he took also took his life, but I know that he died in peace,' May said.
'It isn't about controlling the disease or controlling the pain, it's about having control at the end of your life,' she said before voting in favor.
Critics fear the legislation lacks critical safeguards over how doctors approve patients looking to receive the prescription for a lethal cocktail of drugs, such as a statutory waiting period, establishing clear chain of custody for the pills, mandating the doctor and recipient meet in-person, and requiring a disclosure that someone indeed used the drugs to take their own life.
Under the bill, recipients would need approval from two doctors and a sign-off from two independent witnesses, after which they would receive a prescription for drugs they could use to take their life at a time of their choosing.
Doctors also do not have to conduct a mental health screening for each patient, but may refer a patient for one under the legislation.
'I don't think requesting end-of-life medication when an individual is suffering and in pain and dying suggests a mental health condition, if anything, I think it's quite rational,' Hoylman-Sigal said.
Hoylman vowed the bill would not lead to such 'unintended consequences.'
'It was a professional organization that provided us crucial guidance, that helped us develop the state-of-the-art safeguards in this legislation that gave my colleagues and the general public, I believe, the assurance that there will not be unintended consequences,' he said.
The legislation is referred to by its supporters as the 'Medical Aid in Dying' bill.
'The option of medical aid in dying provides comfort, allowing those who are dying to live their time more fully and peacefully until the end. I am profoundly grateful to Senate Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins for giving her conference the space to have this important and emotional discussion,' Corinne Carey, Senior Campaign Director of Compassion and Choices, the main group driving the effort to pass the bill, wrote in a statement.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'Stupid as hell': GOP congressman blasts Hegseth on Confederate base names
'Stupid as hell': GOP congressman blasts Hegseth on Confederate base names

USA Today

time10 minutes ago

  • USA Today

'Stupid as hell': GOP congressman blasts Hegseth on Confederate base names

GOP Rep. Don Bacon, who helped lead the effort to change military base names, voted for a draft law defunding efforts to reverse the changes. A Republican congressman blasted Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's push to resurrect banned Confederate base names via proxy as 'stupid as hell' in an interview with USA TODAY. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Nebraska, joined House Democrats on July 15 to approve a defense bill amendment seeking to block the name changes. The retired Air Force brigadier general described the move as a "rebuke" of Hegseth and Trump's use of a loophole to restore Confederate names. While it was unclear if the measure would make it into the final defense bill, Bacon had harsh words for Hegseth's moves to fiddle with legally mandated efforts to remove the names of Confederate generals from U.S. military bases. 'I think they're trying to be too cute by Hegseth on this, saying, 'Well it's Bragg, but it's a different Bragg," Bacon said July 18, referring to the now twice-renamed Army base in North Carolina. "To me, it looks stupid as hell.' More: Fort Who? Republicans join House Dems to bar Hegseth's military base name changes Bacon co-sponsored the original bipartisan push to prohibit U.S. base names honoring Confederate figures, which became law in January 2021. Although President Donald Trump vetoed the bill, lawmakers overrode him and forced the Pentagon to find new names that didn't honor Confederates. In 2022 the Biden-era Defense Department implemented recommendations of a bipartisan Naming Commission, renaming posts to honor figures such as five-star general and former President Dwight Eisenhower. But Hegseth reversed those changes by again renaming the bases − this time for U.S. servicemembers whose surnames matched those of their earlier Confederate namesakes. The House Armed Services Committee-approved draft defense policy bill for fiscal 2026 would protect the Naming Commission's recommendations by barring the Pentagon from using official funds for base name changes. Bacon, who represents Omaha, and fellow Republican Rep. Derek Schmidt of Kansas joined Democrats in a dramatic late-night vote to approve the amendment, which was authored by Rep. Marilyn Strickland, D-Washington. The Senate Armed Services Committee passed a limited-but-similar measure in its version of the bill to block renaming of bases in Virginia. "Congress has made it clear where we stood," Bacon said, adding the re-renamings "fly in the face of what Congress intended." In February, Hegseth reversed Fort Liberty's name to Fort Bragg by naming it for Pfc. Roland Bragg, who was awarded the Silver Star for his service in World War II. In March, Fort Benning followed, shedding its short-lived Fort Moore moniker for Cpl. Fred Benning, who received the Distinguished Service Cross during World War I. Trump in June then announced that all of the Army's base names would change to honor soldiers who shared names with their former Confederate namesakes. He and Hegseth have argued that the original names boost soldier morale and only changed due to so-called "wokeness" in the military. The defense secretary has also said the old names provide a "generational link" between veterans and modern troops. Bacon contends that Republicans shouldn't support the names, which were originally proposed by segregationist Jim Crow-era Southern Democrats during World War I and World War II. The name of Fort Benning, for example, was suggested by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, an organization that sought to rewrite history textbooks and erect monuments that honored the Confederacy and downplayed slavery's centrality to the Civil War. And perhaps Bacon's support has personal roots as well − the congressman's great-great-great grandfather, a Virginia-born abolitionist, moved to Illinois and fought for the U.S. Army during the Civil War, Bacon noted. The practical effect of the amendment remains to be seen, according to a defense official. The House and Senate will have to iron out the discrepancy between their approaches to base names before the chambers agree to a final version. More: Trump visits Fort Bragg. The base has been renamed twice in 2 years. Why? Meanwhile, the process of renaming the bases may be completed before the law takes effect, the official said. If that occurs, Bacon − who is retiring from Congress in 2026 − said he believes a future Democratic president is "going to change them all back." Contributing: Tom Vanden Brook and Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA TODAY.

Democrats must treat Texas as a Senate pickup opportunity in 2026
Democrats must treat Texas as a Senate pickup opportunity in 2026

The Hill

time10 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Democrats must treat Texas as a Senate pickup opportunity in 2026

Nearly six months into President Trump's second term, he has sown even more chaos and instability than in his first term, and public opinion of him has shifted negative. Major polls show Trump's approval rating in the mid 40s, with over 50 percent disapproving — worse than most recent presidents at this stage. Americans give him even lower marks on the economic issues that defined the 2024 election. Midterm elections are rarely electorally successful for the party that controls the White House. Given that Republicans also hold both the House and the Senate, there's little reason to believe 2026 will buck the trend. The key question is just how strong the traditional voter rebuke of the party in power will be, and whether Democrats can execute a strategy to fully capitalize on it. Many forecasters are already anticipating a backlash on par with the 2018 midterms, when Democrats gained a net of 40 seats in Congress in an election where Democrats won the national congressional vote by 8.6 points — all after losing the 2016 election. While it's impossible to know exactly how things will look in 15 months, Democrats should be treating 2026 as an opportunity comparable to 2018. To seize that opportunity, Democrats need to start preparing now. And that includes crafting a serious approach to winning a Senate majority, which would give Democrats the full congressional power required to thwart Trump's agenda and stem the Republican onslaught. Yes, the Democrats' path to taking back the Senate in 2026 is tough. But it's not impossible. Let's break down the math: Democrats currently hold 47 Senate seats. To retake the Senate, the party needs to successfully defend seats in Georgia and Michigan and gain four additional seats. Right now, the strongest pickup opportunities are Maine and North Carolina. Victory in those two states would get Democrats to 49 seats. To reach 51, Democrats need two more seats from what we can call an 'expansion' list — states that may have seemed out-of-reach a few months ago but, thanks to Republicans self-sabotage and political malpractice, have the potential to be competitive. To be clear: I'm not talking about doomed, emotionally driven efforts to unseat high-profile Republicans in their safest seats (the 2020 Kentucky Senate race, which Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) won by 20 points despite $90 million being poured into his opponent, comes to mind). I'm talking about strategic, thoughtful investments in races that are hard but winnable in this environment. Potential pick-up opportunities include Ohio, Iowa, Alaska and Texas. A year and a half is a long time, especially in an unpredictable climate like this one, and some states might fall off or be added to that list. Wins in two of the 'expansion' states would put Democrats over the top. But to have a real shot at success in this expanded landscape, where all the battles will be uphill, Democrats will need to choose two states on which to focus our attention and resources. Among those four likely expansion states, Texas is Democrats' best bet. Here's why: With polls showing Texas' scandal-scarred, far-right attorney general, Ken Paxton, leading incumbent Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) in the Republican primary, the GOP will likely have a candidate who is strong with the base but relatively weak among the general electorate. In 2024, Rep. Collin Allred (D-Texas) overperformed Kamala Harris by 5.3 percentage points in his Senate race against Ted Cruz. This month, Allred announced that he is taking another shot at the Senate in 2026, and a recent poll shows him trailing Paxton by only 2 points. He enters the race with high name recognition, serious fundraising capacity and a unified party behind him. There are other talented, compelling Democratic elected officials who may jump in the race, including Congressman Joaquin Castro and State Representative James Talarico. Texas is the only expansion state trending in the right direction. My calculations, based on public voter data, reveal that the Democratic vote share has shown a consistent upward trajectory over the last 12 years of Senate, gubernatorial and presidential races. And, astonishingly, Allred was able to narrow M.J. Hegar's 2020 Senate margin against Sen. John Cornyn (D-Texas), despite a massive seven-point rightward shift nationally. Ohio, Iowa and Alaska have been moving in the other direction, toward Republicans. So Texas should be a key priority for Democratic donors, national groups, operatives and anyone else with a role to play in helping the party realize the potential of this moment. I have written previously about the urgent need for consistent, multi-cycle investment in Texas to turn it into a true statewide battleground and key component of the Democratic path to the White House after 2030. The importance of enacting that strategy hasn't changed. But the window for Texas to directly strengthen Democrats' national position might be opening sooner than expected. Republican missteps have accelerated the timeline. History shows that these kinds of races in Texas, or anywhere, cannot be won if national Democrats wait until the September before the election to throw a Hail Mary. Now is the time to invest in recruiting strong down-ballot candidates — a key but underdiscussed contributor to Beto O'Rourke's strong 2018 performance — and building the right ecosystem to set Democrats up to compete. Such strategic investment will both maximize the possibility of taking the Senate seat and build and strengthen the foundation to compete in Texas over the long haul. Even if we come up short in the Senate race, we will still help continue Democrats' growth trajectory in Texas. But if we don't act now, we risk watching Texas go the way of Florida — a once-competitive state where chronic Democratic dysfunction has led to Republican dominance. Trump and the Republicans are handing to Democrats political opportunities that were, until recently, hard to imagine. Democrats need to be smart and disciplined in our response. The map is hard, but places like Texas show promise. The opportunity is real. Let's be bold enough to take it. Luke Warford is the founding partner of the Agave Democratic Infrastructure Fund, a Political Action Committee working to build a Democratic ecosystem that can win statewide in Texas.

White House official: $2B for Alcatraz renovations ‘sounds excessive'
White House official: $2B for Alcatraz renovations ‘sounds excessive'

The Hill

time10 minutes ago

  • The Hill

White House official: $2B for Alcatraz renovations ‘sounds excessive'

A senior White House official on Friday said President Trump's request to reopen Alcatraz at a reported $2 billion price tag seems 'excessive.' The figure 'sounds excessive, but ultimately it's up to the President to decide,' the official told NewsNation, The Hill's sister station. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum toured the island that houses the complex in San Francisco Bay on Thursday to evaluate the state of the former maximum security prison, which was closed in 1963. 'We're still in the early stages,' one administration official told Axios. 'We need a lot more study, a lot more specificity, before the president decides,' they said. 'But $2 billion might just be too much money for him.' The Trump administration has not confirmed that the project costs. Axios reported on Friday that the president is assessing whether to pour $2 billion into a complete renovation of the site, invest $1 billion into partial reconstruction efforts that would not occupy the entire island or allow private contractors to bid on the project. The latter measure was used to secure the Delaney Hall Detention Center in New Jersey for federal immigration operations. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Shelter and Services Program also recently funded the opening of the 'Alligator Alcatraz' migrant detention center in the Florida Everglades. The White House and Interior Department did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment on potential developments at the California prison managed by the National Park Service. The Justice Department pointed The Hill to comments made online by Bondi and Burgum following their trip to the prison. 'In @POTUS ' America, law and order will be fully enforced, and today's visit to Alcatraz with @AGPamBondi marked a powerful step toward ensuring dangerous criminals are held accountable and Americans remain safe,' the Interior secretary wrote on social platform X, while sharing photos from the visit. Bondi posted a similar message. Trump announced in May that he directed the administration to begin work to reopen the prison, which the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) said was closed due to high costs. 'REBUILD, AND OPEN ALCATRAZ! For too long, America has been plagued by vicious, violent, and repeat Criminal Offenders, the dregs of society, who will never contribute anything other than Misery and Suffering,' Trump wrote on Truth Social at the time. 'When we were a more serious Nation, in times past, we did not hesitate to lock up the most dangerous criminals, and keep them far away from anyone they could harm,' he added. 'That's the way it's supposed to be.' The initiative has sparked some backlash, primarily from Democrats including former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who represents San Francisco. 'With stiff competition, the planned announcement to reopen Alcatraz as a federal penitentiary is the Trump Administration's stupidest initiative yet,' Pelosi wrote in a statement. 'It should concern us all that clearly the only intellectual resources the Administration has drawn upon for this foolish notion are decades-old fictional Hollywood movies.' She continued, saying 'it remains to be seen how this Administration could possibly afford to spend billions to convert and maintain Alcatraz as a prison when they are already adding trillions of dollars to the national debt with their sinful law,' a reference to the newly signed 'big, beautiful bill.' 'Should reason not prevail and Republicans bring this absurdity before the Congress, Democrats will use every parliamentary and budgetary tactic available to stop the lunacy,' the former Democratic leader added.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store