For roughly the past decade, advocates have pushed for New York to approve a law that would allow terminally ill patients to end their own lives with the assistance of their doctor. On Tuesday, the Assembly passed the Medical Aid in Dying Act for the first time by a narrow margin following hours of debate.

If passed in the State Senate and signed by the governor, New York would become the tenth state in the nation to have a law permitting doctors to assist in the deaths of certain terminally ill patients, joining its neighbor New Jersey.

Of course, Republicans in both houses object to the law. In a statement by assembly minority leader Will Barclay he wrote: “Assembly Democrats today passed a bill to allow suicide-by-doctor in New York, taking a dangerous step that carries irreparable consequences. By inserting its authority into one of the most important aspects of human life—the decision to end it—they have crossed a line it has no business approaching... We do not honor a person by hastening their death, but by affirming the value of life, even in its final chapter.”

But Wait!

These are the same Republicans who have pushed for decades in back and forth fights with changing party administrations to either restore, or affirm the death penalty.

From 1978 until 1994, mea­sures repeat­ed­ly passed both hous­es of New York’s state leg­is­la­ture that would have expand­ed or rein­stat­ed the death penal­ty, only to be vetoed by gov­er­nors Hugh Carey and Mario Cuomo.

In 1995 new­ly-elect­ed Republican Governor George Pataki ful­filled a cam­paign promise and signed leg­is­la­tion rein­stat­ing the death penal­ty in New York, des­ig­nat­ing lethal injec­tion as the new method of exe­cu­tion. In 2004, that statute was declared uncon­sti­tu­tion­al by the New York Court of Appeals, and in 2007 the last remain­ing death sen­tence was reduced to life, leav­ing New York with a vacant death row and no viable death penal­ty laws. In 2008 Governor David Paterson issued an exec­u­tive order requir­ing the removal of all exe­cu­tion equip­ment from state facilities.

So, is the death penalty a deterrent?

Use of the death penalty has gradually declined in the United States in recent decades. A growing number of states have abolished it, and death sentences and executions have become less common. But the story is not one of continuous decline across all levels of government. While state-level executions have decreased, the federal government put more prisoners to death under President Donald Trump than at any point since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976.

Yes, there are cases where, after the death penalty was carried out, the now dead convicted defendant was proven innocent. Yes, there are extenuating circumstances where mental factors attributed to murder, but the person was executed anyway.

The truth is that all life, regardless of intent is a precious commodity.

Ironically, most U.S. adults support the death penalty for people convicted of murder, according to an April 2021 Pew Research Center survey. At the same time, majorities believe the death penalty is not applied in a racially neutral way, does not deter people from committing serious crimes, and does not have enough safeguards to prevent an innocent person from being executed.

So, what about abortion?

Republicans push for banning all abortions, but have quasi-settled on how long a fetus has existed in many states.

The Democrat line is that the mother has control over her body and the question of abortion, ending the existence of a fetus, is her decision, not anything aborted by a law.

Individual states have broad discretion to prohibit or regulate abortion. As a result, the legal status of abortion varies considerably from state to state. Some have limited exceptions, while others place a varied time limit on the existence of a fetus.

New York is a state where abortion is legal upon a request. Some states have varied laws of fetal ‘homicide’, but not New York and several other states.

Is a fetus in early formation a human being? If so, what are the rights of a mother? Is any form of contraceptive allowed?

The birth control controversy in the US continues to evolve, with ongoing debates over issues like insurance coverage, accessibility, and religious exemptions. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandated that insurance plans cover contraception, but this provision has faced legal challenges and rollbacks under the current administration.

The future outlook on birth control controversy remains uncertain, amidst changing political landscapes and shifts in judicial interpretations. However, public opinion plays a crucial role in shaping policies and attitudes surrounding birth control, making continued advocacy and open dialogue essential.

Despite progress, debates around birth control remained contentious. Religious groups, such as the Catholic Church and more conservative legal bodies vehemently opposed modern contraceptive methods, viewing them as impediments to the sanctity of marriage and procreation. Yikes! A pregnant woman has both advocates and foes concerning who is in command. Opponents argue that contraceptive use promotes promiscuity and undermines the institution of marriage. They contend that contraception encourages a culture of casual sex, erodes traditional family values, and undermines the importance of commitment and responsibility in relationships.

Moreover, opponents often argue that widespread availability and use of birth control could lead to a decline in population growth, which, in turn, could impact economic and social dynamics. They advocate for a focus on natural family planning methods and promoting abstinence as the most reliable birth control measures.

But wait! What about the person on death row? NY assembly minority leader Will Barclay wrote: ..."By inserting its authority into one of the most important aspects of human life—the decision to end it—they have crossed a line it has no business approaching."  Politics, you gotta love it.