How the Obama administration supports assisted suicide for military veterans

Chris Wallace interviewed Veteran Affairs’ spokeswoman Tammy Duckworth. (H/T Nice Deb)

Chris Wallace interviews a pro-life activist about the death pamphlets. (H/T Nice Deb)

Megyn Kelly interviews Jonah Goldberg about the death pamphlets. (H/T Nice Deb)

The left is always interested in killing off those unworthy of life.

UPDATE: Lex Communis links to this related Wall Street Journal article.

3 thoughts on “How the Obama administration supports assisted suicide for military veterans”

  1. When it comes to life and death decisions, the Left seems to be motivated by two considerations: (a)consent – does the person involved – the Veteran or elderly person – in some way agree or want to die ( or would they if they could understand their situation)? and (b) efficiency – how can we allocate resources in a way that will get the most benefit out of the resource.

    The irony, of course, is that consent and efficiency are reasons for the free market, but the Left is opposed to Free Market because of alleged problems, such as monopolies, information imbalances, artificially distorted preferences, etc.

    So, when it comes to whether Grandma should die, personal preference is king, but whether you should be able to take a job for below the minimum wage, well, that just isn’t going to be happening no matter what your personal preference happens to be.

    There are days when I wake up and wonder when I went through the Looking Glass.


    1. Well said. I think that we should be clear about what the left’s obsession with abortion, eugenics and euthanasia really means. It means that if you are a burden on the strong, then the strong may kill you. Because it’s survival of the fittest, and there is no room for compassion. This plays in nicely with their doomsday scenarios of overpopulation, resource scarcity and catastrophic climate change.

      I actually think that these doomsday scenarios, and the culture of death which results from them, are the result of rejecting God as sovereign over the universe. The leftists think that no one is in control, so the unworthy need to be culled before their unworthy lifestyles cause any problems for the elite. It’s the secular equivalent of “Left Behind” novels.


  2. Notice Goldberg’s point about the apparent inconsistency between not providing information on abortion and providing it on end of life care? The common policy seems to be to favor the decision in the direction of death. Obviously, the more abortions among people who don’t think they can care for their babies, the less we pay in public support. The same result for end of life decisions.

    You can see the same policy at work with respect to the issue of “choice” in abortion. Women have an essentially unfettered choice to end their pregnancies because, we are told, choice is such an overriding good.

    But men have no choice to back out of their fatherhood by disclaiming an interest in the child, perhaps. Is choice not a “good” when it comes to men? Sometimes I hear the response that, well, he was just having a good time and has to be responsible for his actions; at which point I ask, where was she? In the other room, playing parchesi?

    The answer is that recognizing “choice” as an overriding good with respect to male reproductive action would have the effect of eliminating a source of financial support for a living child, which would put the burden back on the government to provide support for it. Recognizing “choice” with respect to women’s sexual activities, on the other hand, doesn’t carry that cost, since the affirmative exercise of “choice” will be toward an abortion, i.e., all things being equal, not choosing an abortion means a baby will be born.

    In other words, the policy in all of these different areas is that the government prefers its citizens to be dead if they are not immediately generating tax revenues.


    I’m being only a little bit facetious here. In law school, we were trained to try to dig out the “policy” basis for seemingly different rules of law. The analysis I’ve just done would be one that some law professor or judge would do in the right case, except that if he did, the public uproar would be a career killer.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s