 |
| look at how little the senators care about his most important testimony |
Senator Sweeney was speaking to Senator Madden after the committee hearing before they proceeded with the official vote. Was he trying to force Senator Madden to vote for the bill? Or giving Senator Madden permission to vote against the bill?
3 members of the committee Robert Gordon, Richard Codey, and Republican (see being a Republican doesn't equal being good on these issues) Dawn Marie Addiego voted in favor the assisted suicide bill before the hearing was over.
Unfortunately both democrats, Robert Gordon (Fair Lawn, Paramus, and Bergenfield) Richard Codey (Livingston, Maplewood, and West Orange) who voted for the bill before the hearing was over represent Jewish districts. (see what happens when you vote for low lives)
Robert Gordon who left more then 45 minutes before the hearing was over said before he left he said "Mr Chairman, I have to get up to Bergen County in time for a commitment in about an hour, so I'm going to have to leave, but before I did, I wanted to just leave my vote and make a statement, and that is, that if this bill were heard on the floor I would vote against it, however in the interest of allowing the process to go forward, and to broaden the debate, allow my colleagues to have a chance to way in, I will be voting to release it, but at this point I am very much against the concept, and will vote no on the floor, and so with that I just want to thank everyone who appeared here to today, for your patience for those who are still waiting, and I can tell that your testimony has been very helpful to all of us on a very difficult subject, so thank you all very much."
 |
| Dawn Parkot with her father (pictures not from yesterdays hearing) |
The wickedness of Gordon is very apparent because the person who "spoke" right after Gordon left for his non pikuach nefesh (life saving) commitment, was Dawn Parkot (read her bio it's very inspiring) of the climb organization, who unfortunately had to have her father speak instead of her, because the battery died to the machine that helps her speak. The fact that this woman unfortunately may be a prime person who may be killed under this bill because with out a machine she couldn't speak, without a her strong family she may well have been someone who this bill would unfortunately murder.
BH 2 democrats Fred H. Madden, and Ronald Rice voted against this bill in the committee, yet out of the 3 Republicans only 1 Robert Singer from Lakewood voted against this bill (Diane Allen didn't vote), meaning that if 2 more Democrats vote the right way and there are no more Republican traitors, this bill will fail. we can defeat this bill so call you senator and make sure they vote against this evil bill
all this can be heard on the tape of the session (to hear Gordon's exit session listen to 4:07:54) a Orthodox Jew later in the hearing strongly attacked the fact that Gordon left before the end of the testimony on a bill that will cause people to die.
Democrat Ronald Rice represents
Bloomfield, Glen Ridge, Irvington, Newark, Nutley
| PHONE NUMBER: | (973) 371-5665 |
Democrat Fred H. Madden represents
Chesilhurst, Clementon, Gloucester Township,Laurel Springs, Lindenwold, Monroe Gloucester), Pitman, Washington (Gloucester),Winslow
Chesilhurst, Clementon, Gloucester Township,Laurel Springs, Lindenwold, Monroe Gloucester), Pitman, Washington (Gloucester),Winslow
please call both of them up to thank them for their support
| PHONE NUMBERS: | (856) 232-6700 (Turnersville) (856) 401-3073 (Laurel Springs) |
Click here and find your town to call for your state senator and urge the to vote against this evil bill
make sure to tell them your votes depend on it
After emotional hearing, reluctant N.J. Senate panel releases 'Aid in Dying' bill
By Susan K. Livio | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
on December 15, 2014 at 8:20 PM, updated December 16, 2014 at 10:03 AM
N.J. SENATE
TRENTON — After more than four hours of testimony from an emotional and at times combative audience that warned lawmakers they would diminish the value life for sick and disabled people, a state Senate committee today "reluctantly" approved a bill that would allow terminally ill patients to get prescription drugs to end their lives.
The Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee voted 4-3 actually it was 5-3 as can be seen on the bottom to let the “Aid in Dying” bill to proceed to the full 40-member Senate, but did so in a way that registered committee members concern and uncertainty by approving it "without recommendation." in short it's a political gimmick so the senators can play you the voter as a fool
Sens. Jim Whelan (D-Atlantic), Robert Gordon (D-Bergen) and Chairman Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex) voted yes to allow to the bill to move forward, but agreed they would have voted no had it come up for a vote in the full Senate today but if it comes up in a week they will only not vote for it if they have the votes without them.
"I'm not sure there are enough safeguards in place" to prevent the law from being abused so that's why I moved the bill out of the committee that amends bills, in order to help pass the bill without those safeguards , Vitale said
Noting he has seen a spate of suicides by distraught teens, Vitale said he worried "the message this might be sending to young people. When we pass laws like this, will they understand the difference, the nuance, that taking a life is okay under certain circumstances?" please explain to me the "difference, the nuance" between voting for the bill in committee and voting for it on the floor
Senate President Stephen Sweeney, (D-Gloucester), who co-sponsored the bill with Sen. Nicholas Scutari (D-Union), said he would not call a vote on the measure Thursday, the last scheduled session before the end of the year which means if we lobby hard we can stop this bill remember the opposition is going to lobby every single day. Sweeney said he and other supporters would embark on an "educational campaign" to discuss the matter with colleagues. translation vote for the bill or loos your committee chairmanship
The bill is written for people with a terminal illness, defined as an incurable, irreversible and medically confirmed disease that will end the person's life within "six" months.
Patients suffering from a terminal disease who want to end their lives would have to first verbally request a prescription from their attending physician, followed by a second request at least 15 days later and one request in writing signed by two witnesses, according to the bill (A2270) that passed the Assembly last month. The patient's physician would have to offer the patient a chance to rescind their request, and a consulting physician would then be called upon to certify the original diagnosis and reaffirm the patient is capable of making a decision. This bill does not even require the patient to have a psychiatric evaluation.
Family "doctor" Stephan Sher of Mt. Arlington, one of the few people who urged the committee to pass the bill, acknowledged many of his colleagues may disagree with him. "But let's be honest. Aid in dying is no great leap from what already occurs in medical practice today – the morphine drip," Sher said. "Yes the intent is to relieve pain, but you know what the outcome will be: death."
"As a physician, I support aid in dying because the very availability of the option enhances communication between "doctor" and patient," Sher added. "It promotes outcomes in line with the patient's wishes and desires, whether that's hospice, palliative care, or aid in dying. It should be up to the patient." After being asked by a senator about cases of misdiagnosis, and people who after a diagnosis take their life well before any symptoms start to show up. "DR" Sher answered "Well this may not be a politically correct answer, but I sat here all day and I'm going to give it to you as I see it. If this enactment occurs, this would be from my point of the first rung in a ladder to the autonomy that people should have. I don't really believe we should be terminal in 6 months, I spent half of a century almost, dealing with putting people in to palliative care, and into hospice and out of hospice, by the way I'm a big big fan of both of those avenues, but the point is, when the individual with the clear mind decides that he's traveled this path long enough, I feel it's not my responsibility to deal with whether it is 6 month or 4 months, if he or she feels they've had enough here. I'm a good example, I'm 78 years old, I'm in pretty good health, I love life, I've raised my children, I've taken care my wife, and any of you who were physicians would know that I was her primary care physician ever since she got a liver transplant and through out the medical community that's a no-no, I'm generally known as DR ? hemorrhoid ? you can decide why yourself alright, the point is I've done my task, I've really been the luckiest guy in the world. I had a great life, my children are OK, and I'm 78, actuarially I'm done. So I don't really need to live much longer, particularity when I may end up, and this is another no-no, but I may end up being a burden, I have a relative of mine whose bedridden and can't get out of bed, her children come to visit her once a week and I know that they feel guilty cause they don't go twice a week, and I know that if they went twice a week they'll feel guilty because they didn't go every day, so if I put myself in her position, I rather leave now, I rather leave, I don't want to stay on the top of my game but I want my children to remember me the way I am, not looking down at me having to change their life, their life has to go on, my life has been imminently successful and it's OK if I go now.
Maria V. Arvonio, a nurse and medical ethicist who chairs the National Association of Catholic Nurses, was one of many opponents from the medical field who argued patients may be making decisions based on flawed information. in short patients who got the drug in both Washington state and Oregon have lived almost 2 years after getting the poison.
"When did healthcare (workers) become astrologers able to foresee the future? How often are we put to shame basically because a person has lived longer than our medical expectations?" Arvonio asked. "If patients are allowed to make an autonomous and informed consent when choosing physician assisted suicide, is there decision tainted by coercion by fear of the unknown, such as death or the need to be dependent on others?"
Bernard J. Ernst, 60, of Toms River presented himself as a patient who has outlived five terminal diagnoses, including the latest that said he should have died two years ago. He has suffered 12 strokes, and his heart has stopped twice, he said.
"Guess what? I am still here," he said. "Don't let my pleasant and smiling appearance misguide you. I am in severe and agonizing pain 24-7. I was raised to 'offer up my pain,' and so I shall. I will enjoy every day on earth."
Opponents - some traveling as far as Seattle and New England states - quoted scripture and Martin Luther King Jr. Some wept, and one person raised his voice at the committee, exclaiming that passing the legislation was like condoning homicide this seems was same person who attacked Gordon for leaving, after pointing out how this bill would allow people to be murdered on willingly under this bill, and that the committee was not listening to all the reasons how this will lead to the murder of people who did not want it. More than one dozen people in wheelchairs and motorized scooters waited for hours to get their chance at the microphone.
The bill has drawn the ire of many people with physical and developmental disabilities and their advocates. Curtis Edmonds, a managing attorney at Disability Rights New Jersey, a federally-funded legal advocacy organization, warned that such a law would define "what is perceived as an acceptable quality of life... and death as an obligation rather than autonomy."
The health committee held a hearing on the bill last week with invited guests only.
Correction: Senate President Stephen Sweeney said he will not post the bill for a vote on Thursday. Because of a typographical error, an earlier version of this story said it would be be ready for a vote.
By Susan K. Livio | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
on December 15, 2014 at 8:20 PM, updated December 16, 2014 at 10:03 AM
N.J. SENATE
TRENTON — After more than four hours of testimony from an emotional and at times combative audience that warned lawmakers they would diminish the value life for sick and disabled people, a state Senate committee today "reluctantly" approved a bill that would allow terminally ill patients to get prescription drugs to end their lives.
The Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee voted 4-3 actually it was 5-3 as can be seen on the bottom to let the “Aid in Dying” bill to proceed to the full 40-member Senate, but did so in a way that registered committee members concern and uncertainty by approving it "without recommendation." in short it's a political gimmick so the senators can play you the voter as a fool
Sens. Jim Whelan (D-Atlantic), Robert Gordon (D-Bergen) and Chairman Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex) voted yes to allow to the bill to move forward, but agreed they would have voted no had it come up for a vote in the full Senate today but if it comes up in a week they will only not vote for it if they have the votes without them.
"I'm not sure there are enough safeguards in place" to prevent the law from being abused so that's why I moved the bill out of the committee that amends bills, in order to help pass the bill without those safeguards , Vitale said
Noting he has seen a spate of suicides by distraught teens, Vitale said he worried "the message this might be sending to young people. When we pass laws like this, will they understand the difference, the nuance, that taking a life is okay under certain circumstances?" please explain to me the "difference, the nuance" between voting for the bill in committee and voting for it on the floor
Senate President Stephen Sweeney, (D-Gloucester), who co-sponsored the bill with Sen. Nicholas Scutari (D-Union), said he would not call a vote on the measure Thursday, the last scheduled session before the end of the year which means if we lobby hard we can stop this bill remember the opposition is going to lobby every single day. Sweeney said he and other supporters would embark on an "educational campaign" to discuss the matter with colleagues. translation vote for the bill or loos your committee chairmanship
The bill is written for people with a terminal illness, defined as an incurable, irreversible and medically confirmed disease that will end the person's life within "six" months.
Patients suffering from a terminal disease who want to end their lives would have to first verbally request a prescription from their attending physician, followed by a second request at least 15 days later and one request in writing signed by two witnesses, according to the bill (A2270) that passed the Assembly last month. The patient's physician would have to offer the patient a chance to rescind their request, and a consulting physician would then be called upon to certify the original diagnosis and reaffirm the patient is capable of making a decision. This bill does not even require the patient to have a psychiatric evaluation.
Family "doctor" Stephan Sher of Mt. Arlington, one of the few people who urged the committee to pass the bill, acknowledged many of his colleagues may disagree with him. "But let's be honest. Aid in dying is no great leap from what already occurs in medical practice today – the morphine drip," Sher said. "Yes the intent is to relieve pain, but you know what the outcome will be: death."
"As a physician, I support aid in dying because the very availability of the option enhances communication between "doctor" and patient," Sher added. "It promotes outcomes in line with the patient's wishes and desires, whether that's hospice, palliative care, or aid in dying. It should be up to the patient." After being asked by a senator about cases of misdiagnosis, and people who after a diagnosis take their life well before any symptoms start to show up. "DR" Sher answered "Well this may not be a politically correct answer, but I sat here all day and I'm going to give it to you as I see it. If this enactment occurs, this would be from my point of the first rung in a ladder to the autonomy that people should have. I don't really believe we should be terminal in 6 months, I spent half of a century almost, dealing with putting people in to palliative care, and into hospice and out of hospice, by the way I'm a big big fan of both of those avenues, but the point is, when the individual with the clear mind decides that he's traveled this path long enough, I feel it's not my responsibility to deal with whether it is 6 month or 4 months, if he or she feels they've had enough here. I'm a good example, I'm 78 years old, I'm in pretty good health, I love life, I've raised my children, I've taken care my wife, and any of you who were physicians would know that I was her primary care physician ever since she got a liver transplant and through out the medical community that's a no-no, I'm generally known as DR ? hemorrhoid ? you can decide why yourself alright, the point is I've done my task, I've really been the luckiest guy in the world. I had a great life, my children are OK, and I'm 78, actuarially I'm done. So I don't really need to live much longer, particularity when I may end up, and this is another no-no, but I may end up being a burden, I have a relative of mine whose bedridden and can't get out of bed, her children come to visit her once a week and I know that they feel guilty cause they don't go twice a week, and I know that if they went twice a week they'll feel guilty because they didn't go every day, so if I put myself in her position, I rather leave now, I rather leave, I don't want to stay on the top of my game but I want my children to remember me the way I am, not looking down at me having to change their life, their life has to go on, my life has been imminently successful and it's OK if I go now.
Maria V. Arvonio, a nurse and medical ethicist who chairs the National Association of Catholic Nurses, was one of many opponents from the medical field who argued patients may be making decisions based on flawed information. in short patients who got the drug in both Washington state and Oregon have lived almost 2 years after getting the poison.
"When did healthcare (workers) become astrologers able to foresee the future? How often are we put to shame basically because a person has lived longer than our medical expectations?" Arvonio asked. "If patients are allowed to make an autonomous and informed consent when choosing physician assisted suicide, is there decision tainted by coercion by fear of the unknown, such as death or the need to be dependent on others?"
Bernard J. Ernst, 60, of Toms River presented himself as a patient who has outlived five terminal diagnoses, including the latest that said he should have died two years ago. He has suffered 12 strokes, and his heart has stopped twice, he said.
"Guess what? I am still here," he said. "Don't let my pleasant and smiling appearance misguide you. I am in severe and agonizing pain 24-7. I was raised to 'offer up my pain,' and so I shall. I will enjoy every day on earth."
Opponents - some traveling as far as Seattle and New England states - quoted scripture and Martin Luther King Jr. Some wept, and one person raised his voice at the committee, exclaiming that passing the legislation was like condoning homicide this seems was same person who attacked Gordon for leaving, after pointing out how this bill would allow people to be murdered on willingly under this bill, and that the committee was not listening to all the reasons how this will lead to the murder of people who did not want it. More than one dozen people in wheelchairs and motorized scooters waited for hours to get their chance at the microphone.
The bill has drawn the ire of many people with physical and developmental disabilities and their advocates. Curtis Edmonds, a managing attorney at Disability Rights New Jersey, a federally-funded legal advocacy organization, warned that such a law would define "what is perceived as an acceptable quality of life... and death as an obligation rather than autonomy."
The health committee held a hearing on the bill last week with invited guests only.
Correction: Senate President Stephen Sweeney said he will not post the bill for a vote on Thursday. Because of a typographical error, an earlier version of this story said it would be be ready for a vote.
yellow have a large Jewish Community in their district yet still voted the wrong way
pink means their a Republican yet still voted the wrong way
blue means a democrat who voted the right way
Committee Voting:
SHH 12/15/2014 - r w/o rec. Sca - Yes {5} No {3} Not Voting {1} Abstains {0} - Roll Call
SHH 12/15/2014 - r w/o rec. Sca - Yes {5} No {3} Not Voting {1} Abstains {0} - Roll Call
| Vitale, Joseph F. (C) - Yes | Madden, Fred H., Jr. (V) - No | Addiego, Dawn Marie - Yes | |
| Allen, Diane B. - Not Voting | Codey, Richard J. - Yes | Gordon, Robert M. - Yes | |
| Rice, Ronald L. - No | Singer, Robert W. - No | Whelan, Jim - Yes |
call Robert Gordon Phone: (201) 703-9779 and/or Phone: (201) 374-2205
and Richard Codey (973) 535-5017
and ask them how come they voted for a murder bill
we plan in the near future to show audio highlights from the committee hearing.
No comments:
Post a Comment