4 Republicans Voted For Assisted "Suicide" Bill, Bill Passed With Exactly Enough Votes

אֵיכָה הָיְתָה לְזוֹנָה קִרְיָה נֶאֱמָנָה מְלֵאֲתִי מִשְׁפָּט צֶדֶק יָלִין בָּהּ וְעַתָּה מְרַצְּחִים

How has she become a harlot, a faithful city; full of justice, in which righteousness would lodge, but now murderers. (Yishaya 1-21)

How has she become a harlot, a faithful city; full of justice, in which righteousness would lodge, but now murderers. (Yishaya 1-21)

Letter from Rav Moshe Soloveichik on Massachusetts vote for assisted "suicide" in 2012

Why you should NOT trust Republicans blindly

Assisted "suicide" bill passes Assembly following last-minute debateBy Chase Brush | 11/13/14 3:16pm




TRENTON – Following a last minute push to gardener the votes needed to pass, the General Assembly today approved A2270, a bill that allows terminally ill patients to end their lives by obtaining and self-administering lethal doses of medication from a doctor.

The bill — also known as the “Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act” — ultimately passed 41-31, though not without difficulty. In the hours leading up to the vote this morning, Democrats, lead by the bill’s sponsors, Assemblymen John Burzichelli (D-3) and Tim Eustace (D-38 represents Bergenfield, Fair Lawn, and Paramus), worked to avoid pulling the measure a second time for lack of support.

It’s passage was complicated by Republicans who opposed the legislation on religious and moral grounds, but also a number devout Catholics on the Democrats’ side who also voted against it. Support for the bill broke down to 37 D’s to 4 Republican’s.

At the same time, opponents of the measure, which include members of the disabled community and the New Jersey Alliance Against Doctor-Prescribed Suicide, held their own press conference in protest of its passage. Marie Tasy, executive director of New Jersey Right to Life, argued that the legislation is “full of contradictory language that protects all parties except the patient.”

On the floor, Assemblyman Jay Webber (R-26) rose to question whether the bill would make the state more “compassionate and free” — two adjectives proponents of aid in dying legislation have used to defend the measure.

“This is obviously an area of the law that calls on us to use our hearts as well as our heads,” Webber said, arguing that the bill “would not make us a more compassionate state — we would become a colder state, if we were to open that door to our brothers and sister who are facing these decisions.”

Assemblyman Patrick Diegnan (D-18 represents Edison, Highland Park) gave an impassioned appeal in support of the bill, recounting experieces he endured with his dying mother that forced him to see the value in allowing patients the right to end their lives in their final days.

“How can anyone say it would not be "compassionate" to let her, of her own free will, end that suffering?,” Diegnan asked.

Differences over the bill ultimately came down to differences in philosophical and moral bearings among the chamber’s members, with Assemblyman David Rible (R-30 represents Lakewood) arguing there is still debate to be had on the issue and Assemblyman Troy Singleton (D-7) standing to defend an individual’s right to choice.

“Having life and having "liberty" means nothing if you don’t have the right to exercise that life and those liberties aka Murder,” he said.

Specifically, the bill says that in order to obtain the drugs, patients must be “in the terminal stage of an irreversibly fatal illness, disease, or condition with a prognosis, based upon reasonable medical certainty, of a life expectancy of six months or less.” It’s the second time Democrats in the Assembly attempted to pass the bill this year — it was scheduled for a vote in June but pulled from consideration at the last minute because of lack of support.

The vote’s passage comes amid a national debate over physician-assisted "suicide", also referred to as aid in dying.

(politickernj)  Highlights our additions

Why We Can't Trust Republicans To Fight Against Gay "Rights"

Republicans Have Zero Reaction To Obama's Historic LGBT Order

WASHINGTON -- When President Barack Obama signed an executive order last Monday making it illegal for federal contractors to fire or harass employees based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, civil gay "rights" advocates hailed the move as one of the most important actions ever taken by a president to stem "discrimination".

Democratic lawmakers raced to issue statements celebrating the advancement for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. In addition to offering new protections for transgender federal employees, the executive order covers the broad federal contracting community -- some 24,000 companies employing 28 million workers, or about one-fifth of the nation's workforce. and doesn't include any religious exemptions.

But in Republican quarters on Capitol Hill, it's as if nothing happened. GOP leaders have been silent. Socially conservative members have gone quiet.

The Huffington Post searched the websites of the 18 congressional Republican backers of the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act -- a companion bill to the executive order -- to see if any of them put out a statement. Only one did: Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who said he supports the policy behind the executive order because "employees shouldn’t face unjust "discrimination" in the workplace simply because of their sexual orientation," though he raised concerns about the rights of religious employers. to try and trick religious voters into thinking he cares

For all the LGBT rights "advancements" in recent years -- including the repeal of the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy; the Supreme Court's striking down the Defense of Marriage Act; and some 90 policy changes put into place by the Obama administration for federal employees -- the preferred response among congressional Republicans has been no response at all.

Perhaps nobody better illustrated this point than House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). HuffPost asked him Thursday if he had any reaction to Obama's LGBT executive order.

"Nope," Boehner said at his weekly briefing. "The president signs a lot of executive orders."

Asked if he supports the principle of workplace protections being extended to LGBT employees, he punted again.

"Listen, the president is going to make his decisions. He can," Boehner said.

HuffPost reached out to some socially conservative groups -- Focus on the Family, the Faith and Freedom Coalition, the Family Research Council and the American Family Association -- to see if they were frustrated with the silence from their GOP allies on Capitol Hill. HuffPost also reached out to LGBT rights groups, including the Human Rights Campaign and Americans for Workplace Opportunity, for their assessments. Most did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A spokeswoman for Focus on the Family declined to comment, but pointed to a colleague's recent blog post lamenting that the president of a Christian college has been "bullied" for urging Obama to let religiously affiliated institutions with federal contracts openly refuse to hire someone because he or she is LGBT.
On the other side, Human read gay "Rights" Campaign spokesman Fred Sainz said he considers Republicans' silence golden.

"While I would far prefer they speak on behalf of the equality their constituents support, it's definitely evidence of our progress when some say nothing," Sainz said.

One factor may be that Republicans simply aren't keeping up with the flurry of LGBT rights advancements. Rep. Michael Grimm represents part of Flatbush  (R-N.Y.), one of the eight House GOP co-sponsors of ENDA, said Thursday that he didn't know about Obama's executive order. But he emphasized that if it has the same goal as ENDA -- which it does, except that ENDA has far broader implications -- he supports it.
"I co-sponsored ENDA because I think that should be the law for everyone," Grimm said.or more accurately he thinks he needs some liberals support

The Republican lawmaker shrugged when asked if he thinks it's hurting his party that so many are sitting on the sidelines amid a revolution in LGBT rights. He said he thinks his colleagues are coming around. Slowly.

"Generally, I think our party is in transition," Grimm added. "More people are starting to pay attention." and then they will be officially just as bad as the democrats are
(Huffington Post) Highlights my additions

 

Why No Jew Should Vote For Chris Christie!

Currently, there is a grave issue in this country with Republican politicians caving in on same gender "marriage" and other devastating homosexual bills.

There are currently 3 Republican Senators in favor of same gender "marriage", including 2 in states where there is a large Orthodox population (Rob Portman- Ohio, Mark Kirk- Illinois, Lisa Murkowski-Alaska).  Last year there were none.  All these senators ran on a morality platform and have betrayed their constituents. Politicians do this because they know you are going to vote for them anyways. The only way to prevent them from voting like socially liberal democrats is if you don't vote for them.  

Recently, John McCain wrote an article condemning Russia's laws prohibiting the homosexual propaganda (teaching in schools about homosexuality, banning parades, etc). 

• They write laws to codify bigotry against people whose sexual orientation they condemn.  (John McCain)

 Most prominently, former president, George W. Bush, was a witness in a same gender "marriage".

In fact the Washington Post Recently Wrote An Article Titled "Gay rights supporters wage a quiet campaign to push Republicans to the middle.  Furthermore they wrote

• "But by proactively retracting his appeal, Christie gave voters in his blue state another reason to pull the lever for him in next month’s election.   Dropping the appeal did something else. It was an exhibition of the kind of leadership more national aspirants in the GOP would do well to emulate. Denying those couples the rights and responsibilities that come with civil marriage, denying anyone the full benefits of the American Dream, is not a winning strategy."     (Washington Post)

 Finally Christie has done more for the Toevah agenda then all the previous NJ governors put together. He passed a law that mandated teaching about homosexuality in public schools, banned therapy to help children lose their unwanted homosexual desires, and allowed same gender "marriage" to pass in the courts.
 
If you vote for Christie after he finalized the same gender "marriage", you will in essence be telling Republicans around the country you don't care about moral issues and that will lead to more Republicans caving in to the homosexual lobby. If you don't vote for Christie, but write in a vote in mass "no gay marriage" and Christie loses a lot of support because of that, Republicans around the country will be less likely to cave in to the homosexual lobby.

New Jersey Teaching Homosexuality Bill (Read About What Happened In NY because of a similar law)

Chris Christie YMS Allows Same Gender "Marriages"

After signing a Homosexual Teaching Bill, And Ban On Helping Children Get Rid of Homosexual Desires, Chris Christie does the ultimate Betrayal of allowing Same Gender "Marriages!  This a clear Betrayal of the 1000's of his supporters especially in Lakewood who only voted for him because of his opposition to Same Gender "Marriages". Maybe Lakewood CEO Aaron Kotler (Who Has yet to drop his support of Christie) Should have invited Christie To Shul last Shabbos to hear what happened to the cities (Sdom etc.) that were full of sexual immorality!

Don't Vote For Chris Christie This Year! 
Go To Vote and write in NO Gay "Marriages"!

As couples across New Jersey began "marrying" on Monday after the stroke of midnight, Gov. Chris Christie abandoned his long fight against same-sex "marriage", concluding that signals from the court and the march of history were against him.

Gov. Chris Christie rescinded his legal challenge to same-sex "marriages" the first day gay "couples" could "wed" in New Jersey.

His decision not to appeal a judge’s ruling that allowed the "weddings" removed the last hurdle to legalized same-sex "marriage" in New Jersey, making it the 14th state, along with the District of Columbia, to allow gay "couples" to "wed". 

Mr. Christie’s advisers said it became clear late on Friday that the fight had to end after the State Supreme Court announced it would not grant the governor’s request to block same-sex "marriages" while he appealed. 

Not only did the court decision say that his appeal had no “reasonable probability of success,” it was also unanimous — signed by the justices Mr. Christie has long warred against and by the one he considered on his side, Justice Anne M. Patterson. 

The governor concluded that, legally, he was out of arguments, and that it would be what one aide called a “fool’s errand” to continue in the face of almost certain failure. 

Politically, members of his staff bet that they could contain the damage by arguing that the governor had never changed his mind — he still opposes same-sex "marriage" — and blaming activist judges, which even critics of the governor’s decision began doing on Monday. 

“He looks realistic, while sticking to his principles — and people are happy,” said one adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss strategy. 

Mr. Christie, a Republican widely considered a leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination in 2016, has long tried to walk a fine line on same-sex "marriage", which polls show is popular in his home state, but opposed by conservative voters in important primary states. Last year, he vetoed legislation allowing same-sex "marriage", saying voters should decide the issue in a referendum. As recently as last week, he repeated his position that he believed marriage to be between a man and a woman. But he also signed a bill outlawing so-called gay conversion therapy, which angered conservatives. 

Even if he lost on the marriage issue, his aides said, Mr. Christie could still promote himself as the kind of politician voters embrace, because they know where he stands, even if they do not agree with him.

The dizzying events in New Jersey showed how quickly the politics of same-sex "marriage" have changed. 

Starting at midnight and into early Monday, same-sex "couples" from Asbury Park to Jersey City "wed" in emotional ceremonies that had been hastily arranged after the court denied Mr. Christie’s request for a delay. 

At 8:30 a.m., lawyers representing the couples who had sued to be allowed to "marry" received calls from the administration, telling them that the governor had dropped his appeal. In a conference call later, lawyers for Lambda Legal said that they expected to prevail with similar litigation in Nevada, Virginia and West Virginia, and that they were optimistic about their chances in the legislatures in Hawaii and Illinois.

“I think the handwriting was on the wall as clearly as it could possibly be,” said Lawrence S. Lustberg, a lawyer who argued the case for gay and lesbian "couples" before the New Jersey Supreme Court.

“The governor had always said he would fight this all the way up to the Supreme Court,” Mr. Lustberg added, “but he didn’t say he was going to fight it to the Supreme Court twice. As a matter of reasonable lawyering on the one hand, and a clear perception of what the court’s position was on the other, this was inevitable.”

Just four months ago, even advocates for same-sex "marriage" believed that the governor had firmly blocked it. A coalition of state and national gay rights groups was pushing to override his veto of same-sex "marriage" legislation, but they were far short of the votes they needed.

In September, Judge Mary C. Jacobson YMS of State Superior Court ruled that the state had to allow gay "marriages" to "comply" with the United States Supreme Court decision in June that guaranteed same-sex married couples the same federal benefits as heterosexual married couples. This activists decision still clearly had nothing to do with states not allowing same gender "marriage" In 2006, a New Jersey Supreme Court decision guaranteed "equal" protection to same-sex "couples", which prompted the State Legislature to enact "civil unions". But the United States Supreme Court decision meant that couples in "civil unions" did not have the same benefits as those in "marriages".this is clearly one judicial activism case built on top of another

A Rutgers Eagleton poll released on Monday found that a majority of respondents, including a majority of those supporting Mr. Christie in his bid for re-election on Nov. 5, did not want him to pursue the appeal. 

Mr. Christie is trying to roll up as big a margin of victory as possible next month so he can cast himself as a presidential candidate who can win even in blue states. Continuing to oppose same-sex "marriage" against the images of the jubilant "weddings" might have hurt that effort. at least that is what he "thinks"

His Democratic opponent, State Senator Barbara Buono, sought to remind voters that he had tried “to block the "rights" of gays and lesbians at every turn.”

“It took a determined effort by brave individuals,” Ms. Buono added, “and a unanimous decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court to force the governor to drop his appeal. I am thrilled the court ended his ability to enforce his "bigoted" views that are contrary to the values of our state.”

But even prominent Republican donors had been among those financing a campaign to override Mr. Christie’s veto, suggesting that the national politics of same-sex "marriage" might be shifting. Aides to the governor acknowledged that his decision might alienate primary voters who already doubt his social conservative credentials, but they added that he was never going to have an easy time in the Iowa presidential caucuses.

Still, the administration was not exactly celebrating the position it was in. Announcements from Mr. Christie’s office typically arrive with a news release, a video and a Twitter post. This one came in a sober note from a spokesman to reporters early on Monday; there was no announcement on the governor’s Web site.

“Although the governor strongly disagrees with the court substituting its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches or a vote of the people,” the note said, “the court has now spoken clearly as to their "view" of the "New Jersey Constitution" and, therefore, same-sex "marriage" is the law.

“The governor will do his constitutional duty and ensure his administration enforces the law as dictated by the New Jersey Supreme Court.”

National conservative groups criticized “an activist judiciary run amok,” in the words of the National Organization for Marriage. But they also had harsh words for Mr. Christie, for, as the organization said, “throwing in the towel.”

“The mark of a leader is to walk a principled walk no matter the difficulty of the path,” said the statement from the organization’s president, Brian Brown. “Chris Christie has failed the test, abandoning both voters and the core institution of society: marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” 

(NYT highlights mine)