West Virginia ballots will include a question on prohibiting physician-assisted death, potentially adding a section to the state constitution to explicitly prohibit physicians or health care providers from participating in “medically assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of a person.”
The language in the possible constitutional amendment concludes with a provision about a different set of policies surrounding death: “nothing in this section prevents the State from providing capital punishment.”
The measure got onto state ballots after votes of the state Legislature. Decisions during the legislative process were also the reason the amendment is meant, overall, to prevent taking life — while also including a provision to say it would not block the state from taking life if capital punishment were allowed in West Virginia.
Delegate Pat McGeehan, R-Hancock, conceived of the resolution and guided it through the legislative process months ago. He is headlining a public appearance in support of the amendment at 7 p.m. Tuesday at Weirton Madonna High School. His emphasis has been on decisions and financial pressures in the medical field.
“We go down this path, we’re asking doctors to cross a line that should never be crossed. Because once that line is crossed, where does it stop? Who decides what makes a good suicide versus a bad suicide?” McGeehan said in a telephone interview earlier this month.
“So at the end of the day, this is about the preserving of life for everyone. In West Virginia, we take care of each other. We don’t pressure people into thinking they’re a burden, and we don’t divide families — and we certainly don’t let profit or politics decide the value of human life.”
The resolution passed the House of Delegates relatively early in the most recent regular session, Feb. 15, without the inclusion of any line about capital punishment. But the matter lingered a while longer in the state Senate, up until the very last day.
Over the course of the regular session, the Senate had mulled a couple of matters relating to capital punishment, which was abolished in the state in 1965. Early in this year’s session, Senate President Craig Blair had floated potential legislation to reinstate the death penalty for certain drug offenders. Separately, Senator Mike Stuart had pushed for a death penalty option as punishment for people held accountable in the deaths of first responders. Neither passed.
When the Senate moved toward final consideration of the resolution on physician-assisted death on March 9, Senate Finance Chairman Eric Tarr proposed amended language that included the line to say the constitutional amendment should not be construed as closing off capital punishment as a potential policy in West Virginia.
The move puzzled Senate Minority Leader Mike Woelfel, who rose to question it. Woelfel, D-Cabell, expressed support for the basis of the amendment but questioned the internal logic of including a reference to capital punishment.
Here’s how the back-and-forth went:
Woelfel, addressing Tarr: “I know we’re both pro-life. I know I am; are you?”
Tarr, R-Putnam: “Absolutely.”
Woelfel: “And I think this is a pro-life — what we had coming out of Judiciary is a pro-life bill. In other words, we’re going to respect the dignity of life at life’s end and not allow assisted suicide. Am I right about that?”
Tarr: “That’s correct.”
Woelfel: “Why in the world would we have the death penalty referred to in this? Do you consider the death penalty a pro-life issue?”
Tarr: “Well, personally, it’s more about the confusion on the issue on the ballot.”
Woelfel: “Well, I’m confused right now. So explain to me how the death penalty is pro-life.”
Tarr: “The question here on this issue is not about whether it’s pro-life or not. This is a resolution that goes on the ballot that says that medically assisted suicide would not be legal in West Virginia constitutionally. It also clarifies that capital punishment is not medically assisted suicide. That’s the reason for the language.”
Woelfel “Well, of course capital punishment is not medically assisted suicide. In the capital punishment situation, the person wants to live. In the medical suicide situation, the person wants to die. Can you agree with me on that?”
Tarr: “I would. Wanted to make sure nobody else would be confused on the ballot either.”
Woelfel: “What?”
Tarr: “I would agree, and we wanted to make sure nobody else would be confused about that when they would read it on the ballot.”
Woelfel: “So, how can you be pro-death and pro-life at the same time? Why are we talking about the death penalty within the context of a pro-life bill.”
Tarr: “I don’t look at this necessarily as a pro-life bill. I look at it as we will not allow assisted suicide in West Virginia.”
Woelfel: “Well, that’s pro-life. I thought we agreed on that three minutes ago.”
Tarr: “I think it’s a pro-life action.”
Woelfel: “Yeah, a pro-life action. So how in the world can we put a pro-death reference into that, which is capital punishment?”
Tarr: “It does not constitutionally go in and protect capital punishment. It just says that capital punishment is not prohibited by this amendment.”
Woelfel:, concluding and expressing thanks for Tarr’s effort to explain: “I don’t understand the dichotomy. I don’t understand the contradiction. But I appreciate it.”
The Senate adopted the resolution 28-4 with two absences. Both Woelfel and Tarr were among the yes votes.
West Virginians for Life has expressed support for the constitutional amendment, but Mary Tillman of its West Virginia Alliance for Ethical Health Care subcommittee acknowledged that the wording about capital punishment could confuse voters.
“It’s unfortunate,” Tillman said last week on MetroNews’ “Talkline.”
Referring to the decision on the Senate floor, Tillman said, “He just wanted to say if — very big if — you know, 10 years, 20 years down the road for some reason someone was trying to promote capital punishment, they knew that this state constitutional amendment has nothing to do with it. It remains neutral on that issue. So it’s really kind of a wash. It’s just saying we’re neutral on that issue; we’re not dealing with that issue.”
She concluded, “But it is kind of a confusing thing that got thrown in at the last minute.”
Bishop Mark Brennan of the Wheeling-Charleston Diocese in West Virginia also supports the amendment, but he also said the capital punishment reference probably would have been better off left out.
“Frankly, I think it would have been much better if they had left that phrase out of there,” Brennan said last week on MetroNews’ “Talkline,” adding that his understanding was the line was added “to gain the votes necessary from people who want to reinstate the death penalty, to gain their votes for this amendment.”
Brennan noted, “the Catholic church absolutely opposes reimposing the death penalty.” He continued, “That’s the state becoming barbaric, frankly, when it doesn’t need to.”
On the Senate floor, as the final language of the resolution passed months ago, Woelfel predicted the capital punishment addition could be its downfall on ballots.
“I support the resolution,” he said, “but to confuse the citizens of our state — bringing the death penalty into a pro-life bill — is just bizarre,” he said. “It’s probably going to cause this to go down. You put this in there, this language — a good constitutional amendment, which I fully support — it’s a mistake; mark my words.”