JANET CONN's ACCOUNT OF HER APPEARANCE BEFORE A LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

It was quite an adventure.
Of course the Republican committee passed the bill 7-5, right down party lines.
It goes next to the Ways and Means Committee.
I suppose the same thing will happen there and the bill will go to the floor for a full House vote.
The good news is that it isn’t even getting a committee hearing in the Senate,
as far as I can tell – Democrats are in charge there – so it will die for this session.

Here’s how it went.

The Committee met from 12:30 to 2:15 and got through 9 bills,
with the rest of the agenda to be covered in the session starting at 5:00.
When I arrived, the clerk said 3255 was # 5, but such was not to be.
We were #12 or so, after the break from 7:00 to 7:30.
I could see the opposition troops waiting across the hearing room:
a row of wheelchairs with a variety of disabled people in them.

When we were finally called, the bill’s author made an amendment
to exclude situations in which the person is dying anyway,
as opposed to someone who could continue indefinitely with nutrition and hydration.
That’s the good news.
He also excluded minors, because they are covered by a federal law.
The first testifier was Laura Gese (ghee-see) from MCCL
– Minn Citizens Concerned for Life, the local anti-abortion gang.
She was followed by a doctor who simply said
that food and water were basic care we all need to survive,
not extraordinary, not medical treatment.
And three people in wheelchairs who described how they were at first depressed
about their conditions and thought maybe they would rather be dead,
but now they are glad they are alive and leading amazingly active and fulfilling lives.

I was the first of two speakers against the bill.
When I said we support individual’s right to choose,
I added “as these previous witnesses have made their choices, which I totally support.”
At the end of my remarks, I gave the committee members Health Care Directives forms,
“in case they didn’t have one already.”

The other anti was from a medical association. He didn’t have much to say.

In the question period, the first speaker was a Democrat
who said that after having to deal with these issues with both his parents,
and struggling to do the best he could, he was troubled by the implication in the bill
that in choosing to withdraw the tubes he was doing something wrong.

Another one tried to challenge the MCCL a bit, but was cut off as being off the subject.
Then a 3^rd Democrat objected to having inquiry and debate cut off like that,
saying no one was going to tell him what he could or couldn’t say as a committee member.
He’s a smart young (39) black lawyer from North Minneapolis
with a rights background. I bet they hate him.

This bill has evoked a public response,
because one Republican said he found it to be “not as nefarious as the e-mails suggested.”
He and the other Republican expressing an opinion
said it was good to protect people who can’t speak for themselves,
and the presumption in favor of life was a good position for the government to take.

Attending the hearing but not speaking was Barbara Blumer,
an attorney and HospiceMN board member who testified at the previous committee hearing.
She said she authored by current Health Care Directive legislation in the 90’s.
I was pleased to hear that she thought I did a good job.

I plan to write a thank you note to each of the Democrats on the committee,
and send them a C&C brochure.
The one whose parents died is an obvious prospect for support for our issues.

The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author.
The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.