Update: Senate and Assembly vote to approve using your tax dollars to fund the largest abortion provider. Take Action Now!

Defund the horror

Update:  On June 27, both the Senate and Assembly voted in favor of A3492/S2277 and A1963/S1017 to use your hard earned tax dollars to fund Planned Parenthood.

We will publish the votes of your legislators as soon as the vote tallies become available.

Take Action:  Please call and email Governor Christie and thank him for vetoing these bills in the past and urge him to do so again.

You can send a prewritten email message to the Governor from our website by clicking on the tab that says, “Legislation.”  It’s the third item on the page.  Thank you.

You can call the Governor’s office at 609-292-6000.


Both the Senate & Assembly scheduled two bills for a vote on Monday, June 27th that will use our hard earned tax dollar to fund Planned Parenthood. They are A3492/S2277 and A1963/S1017.  Take action to oppose now! On Thursday, Assembly Dems continually tried to censor the truth about Planned Parenthood. This occurred when NJRTL Exec Dir Marie Tasy attempted to tell the Assembly budget committee why Planned Parenthood should not be funded by taxpayers and was repeatedly and rudely interrupted by the Chair and only given 3 minutes to provide remarks while PP officials were allowed to provide testimony uninterrupted and were even praised and thanked by the Chair. Our comments did not make it into the News coverage even though our written remarks were provided to the press. Please take action on these bills now! Please don’t allow Planned Parenthood’s lobbyists and their bullies in the legislature to censor the truth about Planned Parenthood! Take action now to let your lawmakers know where you stand on this issue!

NJ taxpayers: Take Action to make sure your hard earned money is not used to fund Planned Parenthood!  Call and write your State Senator and Two Assembly Members and tell them to Vote No on A3492/S2277 and A1963/S1017! We plan to publish these votes.  Tell your legislators:  A vote in favor of these bills is a vote to fund the killing of children by the nation’s largest abortion provider.
Take action at the third item on this page:


Babies in the Womb Feel Pain: Please Support A3452/S2026, the NJ Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

twenty week baby


There is substantial medical evidence that babies in the womb feel pain at a very early stage of gestation.  Thanks to advances in medicine, babies as young as 20 weeks post-fertilization can survive and thrive with appropriate care and treatment.  Experts in the field of Maternal-Fetal medicine routinely administer pain medication as standard medical practice because they recognize these babies as patients. There have been many instances of babies who survived abortions who were left to die or killed by abortionists.  We have to look no further than the Gosnell case in Pennsylvania.

The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act will protect babies in the womb at 20 weeks and older who are capable of feeling pain and ensure that babies born alive during an abortion will be given the same proper life saving medical care given to premature infants.  Babies in the womb experience excruciating pain during an abortion.  A recent video from a former abortion provider, Dr. Anthony Levatino, explains how these abortions are done in this video  (Warning:  viewing content may be disturbing for some.)

Take Action Now!

We are happy to report that A3452/S2026, the NJ Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act has been introduced in the NJ Legislature.  We thank the sponsors of this bill for recognizing the horrific practices of the abortion industry, who callously and with depraved indifference to human life, brutally and routinely end the lives of innocent babies in the womb and endanger the lives of women.  This bill is modeled after H.R. 36, the Federal bill by the same name. Passing this legislation is part of the 2020 Project, a collaborative effort by pro-life groups in NJ to protect pain capable babies.  For more information on this initiative, please visit www.babiesinthewombfeelpain.com

Please go to the www.njrtl.org Legislation page and Take Action here on this legislation. It’s time we protect babies in the womb capable of feeling pain.

What do medical experts say about whether babies in the womb feel pain?

We are obligated to protect the undefensible,” stated Dr. Colleen A. Malloy, who teaches in the Neonatology division at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine. Testifying before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, March 15, 2016,  Dr. Malloy said that advances in technology show the “viability” of human life at an earlier age than previously believed.

A child definitely feels pain at 20 weeks, testified Dr. Malloy, and it is certainly “viable.” Because of technological advancements “we have pushed back the gestational age” of when an unborn child “can be resuscitated and resuscitated successfully,” she said.

These children “are moving, reacting, and developing right before our eyes in the neonatal intensive care unit,” she said.

A June 2009 study of over 300,000 babies by the American Medical Association found that, among children aged 20 to 24 weeks post-conception, they had a steadily higher chance of survival with each passing week, ranging from 10 percent at the beginning to 85 percent at the end.

“Given these survival numbers, the NICU commonly cares for infants born in this gestational age range. We can easily witness their humanity, as well as their experiences with pain,” she testified.

The standard of care for NICUs requires attention to and treatment of neonatal pain,” she said. “There is no reason to believe that a born infant will feel pain any differently than that same infant if he or she were still in utero.”

“I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to a horrific procedure such as those that involve limb detachment or cardiac injection.”

Dr. Kathi Aultman, a retired gynecologist, said she had performed both first and second trimester abortions, had an abortion herself, and has a cousin who is an abortion survivor.

After performing second-trimester abortions, she recounted how she had to examine the remains of the unborn child and found “perfectly-formed organs.” While she worked in the neonatal intensive care unit by day and in an abortion clinic by night, her conscience began to be troubled by the fact that she was intent on saving babies in the NICU who were the same age as those being aborted in the clinic.


The Real War on Women

gosnell57Statement by New Jersey Right to Life, 3/31/2016.

In recent days, the media and pro-abortion presidential candidates and their abortion supporters have made much of comments made by Donald Trump during an interview with CNBC’s Chris Matthews.     This post is to clarify the position of the pro-life movement and expose the hypocrisy of pro-abortion candidates and supporters who claim to care so much about women.

The pro-life movement has always sought to protect women from prosecution in any pro-life laws that have passed or bills that have been introduced.   If Roe v. Wade were overturned, the laws in each state would revert back to what they were before the decision became the law of the land.  It’s important to note that, in NJ, women were exempted from prosecution before Roe v. Wade, so that provision would stand if Roe was overturned.    Women have been physically and psychologically injured and maimed by abortion (yes, and some have even died at the hands of abortion providers) and many abortion clinics right here in NJ have been found to be in violation of health and safety regulations.

As we have seen from the Kermit Gosnell case, supporters of abortion will go to any length (even when women die) to cover up or ignore abuses that occur inside the abortion industry.  This is the real war on women.

Here are fout articles which detail some of the recent abuses which have occurred inside abortion clinics in our area.




This abortionist is still managing clinics here in NJ, even though his medical  license has been revoked:


4/1/16 Incident in Maryland:







U.S. Supreme Court Holds Hearing on Texas Law Which Protects Women and Babies


The Supreme Court today held oral arguments in the potential landmark case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt that concerns a Texas pro-life law. the law is arguably responsible for saving the lives of tens of thousands of unborn babies by closing abortion clinics that are unable to protect women’s health. The laws protects women’s health and welfare by requiring abortion clinics to meet the kinds of medical and safety standards that legitimate medical centers meet.

Abortion advocates challenged the law and those facility regulations and hospital admitting requirements, arguing that these clinics should not be held to the same health standards as other outpatient ambulatory facilities.

Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller argued the case before the court and he was immediately met with skepticism from the pro-abortion members of the high court.

“According to you, the slightest health improvement is enough to burden the lives of a million women,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told him.

Justice Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote on almost any abortion case and he appeared sympathetic to the argument that abortion clinics should be expected to comply with sensible medical standards if given enough time, according to the Washington Examiner:

“Regulations sometimes take years to adopt,” Kennedy said. At another point, he suggested the lower district court could delay a final decision for a few more years, until it becomes clear whether clinics remain closed, as opponents of the law predict, or whether they manage to reopen.

Kennedy has supported some abortion limits in the past, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. But how far he’s willing to let states go in tamping down on abortion is not clear.

Roger Severino, director of the Heritage Foundation’s DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, watched the oral arguments and said he thought they went as expected. He is hopeful that Justice Kennedy will side with Texas in upholding the law.

Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter.

“We had the liberal/conservative breakdown in the Court that you would expect among the justices, but Justice Kennedy, in the few questions he asked, showed some hesitation about courts second-guessing the state’s ability to regulate abortion clinics,” Severino said. “Even Justice Breyer acknowledged the state’s intent in regulating abortion clinics was a legitimate desire to help further women’s health and not for some nefarious purpose.”

“Justice Alito repeatedly challenged the plaintiffs to point to the evidence that clinics closed because of these regulations as opposed to some other reason, and asked for any evidence that the abortion industry cannot adapt to the new standards,” he added.

Severino emphasized “this case is about the ability of Texas to increase the health and safety standards at abortion clinics. The abortion industry should not get a special exemption and Texas is well within its rights to act.”

The pro-life group Texas Right to Life outlined what the court will consider when it decides the case:

Today, the Supreme Court will be considering two explicit questions in the Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstadt case over the Texas law:

(1) Whether, when applying the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a court errs by refusing to consider whether and to what extent laws that restrict abortion for the stated purpose of promoting health actually serve the government’s interest in promoting health; and

(2) whether the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit erred in concluding that this standard permits Texas to enforce, in nearly all circumstances, laws that would cause a significant reduction in the availability of abortion services while failing to advance the State’s interest in promoting health – or any other valid interest.

Both of these questions deal with the “undue burden” standard from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which has been used to challenge every type of Pro-Life legislation across the country since 1992.  Whether the abortion industry is challenging informed consent laws (like Texas’ Sonogram Bill in 2011), prohibitions on late abortions (as in Arizona in 2014), or higher medical standards (as in the current challenge to House Bill 2), the plaintiffs use the vague and undefined “undue burden” standard in all cases.

The Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue of abortion since 2007, when the Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in Gonzales v. Carhart.

California Surrogate Pregnant with Triplets Refuses Demand to Abort Baby


Governor Christie twice vetoed a bill to allow commercial gestational surrogacy in NJ.  The sponsors of that bill have reintroduced the same bill (A910/S1238) earlier this year.  This article illustrates one of the many reasons why gestational surrogacy should never be legalized. Please contact your State Senator and two Assembly members and urge them to Vote No on A910/S1238.

Triplets Born 7 Weeks Early After Surrogate Refuses Sperm Donor’s Demand to Abort a Baby

NATIONAL  www.lifenews.com
MICAIAH BILGER   FEB 25, 2016   |   11:35AM    WASHINGTON, DC

The Daily Mail reports surrogate mother Melissa Cook gave birth to the three boys several weeks early, and the babies are being cared for at the hospital. Though Cook successfully fought to save the babies’ lives from abortion, they were immediately taken away from her because the babies’ biological father has full custody, the report states.

Cook faced pressure from the triplets’ biological father to abort one of them because he said he only could afford two children, LifeNews previously reported. The Georgia man, referred to only as C.M., threatened to not pay Cook if she refused to abort one of the babies, according to reports.

“They are human beings. I bonded with these kids. This is just not right,” Cook said in November.

The babies were conceived using the father’s sperm and a 20-year-old donor’s eggs,LifeNews previously reported. Cook’s contract with the biological father would pay her $33,000 for the pregnancy, plus $6,000 for each additional child.

Immediately after the babies were born Monday evening, they were taken from Cook, her lawyer Harold Cassidy told reporters. Cassidy said a judge granted C.M. full parental rights, but Cook is appealing the decision.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

“The hospital personnel refused to let Melissa see the children, allow her to know what their condition is, refused to tell her their exact weights, and she is not being permitted to see the children at all,” Cassidy said. “We have a mother who loves them, who fought for them, who defended their life, who stands ready to take care of them. You can’t tell a mother who gives birth to children that what happens to the children is none of her business.”

Cook is suing for parental rights of the boys, according to Fox News. She also ischallenging California’s surrogate law in federal court, claiming that it is unconstitutional.

The report continues:

Court documents reveal correspondence involving Cook and C.M., including a Sept. 18, 2015 message the father wrote to his attorney to say visits to a fertility clinic by Cook, whose pregnancy was deemed high-risk due to her age, were “draining my finances.”

“I do not want to abort twin babies, but I felt that is such possible (sic) to seek aborting all three babies,” he wrote. “I do not want to affect Melissa’s health. I do not have any more money in the bank, and my job does not pay great bi-weekly.”

Cook’s lawsuit says that, “C.M. depleted his life savings paying for the infertility doctors, paying the surrogacy broker, paying the anonymous ova donor, paying the lawyers and putting money into trust for the surrogate,” prompting “his demand that Melissa have an abortion because he could not financially afford the children and was otherwise incapable of raising the children.”

Surrogacy contracts typically allow for what is known “selective reduction,” where an embryo or fetus can be aborted, usually for medical reasons. The contract in this case was not made available to Fox News.

Last Nov. 24, according to the lawsuit, C.M. wrote: “My decision made is, requires a selection reduction (sic). I am so sorry.”

Cook, who was hired through Santa Barbara-based Surrogacy International, claims that she was threatened with legal and financial damages if she refused to undergo the procedure.

Robert Walmsley, who represents C.M., said his client asked Cook to abort one of the babies because of possible abnormalities.

The biological father also issued a statement this week, claiming that his intentions were misrepresented in the heavily publicized story.

“I have addressed those misrepresentations in the appropriate forum – the judicial system – and the appropriate Court has heard both sides and issued a correct ruling based on California law and any constitutional issues that there may be. I stand by the Court’s ruling,” C.M. said. “My interest is in protecting my three children. I continue to have concern for the health and welfare of the surrogate and wish to avoid her having unnecessary stress through a public presentation. I have no interest in sensationalizing the situation.”

The publicity surrounding Cook’s story prompted another surrogate mother to come forward and seek help for a very similar situation.

The anonymous Southern California surrogate also is pregnant with triplets, LifeNews reported in November. She said one of the parents of her unborn children is pressuring her to abort at least one of them.

After reading about Cook’s situation in the news, a friend of the anonymous woman contacted the Center for Bioethics and Culture, a watchdog group for surrogacy exploitation, and asked for legal help to save the unborn triplets, the report states.

“This woman was asked to submit to an abortion. She’s asking for legal help,” said Jennifer Lahl, director of the center. “That’s why Melissa Cook’s story was so empowering. When one woman tells her story, it encourages other women to come forward. There’s strength in numbers.”



Abortionist Who Lost License Manages Clinics

NJRTL’s comment:

Marie Tasy, executive director for New Jersey Right to Life, said she “applauded the Attorney General for pursuing this case and hopes their case against Kaji and Brigham will prevail.”

“This is just more of the usual legal semantic gymnastics and abuse of the law we have come to expect from Brigham and Kaji,” Tasy added. “The fact that Brigham is still in charge of these clinics in an administrative capacity is deeply disturbing and in contravention of New Jersey law. The real losers in all of this are unsuspecting women who frequent these clinics.”

steven brigham abortion doctor
Steven Chase Brigham, seen in this file photo at a Board of Medical Examiners hearing, manages the abortion clinics he said he no longer owns. The state revoked his license in 2014.

Susan K. Livio | NJ Advance Media for NJ.comBy Susan K. Livio | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on February 02, 2016 at 11:53 AM, updated February 02, 2016 at 4:45 PM

TRENTONThe doctor stripped of his license for committing “gross negligence”while performing late-term abortions is managing the seven clinics he used to own, according to a document released Tuesday by the state Board of Medical Examiners.

The revelation that Steven Brigham is still linked to American Women’s Services was contained in a 24-page decision from state’s physician disciplinary board that said the true ownership of the clinics ought to be decided by a judge.

The ruling is at least a temporary victory for Vikram Kaji, the clinics’ long-time medical director whom Brigham tapped to take ownership after the board revoked Brigham’s license in 2014. He had to divest himself from the business because the state requires medical practices to be owned by a physician.

In June, Deputy Attorney General Bindi Merchant asked the medical board to immediately suspend or revoke Kaji’s license for fraud, alleging the transfer from Brigham to Kaji was a “sham.”

Instead, an administrative law judge will decide the matter and turn the recommendation over to the board for a final decision.

N.J. Attorney General: Abortion doctor unlawfully owns clinics

N.J. Attorney General: Abortion doctor unlawfully owns clinics

The allegations accuse 79-year-old gynecologist Vikram H. Kaji of fraud for claiming he had assumed ownership of clinics after Steven Brigham’s license was yanked for gross negligence. Brigham has appealed the decision.

Merchant produced statements Kaji made to a state investigator in April and a committee of the board in May, denying he was the owner. “He expressly testified that ‘there is no other person around, (Brigham’s) the only one who runs the show,” according to the Merchant’s complaint.

But Joseph Gorrell, the attorney for both Kaji and Brigham, challenged the state’s case, producing records and new testimony from Kaji who he claimed was “confused” by the questions. No property had changed hands, and the business itself was losing money, so there was no actual sale, according to the decision.

Gorrell produced a contract that showed Kaji had hired Fidelity Venture Services, a management company owned by Brigham.

“He has absolutely no clinical responsibilities. He is acting as a manager which does not require a license,” Gorrell said. The management company was established long before the dispute, he added.

The board ultimately agreed that it could not move ahead on a decision about Kaji’s license under a summary judgment motion. “There are material facts that are genuinely disputed,” according to the decision.

“We are pleased with the decision, which we believe is correct because there are significant factual disputes in the case,” Gorrell said.

Marie Tasy, executive director for New Jersey Right to Life, said she “applauded the Attorney General for pursuing this case and hopes their case against Kaji and Brigham will prevail.”

“This is just more of the usual legal semantic gymnastics and abuse of the law we have come to expect from Brigham and Kaji,” Tasy added. “The fact that Brigham is still in charge of these clinics in an administrative capacity is deeply disturbing and in contravention of New Jersey law. The real losers in all of this are unsuspecting women who frequent these clinics.”

The board suspended Brigham’s license in 2010 after the state argued he used the two-state process to evade New Jersey’s requirement that terminating pregnancies must take place in a hospital or licensed health care facility after 14 weeks. Brigham did not have hospital privileges at the time and is not an obstetrician or a gynecologist. His license was revoked in 2014, but Brigham has appealed.

From his main office in Voorhees, Brigham inserted Laminaria, a device to expand his patients’ cervixes, and administered a shot of Digoxin to cause “fetal demise.” At his instruction, his patients later drove to drive to a clinic in Elkton, Md. where the fetus would be surgically removed by another doctor in consultation with Brigham.

One patient was severely injured during the medical procedure in Maryland and needed to be airlifted to a hospital.

Brigham was not licensed to practice medicine in Maryland, but he thought he was following Maryland law that allowed its doctors to consult with out-of-state physicians, his attorney said.

Susan K. Livio may be reached at slivio@njadvancemedia.com. Follow her on Twitter @SusanKLivio. Find NJ.com Politics on Facebook.

**Updated 2/8/16 ** Physician Assisted Suicide Bill (A2451) Reintroduced in the Assembly. Take Action

stop physician assisted suicide


**Updated 2/8/16**

Assemblyman Jhn Burzichelli (D-3) has reintroduced the Physician Assisted Suicide Bill (2451).  The text of the new bill, A2451, is now available on-line, and appears to be identical to the previous version.  We expect the Senate version to be introduced shortly.

Background on NJ Physician Assisted Legislation

The previous bill (A2270/S382) passed the NJ Assembly by one vote on November 13,  2014, but failed to garner enough support in the NJ Senate, and consequently, expired in the last session.  Read the January 12, 2016 Press Release from the Alliance Against Doctor Prescribed Suicide here

11/13/14 State Assembly Vote

To see how your Two Assembly Members voted on November 13, 2014 and for background information on the Assembly legislative process in the last session, please click here

More information on efforts to legalize physician assisted suicide in NJ can be found on our webpages.

Take Action:

If you don’t know who your legislators are, go to the tab on the njrtl webpage marked, “Legislation” and add your 9 digit zip code.  Once you add your 9 digit zip code, click “Go.  A page will open that will provide pictures and names of your federal and state elected officials. (Helpful hint:  you will need to use the scroll bar on the right hand side and scroll down to the bottom of the page to find your State Senator and Two Assembly Members.)

If your Two State Assembly Members voted No previously, please contact them and thank them for their No vote. Urge them to vote No again on A2451 if it comes up for a vote.

If your Two State Assembly Members Voted Yes, please contact them and tell them you are disappointed in their vote and that you expect them to vote No on A2451 if it comes up again.

If one or two of your State Assembly members are newly elected, schedule a meeting to speak with them and educate them about the dangers of Bill A2451.

Teachers Shouldn’t be ATM’s for Partisan Super PACs

Mary Pat AngeliniTeachers Shouldn’t Be ATM’s For Partisan Super PAC’s

Millions in outside Super PAC spending has become the new norm in New Jersey politics. In fact, nearly half of all money spent in last month’s elections came from these Super PAC’s which, by raising and spending unlimited sums of money, have dramatically altered the political landscape in our state.

Sadly, most of the millions spent to fund personal attacks against candidates across New Jersey didn’t come from donors who offered their financial support to the candidate of their choice. It came primarily from hardworking teachers who have no say on how their union dues are spent and are likely unaware that a portion of their hard-earned salary was used to assail an award-winning charity which exists to counteract the harmful effects of substance abuse and violence.

Anyone in the Monmouth County area with a radio or a television likely heard the relentless attack ads that sought to damage my political career by grossly distorting how the agency I run operates.

However, in a sign of the new political reality, these ads were not funded by my opponents; instead, they were an independent expenditure of the General Majority PAC–a Washington, DC-based political operation run by Senator Harry Reid’s former chief of staff, Susan McCue who also serves on the Rutgers Board of Governors despite the fact that she doesn’t even live in New Jersey.

This year the NJEA funneled nearly $4 million in member dues to the General Majority PAC which funded ads against legislative candidates across New Jersey. And a sizable chunk of that money—more than $1.5 million–was used, in part, to create and disseminate radio and television commercials that denigrated a non-profit that gives young people the tools to avoid alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, as well as other negative behaviors.

Ironically, the very program attacked by this NJEA-backed group partners with educators in the classroom to help keep children healthy and safe. One can’t help but wonder if the teachers working side-by-side with prevention specialists and substance abuse professionals were even aware that their union dues were funding the assault on the agency providing these resources to their students.

Unfortunately, these and other valuable programs that seek to protect our children are nothing more than collateral damage in the effort to secure a political victory.

In today’s hyper-partisan world, we have come to expect the heated rhetoric and negative attacks which seem to dominate every election cycle. What is troubling, however, is when the vicious attacks are coming not from the politicians themselves, but from outside groups that care little about the destruction they inflict in pursuit of their political goals.

And, even more troubling, is that the men and women who dedicate their professional lives to preparing our young people for success can be used like human ATM’s by political groups that will destroy anyone or anything that gets in their way.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. In my professional and political life, I have met scores of wonderful teachers who are doing incredible work in classrooms throughout our state. And while we may not agree on every issue, I am confident that the vast majority of educators would object to their union dues being used in this manner.

As such, I urge the teachers of New Jersey to reject these underhanded tactics by demanding that their union leaders stop funneling money to political groups that that engage in this type of slash-and-burn politics. Otherwise, they should replace their union leadership with individuals who recognize that teachers, who play such a vital role in our children’s lives, do not want their paychecks used to fund the vicious personal attacks that marked the last election cycle.

In addition, the aforementioned McCue, a Virginia resident and an extreme partisan with ties to some of the biggest Democrats in the country, should no longer be allowed to serve in a prominent role at our state university. Governor Christie should demand her immediate resignation and replace her on the Rutgers Board of Governors with a New Jersey resident who will put the interests of the children and residents of this state ahead of their political agenda.

Slanderous, personal attacks from unaccountable Super PACs might be the new norm for politics, but our state should not reward unqualified partisan hacks with powerful positions at our state institutions and our teachers shouldn’t be used as ATM’s to fund campaigns that have nothing to do with improving education in our state.


By Assemblywoman Mary Pat Angelini

Assisted Suicide bill dies in NJ Senate: An Important Victory That Bolsters Opposition Nationwide

NJassisted suicide



For Immediate Release

January 12, 2016


Contact: Tim Rosales


Assisted Suicide Bill Dies in New Jersey Senate

An important victory that bolsters opposition nationwide

Trenton, NJ – “The New Jersey Alliance Against Doctor-Prescribed Suicide applauds the New Jersey Senate for recognizing the dangers to older people and those with disabilities and allowing S 382, legislation to legalize assisted suicide, to die without a vote on the floor of the Senate,” stated Kate Blisard of Not Dead Yet.   “People are surprised to learn that all major national disability groups that have taken a position on the issue oppose the legalization of assisted suicide because the dangers of misdiagnosis, coercion and abuse put us at great risk.”


“A bi-partisan group of New Jersey Senators took the time to listen to the disability-rights community and to understand why it is important that doctor-prescribed suicide not become law in New Jersey,” continued Democratic Senator Peter Barnes. “It became clear that this bill would have a detrimental impact on vulnerable populations and expose them to abuse, coercion and possible denial of health care because it costs more than suicide drugs. While the bill’s few, vocal supporters educated legislators as to their personal concerns, it became clear that there are other solutions than doctor-prescribed suicide to address end-of-life pain.  For that reason, there was never a groundswell of support for this bill and, on balance, we heard from many more voices opposed to this bill.”


The New Jersey Alliance exposed the following flaws in S 382:


  • No requirement of mental health evaluation or pain relief consultation.
  • Permits an heir to witness a death request.
  • Requires no oversight on whether the patient was willing to take the lethal drugs.
  • No requirement that a medical person be present to supervise the ingestion of lethal drugs.
  • Allows a third party familiar with how the patient communicates to make the death request.
    • Permits lethal drugs to remain in a patient’s home without securing them.
    • Relies on the inaccurate premise that a doctor can predict death within six months.
    • No distinction as to whether the death prediction is with or without treatment of the patient.
    • No required notification of family members.
    • Immunizes from prosecution anyone participating in administering lethal drugs,  even if their participation was coercive and out of self-interest
    • Falsely certifies the cause of death.


The New Jersey Alliance Against Doctor-Prescribed Suicide is a broadly-based, diverse coalition of organizations strongly opposed to the legalization of assisted suicide.  Alliance organizations include:


Resources for Independent Living

Dial, Inc. Center for Independence

Center for Independent Living

Heightened Independence and Progress – Bergen

Heightened Independence and Progress — Hudson

Progressive Center for Independent Living

Total Living Center

National Council on Independent Living

Not Dead Yet

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund

Autistic Self Advocacy Network

Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living

United Spinal Association

New Jersey Catholic Conference

New Jersey Right to Life

New Jersey Family Policy Council

American Academy of Medical Ethics


The Alliance website is located at www.noassistedsuicidenj.org. It can also be found on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/NoAssistedSuicideNJ/ and followed on Twitter at: @NoNJSuicide





If you no longer wish to receive these emails, click here to unsubscribe.