Objections to the Process and Serious Concerns about Nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch Are Raised by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons AAPS

By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Health & Medicine Week -- Newswire/ -- An unprecedented lobbying-driven process to fill the vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia has sparked objections by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), and serious concerns about the nominee Neil Gorsuch. He has never served as a legislator or on a state court, and his written work casts severe doubt as to whether he fulfills President Trump's pro-life pledge that he repeatedly emphasized during his campaign (see also Association of American Physicians and Surgeons AAPS).

Multiple better-qualified candidates on the list by which Trump campaigned were apparently never seriously considered HYPERLINK "http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-supreme-court-gorsuch-234474" nor even interviewed. Instead, HYPERLINK "http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/how_the_federalist_society_became_the_de_facto_selector_of_republican_supreme.html" npublished reports indicate that virtually all of the finalists actually considered by Trump were heavily promoted by a private organization, the Federalist Society, having its own massive fundraising goals.

At age only 49, Gorsuch could hold power on the Supreme Court for 40 years, and yet the D.C. Republican Establishment demands endorsements of him prior to public discussion or hearings. "An unprecedented tenure of that length would surely bring unwelcome surprises," observes AAPS Executive Director Jane Orient, M.D.

The biggest praise for Gorsuch seems to be for siding with religious liberty in the Hobby Lobby case, but that does not protect non-religious rights of conscience. Moreover, his Hobby Lobby decision failed to question the constitutionality of ObamaCare itself.

Gorsuch also joined an opinion declaring a special federal right for transgenders, and we wonder whether physicians will have a non-religious right of conscience to avoid providing treatments, even to children, that they believe could cause life-long harm. Physicians should not be forced to violate their oath to do no harm.

Gorsuch is praised by some for writing against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, but the U.S. Supreme Court had already held 9-0 against a constitutional right to assisted suicide when Gorsuch concurred in his book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (2006). Gorsuch discussed abortion, but he seemed to have no objection to it, and even spoke highly of the Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision upholding Roe. According to Gorsuch, Casey established "a firmer basis for the abortion right and [shored] up the reasoning behind Roe's result" (p. 79).

Also objectionable is Gorsuch's belief that courts should adhere to mistaken precedents. He used that philosophy of judicial supremacy to rule against a Second Amendment claim in United States v. Games-Perez.

"The orchestrated chorus of support by D.C.-based, Republican-leaning organizations for Gorsuch prior to public discussion of these issues is premature," notes AAPS General Counsel Andrew Schlafly.

The HYPERLINK "http://www.aapsonline.org/" nAssociation of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a national organization representing physicians in virtually all specialties and every state. Founded in 1943, AAPS has the motto "omnia pro aegroto," which means "all for the patient."

Keywords for this news article include: Politics, Euthanasia, Legal Issues, Mental Health, Terminal Care, Assisted Suicide, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons AAPS, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).

Our reports deliver fact-based news of research and discoveries from around the world. Copyright 2017, NewsRx LLC