Latest news with #AmyPaulin
Engadget
06-08-2025
- Business
- Engadget
Trump tells states they'll lose out on broadband fund if they try to dictate rates
States will lose out on their share of a $42 billion broadband fund if they attempt to dictate rates that internet services providers (ISPs) charge low-income customers, according to a new FAQ from the Trump administration seen by Ars Technica . That means ISPs — which are subsidized by the government in order to provide low-cost plans — will be able to set such rates under the BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment) program. The new language appeared in a BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice (RPN) from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in June. "Per the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LSCO (low-cost service option) requirements removed by the RPN... violation would result in rejection of the final proposal [for states to receive funds]." It added that the the NTIA would only approve plans with low-cost rates set by ISPs. The new language would hand ISPs a major win if it holds up. New York state, for one, requires ISPs with more than 20,000 customers to offer $15 broadband plans with minimum 25Mbps download speeds, or $20 plans with 200Mbps speeds, to low-income customers. That law, the Affordable Broadband Act, has held up despite attempts by providers to strike it down in court. Other states are reconsidering similar laws now. California recently withdrew a bill requiring $15 broadband plans after the NTIA said it could lose out on BEAD funds worth up to $1.86 billion. That decision was excoriated by consumer groups who pointed out that the Supreme Court itself declined to overturn New York's law. As he's done many times now, Trump is using federal funds as a cudgel to keep states in line — despite the fact that states' rights are usually supported by US courts. New York assemblymember Amy Paulin, who spearheaded the state's $15 broadband law, said that she believes the NTIA rule only applies to the other 49 states that don't have price mandates. "It's our understanding that any [ISP] BEAD awardee would have to comply with the Affordable Broadband Act regardless of federal subsidy," she told Ars Technica .
Yahoo
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Editorial: Stopping future Harvey Weinsteins — The NY Assembly must join the state Senate and pass the similar crimes bill
Harvey Weinstein is guilty, in a Manhattan state courtroom, of a 2006 sexual assault, again, just like he was found guilty in a Manhattan state courtroom five years ago of the same 2006 sexual assault. Weinstein's first conviction was thrown out and a new trial was needed because New York law does not allow the use of evidence from other, prior sexual offenses. That law needs to be changed and the state Senate passed a reform last year sponsored by chamber's No. 2 leader, Sen. Mike Gianaris, with a remarkable and overwhelming tally of 55-4. The Assembly and Speaker Carl Heastie need to match that before they break for the summer next Tuesday or another year will go by and prosecutors won't have all the tools they need to pursue horrible monsters like Weinstein. This is not a partisan matter; Gianaris is a Democrat, but every Republican senator voted for his measure, along with almost every Democrat. The numbers in the Assembly will be similar, provided Heastie brings forward the bill, sponsored by Assemblywoman Amy Paulin. Under the fix put forward by Gianaris and Paulin, New York would join the federal standard, which is also used by a good number of states, which permits admitting evidence of a defendant's prior sexual offenses in certain circumstances. What happened in the initial Weinstein prosecution in 2020 was the Manhattan district attorney asked the trial judge if it was permissible to use such testimony and the judge approved it, as did a unanimous appellate bench. Under New York law, that is occasionally allowed, on a case by case basis. But when it reached the state's highest court, it was narrowly overruled, tossing the whole Weinstein case and forcing this new trial. This time, the Manhattan DA didn't include any witnesses to testify about Weinstein's previous assaults and the jury still convicted him. But the law still must be reformed. As one expert points out, this verdict is yet further evidence that juries are capable of hearing evidence about multiple charges involving different victims without being overcome by prejudice, as they convicted Weinstein on one 2006 sex charge yesterday, but acquitted him of another from that same year. As to the third charge, from 2013, the jury will continue its deliberations today. The Gianaris/Paulin similar crimes bill, which 16 other states have, is fair to defendants and fair to victims. Such laws have been challenged in state and federal courts and determined to be constitutional. The sponsor's memo in the bill's justification mentions Harvey Weinstein and the reverse of his first conviction as the need for the legislation. That such an awful criminal is being invoked for something constructive to improve New York's criminal prosecution system is a tiny bit of justice. If the Assembly passes the bill and Gov. Hochul signs it, Weinstein can spend his coming many years in state prison thinking how he helped change the laws of New York in a positive way. But should Heastie not even allow a vote, Weinstein will still be heading to prison, but the law will remain badly out of date, denying future victims their chance for justice. Bring the bill to the floor, Mr. Speaker. _____
Wall Street Journal
10-06-2025
- Health
- Wall Street Journal
New York's Assisted-Suicide Mistake
New York's Legislature embraces every progressive cause, and the latest is making it easier for people to kill themselves. The state Senate voted 35-27 Monday to pass the Medical Aid in Dying Act, and let's hope that Gov. Kathy Hochul has the courage to veto it for the sake of society's most vulnerable. One irony is that New York passed the first U.S. law that banned assisting death in 1828. Eight years ago the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the state government 'has an interest in preserving life and preventing suicide.' But times and morals have changed. Life itself is less valued today than a life that is supposedly worth living. For Assemblywoman Amy Paulin this means being allowed to 'end unbearable suffering.' Eleven states and the District of Columbia have legalized assisted suicide since 1997. New York's proposal is for 'mentally competent' adults who have been given prognoses of six months or less to live. This sounds compassionate, but around the world it has proved to be a slippery slope. In Canada the 'medical assistance in dying' program has become at least the fifth-leading cause of death since 2015. The law has shed its original safeguards and in 2027 will be available to those with mental illness alone. It already is in parts of Europe. Oregon mandates a 15-day waiting period between a patient's first and second dying requests. New York's requires no delay, meaning a patient could receive a diagnosis one day and have a lethal cocktail the next if two physicians approve. Doctors needn't refer applicants for mental-health evaluations if they believe patients have the 'decision-making capacity' to make an 'informed decision.' This standard means there will soon be go-to suicide doctors.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
The assisted dying movement is gaining momentum. These opponents are pushing back
What does it mean to die well, with dignity? The question is at the heart of the contentious debate over whether legalizing physician-assisted death for terminally ill patients is an act of compassion, upholding an individual's dignity, or a troubling step toward devaluing human life. The debate has recently returned to the spotlight in New York, where the state Assembly passed a bill in April that would allow terminally ill patients with a prognosis of six months or less to live to request life-ending medication. It also came up in May, when 'Dilbert' cartoonist Scott Adams revealed that he only has a few months to live and indicated that he might take advantage of California's End of Life Option Act. New York's proposal requires confirmation from two doctors, who must verify the diagnosis and ensure the patient is mentally sound. The measure passed narrowly — 81 to 67 — after more than four hours of debate. Its fate now rests with the state Senate, where it needs 32 votes to pass and currently has 26 co-sponsors. Currently, 12 jurisdictions — including Oregon, Colorado and the District of Columbia — permit what's commonly known as 'medical assistance in dying' (MAiD) or 'assisted suicide.' On May 20, Delaware became the latest state to legalize medical assistance in dying, and at least 19 other states are considering similar laws. Canada, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands have adopted MAiD laws, some extending eligibility to people without terminal illnesses. The United Kingdom is also reviewing a similar bill, with a vote expected later in June. 'Passing this bill is about love, compassion, and reducing needless suffering. No one should have to endure agony when there is a better, humane choice available. This is not a political issue — it's a human issue, and we owe it to New Yorkers to pass the Medical Aid in Dying Act,' said the bill's sponsor, Assemblymember Amy Paulin, D-Westchester, in a press release. Supporters argue that allowing patients to choose death in the face of unbearable suffering respects their dignity and autonomy. For those speaking out against the bill, legalizing physician-assisted suicide devalues life and puts vulnerable populations at risk, including people with disabilities, poor people and people with mental illness. Dr. Lydia Dugdale, a physician and ethicist at Columbia University, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed that the debate isn't about dying well. 'It is about relieving society — government, medical systems, even families — of the responsibility to care for those who need the most help: the mentally ill, the poor, the physically disabled,' she wrote. Opponents worry about a 'slippery slope,' arguing that vague eligibility requirements could lead to the kind of expansion seen in Canada, where assisted suicide has become available to people suffering not only from terminal illness, but also from conditions like loneliness, eating disorders and mental illness. 'I cannot get through a day ... It's physical torture,' said a Canadian woman with a series of nonterminal diagnoses, whose journey seeking, and receiving, MAiD is the focus of a recent New York Times story. 'Once we go down this road, there is no going back,' said Ed Mechmann, the director of public policy at the Archdiocese of New York, speaking at a recent event in New York hosted by Communion and Liberation, a Catholic lay movement, along with other opponents of physician-assisted suicide. 'It will change the nature of health care, of living and dying forever,' Mechmann said. The terms 'physician-assisted death' or 'assisted suicide' typically refer to a medical practice in which a terminally ill person is provided a lethal dose of medication they can take to end their life. The term 'medical assistance in dying' is commonly used in U.S. and Canada policy discussions and often refers to both assisted suicide and euthanasia. Euthanasia, by contrast, involves a medical professional administering a life-ending medication, typically by injection, at the patient's request. Euthanasia is not legal in the states that have legalized MAiD, whereas countries like Canada and the Netherlands allow both. Although the proponents of MAiD often frame assisted suicide as a matter of personal autonomy, those who oppose it believe that in reality, it would accomplish the opposite and endanger vulnerable patients who struggle to access care and support. 'As a practicing physician, I will tell you this does not become a matter of choice for most people,' said Dugdale, author of the 2020 book 'The Lost Art of Dying,' speaking at the New York event. 'The concern is that once you have a choice legalized for the privileged few, it will then threaten life for many others who find it difficult to maintain life for a variety of reasons.' Weak safeguards of the laws and ambiguous definitions would likely contribute to eventually including a wide range of chronic conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, cancer and even mental health disorders like anorexia, Mechmann noted. In such cases, choosing death may not reflect true autonomy but rather systemic neglect, he said. In Colorado, for instance, patients with anorexia have already qualified for assisted death on the grounds that the condition can be fatal if untreated. In 2024, Quebec, a province in Canada, established the right for a person with a serious and incurable illness to choose a medically assisted death in advance. Also in Canada, patients with a mental illness as an underlying medical condition will be eligible for MAiD in 2027. But even with long-term patients, it can be difficult to determine whether a desire to die stems from informed decision-making or untreated depression, Dugdale said. 'The people who tend to seek to end their lives through lethal prescription, who want assisted suicide, are at high risk for depression demographically,' Dugdale said. Among those groups are older adults with advanced cancer, especially white men. Depression is often overlooked or misdiagnosed, despite being treatable. In Oregon, where MAiD has been legal the longest, less than 1% of patients requesting lethal prescriptions are referred for psychological evaluation. 'This is a major oversight that fails to protect depressed people from making flawed decisions,' Dugdale wrote in her op-ed. Opponents also challenge the popular narrative of MAiD as a carefully considered choice made by an informed patient with a long-trusted physician. 'Very few patients have a doctor they call their own anymore, or a doctor who knows them,' said Dr. Eve Slater, a physician and Columbia University professor at an online event hosted by Plough, a Christian magazine, on June 2. Slater, who previously served as assistant secretary for Health and Human Services, said that for many today, especially in New York, care is fragmented, which makes it more challenging to make intimate and ethically sound decisions. She added that legalizing physician-assisted death could further erode the foundational trust between doctor and patient. Physicians also often misjudge how long terminally ill patients will live, according to Slater. 'I've been thankfully proved wrong on many occasions,' Slater said. ' I think there is a fallacy in the premise that you qualify if you have less than six months to live, because any doctor who declares that is assuming a crystal ball that they don't have.' In reality, legalizing assisted death risks creating a new social norm — one that pressures vulnerable individuals, especially those who are alone, seriously ill or unsupported, into feeling like death is their best or only option. In 2019, Kate Connolly, a communications professional in New York City, received a call that her mother had been rushed to the hospital with a brain aneurysm, she recalled while speaking alongside Dugdale and Mechmann. For the next four and a half years, her mother remained confined to her bed and wheelchair, on a feeding tube, unable to do much without assistance. Yet, even in a severely disabled state, her mother's presence was cherished by her family before she died, Connolly said. 'Her family's role, which was also a great sacrifice, was to be steward, not dictators, but respectful stewards of a precious gift,' Connolly said. Around the same time, Connolly learned her unborn son had developed a cystic hygroma — a condition often considered incompatible with life. Both with her mother and her son, Connolly described pressure from medical professionals to end their life prematurely — through abortion or withdrawal of care, which were presented as practical and compassionate choices. She chose to continue her pregnancy, giving birth to a son and holding him after he died. Although hastening death may sometimes seem like a more compassionate and pragmatic decision, this mindset fosters a view of suffering lives as disposable, Connolly said. 'The truth is, from what I've seen, dying is not a problem to be solved,' she said. 'It is an experience to be lived and even embraced. It is a sacred time, truly set apart from any experience.' End-of-life decisions must involve thoughtful, peaceful conversations between patients, families and doctors, Connolly noted. 'What is the right course of action? What is reasonable or what is needlessly extending pain and suffering?' she said. 'You cannot ask these questions thoughtfully or with any real meaning when you're being pushed to just do the expedient thing and end the life in front of you.' According to studies from Canada, the top reasons that patients say they seek a lethal prescription are more social rather than physical. In Canada, the 2022 annual report revealed that the most commonly cited reasons for requesting MAiD were loss of ability to engage in meaningful activities (86%) and loss of ability to perform daily activities (81%). While supporters of MAiD often argue that alleviating pain is one of the main reasons for hastening the death of a patient, about 59% are concerned about 'controlling pain.' According to Oregon data, nearly 30% of MAiD-seeking patients cite current and future concerns about pain. 'So it's much more an issue of control,' Dugdale said, adding that the U.S. has robust pain control. 'Dying in pain is not an issue. It should not be an issue.' Instead, loss of independence and fear of being a burden often are. These fears should be met with care, not a prescription, Mechmann said. 'It's incumbent on us to make sure people don't feel (like a burden).' With her medical trainees, Dugdale observed a shift in attitudes toward physician-assisted dying. In recent conversations, she said, some trainees wondered, 'Why don't we just do away with our societal aversion to suicide altogether?' and embrace the view that if individuals wish to end their lives, they should be free to do so without interference. Once, she was asked whether assisted suicide can be a solution to the problem of loneliness. With this mindset, end-of-life decisions would be made through a utilitarian and individualistic lens. Many physicians are uneasy about appearing 'paternalist,' Dugdale said. 'And so to mitigate that, we defer everything to the patient,' she said. The core ethical principles of beneficence (doing good) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm) have, in practice, been overshadowed by an almost singular focus on autonomy, Dugdale said. For doctors, she continued, MAiD can offer a controlled intervention in the often unpredictable process of dying, providing a sense of agency amid uncertainty. 'There's already a growing pressure to sacrifice one's life for the so-called 'greater good' and to rid the world of expensive, hopeless cases,' she said. Normalizing the idea of choosing death, especially in a society already grappling with high health care costs and an aging population, may cause younger health care professionals to view seriously ill, expensive patients as burdens. A study from Oxford University points to a correlation between legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia and increased rates of more common forms of suicide in both the U.S. and Europe. 'Once it becomes widely acceptable that I can end my life on my own terms, that feeds a culture of death,' Dugdale said. In Canada, euthanasia is now the fifth most common cause of death. 'At some point, the vast majority of people in the state of New York are gonna be laying in a hospital bed. And when the doctor shows up, what are we gonna think? Is this my ally or is this my enemy?' Mechmann said. So what, then, is the way forward? Investing in meaningful relationships and community and maintaining deep personal connections through family, faith communities, clubs or friendships is a bulwark against loneliness and despair, experts agreed. It's human connection — not lethal prescriptions — that is the real antidote to suffering, participants in the event said. 'Suffering is inevitable,' Mechmann said. But the assisted suicide is a 'bad answer' to the problem of suffering. 'It's love, it's community, it's not despairing. It's being willing to embrace some of the suffering and to live with it and to walk with it.' Editor's note: This story deals with the practice of assisted suicide. If you or someone you know is struggling with thoughts of self-harm, the 988 Suicide and Crisis Line is always available. You can text or call 988 any time or chat at In Utah, you can also reach out to SafeUT, 833-372-3388, or download the SafeUT app.
Newsweek
01-05-2025
- Health
- Newsweek
Map Shows States Where Doctor-Assisted Suicide Is Legal as NY Bill Advances
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The New York State Assembly has approved legislation that would allow physician-assisted suicide, a first in either chamber of the state legislature. The Medical Aid in Dying Act passed by a vote of 81-67 and would enable mentally competent, terminally ill adults with a prognosis of six months or less to request a prescription for life-ending medication, subject to multiple safeguards. Why It Matters Should the bill become law, New York would become the 11th jurisdiction in the United States to permit physician-assisted suicide through legislation. At the moment, the practice is legal in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico and the District of Columbia. In Montana, it is permitted through a court ruling, not statutory law. Proponents of the law argue it offers terminally ill patients a choice to avoid prolonged suffering. New York State Assembly Member Amy Paulin, who has sponsored the bill since 2016, has spoken of her sister's painful death from ovarian cancer. "She shouted out every five minutes, 'When am I going to die already? The pain is so severe,'" Paulin recalled. What To Know The legislation requires approval from both an attending and consulting physician and allows for a mental health evaluation if there's any concern over the patient's decision-making capacity. Senate Bill S138 contains parallel provisions and is currently in the Senate Health Committee. The legislation lays out specific conditions and procedural requirements. A patient must make a written request, confirmed by at least two physicians. It explicitly prohibits coercion and mandates that patients administer the drugs themselves. Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins has not yet committed to a floor vote, although she acknowledged the issue is under discussion. "The conversation had begun in earnest last year," she told City & State New York media outlet. The legislation has its opponents as well. New York Representative Elise Stefanik, a Republican, issued a scathing statement condemning the Medical Aid in Dying Act and its supporters. "The New York State Assembly's decision to pass this disgusting assisted suicide bill is a shameful attack on the sanctity of life and a betrayal of our most vulnerable citizens," Stefanik said. "This radical legislation, driven by Governor [Kathy] Hochul's Far Left allies, normalizes the termination of human life under the guise of 'compassion,' putting the elderly, disabled, and terminally ill at risk of coercion and despair. As a proud pro-life advocate, I am appalled that Albany Democrats would prioritize this culture of death over protecting the dignity and worth of every New Yorker." Dr. Yves de Locht, left, and Wim Distelmans, professor in palliative care, second from left, arrive in the hospital room for the euthanasia of Lydie Imhoff, center, as caregiver Marie-Josee Rousseaux, right, holds her hand... Dr. Yves de Locht, left, and Wim Distelmans, professor in palliative care, second from left, arrive in the hospital room for the euthanasia of Lydie Imhoff, center, as caregiver Marie-Josee Rousseaux, right, holds her hand in a Belgian hospital on February 1, 2024. More SIMON WOHLFAHRT/AFP via Getty Images What People Are Saying Stefanik said in a statement: "This bill undermines the fundamental principle that all life is sacred, a value I have fought for in Congress. Instead of investing in palliative care, mental health support, and life-affirming resources for those facing terminal illness, this legislation offers an immoral shortcut that devalues human life. It sends a chilling message to our seniors and disabled communities that their lives are expendable." "New Yorkers deserve better than Far Left policies that erode our moral foundation and push families toward heartbreak. I call on the State Senate to reject this dangerous bill and stand up for the voiceless. As the representative of New York's 21st District, I will continue to champion life at every stage and fight against the extremist agenda of Hochul and her Albany Democrats. We must restore New York's commitment to the protection of all its citizens." New York state Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, the bill's Senate sponsor, told City & State New York: "I know we have the votes. It's a matter of continuing to raise the issue with leadership." What Happens Next The bill awaits further action in the Senate. If passed, it would advance to Hochul, who has not yet publicly taken a position on the measure. If fully enacted, New York would become the 10th U.S. state to allow doctor-assisted suicide, alongside its neighbor New Jersey.
