Emma Kinery

USA TODAY

House Republicans are trying to block a new D.C. law that would legalize physician-assisted suicide in the District, with the House Appropriations Committee passing a measure last week that would repeal the D.C. law.

In a 28-24 vote Thursday evening, the Appropriations Committee agreed to repeal the act as well as bar any funding to the city's program for implementing it. President Trump’s proposed federal budget included a similar spending ban but did not go as far as repealing the law, which went into effect Feb. 20. The city needs $125,000 to pay for initial startup costs by Oct. 1.

City officials originally were optimistic about being able to fund the measure without federal money, but the amendment introduced by Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., would repeal it altogether. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser was upset by the passage and said if anything the District will continue to advocate for statehood now.

“None of the members opposing our law were elected to represent our residents,” Bowser said. “This is not a federal issue. This is a local issue. Members of Congress who are interfering with our laws must begin to realize what they are really doing: attempting to sidestep the democratic process in order to impose their personal beliefs on 681,000 Washingtonians.”

Several states around the country have approved laws that allow certain terminally ill patients to request aid-in-dying medications from their physicians. In passing its law last year, D.C. joined California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, who also have legalized the practice. Thirteen other states are actively considering similar bills.

The D.C. law is modeled off of Oregon’s, and under it, competent, terminally ill patients who are deemed to have less than six months to live can request aid-in-dying medications from their doctors. Patients must request the prescription twice in the company of two witnesses over 15 days and then must consume the pills without assistance.

In California, 111 terminally ill patients killed themselves via physician-assisted suicides in the first six months of legalization, according to a report from the state's Department of Public Health.

Harris, who is a doctor, introduced his amendment because he believes the D.C. law is poorly thought out.

“Encouraging patients to commit suicide deprives them of the opportunity to potentially be cured by new treatments that could ameliorate their condition and even add years to their lives, if not cure them completely,” Harris said. “Congress has the authority — and the responsibility — to oversee the operations of Washington D.C., and the Death with Dignity Act was a well-intentioned but misguided policy that must be reversed.” Two Republicans on the committee — Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania and Dan Newhouse of Washington — opposed Harris' language.

J.J. Hanson, president of the Patients' Rights Action Fund, said his organization "takes a position on one issue only: assisted suicide laws. We, therefore, welcome any efforts at the Congressional level or otherwise to halt assisted suicide policy which will only put vulnerable D.C. residents — the terminally ill, people with disabilities, and the poor — at risk."

D.C. has had a mayor and council since 1973, though Congress still holds some oversight over the city such as the ability to block D.C. laws within 30 legislative working days of being signed by the mayor. While the federal legislature holds influence, it has only ever blocked three D.C. laws.

In January, after Bowser signed the law, Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., and Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, introduced resolutions aiming to block it, but neither was introduced before the 30-day deadline for congressional approval.

D.C.'s non-voting delegate in Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, criticized Harris’ approach to repealing the law.

“Representative Harris has become a serial abuser of congressional power over the District,” Norton said in a statement. “After we defeated attempts to nullify the Death with Dignity Act through disapproval resolutions in the House and Senate, Harris chose to hide in the appropriations process and legislate through a spending bill.”

Josh Burch, an organizer for Neighbors United for Statehood, a group advocating for D.C. state sovereignty said Harris’ amendment is “appalling, disgusting and hypocritical.”

“For us, this is a local government issue and if Andy Harris cares so much about the laws of the District of Columbia he should come and run for office here. His district in Maryland has issues too and I’m sure his constituents would appreciate it if he spent as much time paying attention to issues there.”

The fate of the spending bill passed by the Appropriations Committee remains unclear. Congress has to approve some kind of measure to extend federal spending once the annual budget runs out Sept. 30, but neither the full House nor the Senate has voted on any of the dozen bills that fund the government and both chambers are expected to take extended breaks in August.