As “death with dignity” legislation heads toward a crucial vote in an Assembly committee on Tuesday, it seems increasingly unlikely that California will become the fourth state to legalize physician-assisted suicide — at least not this year. The reason: A split between the Democratic Party’s white legislators from affluent, liberal coastal districts and its Latino members, who tend to represent working class areas and cities in the state’s agricultural heartland.

Called the “End of Life Option Act,” SB 128 would let terminally ill patients request a drug that would hasten their death. Introduced by Democratic Sens. Bill Monning of Carmel and Lois Wolk of Davis, the legislation got a boost last month when the California Medical Association — long opposed to turning doctors into suicide-providers — moved to a neutral stance.

But that decision by the influential CMA wasn’t enough. “After sailing through the state Senate with only Republican opposition, the bill has run into trouble in the Assembly Health Committee, where several Latino Democrats have either come out in opposition or simply gone silent,” reported the San Francisco Chronicle. The bill was delayed until Tuesday, where the committee will once again decide whether to move it to the full Assembly.

Sen. Monning told the Los Angeles Times he would pull the bill if it is likely to get a “no” vote. Wolk’s office said on Monday the bill still is scheduled to be heard in the committee. But it still seems to lack sufficient votes. This could be a testy hearing, given this legislation touches on fundamental cultural, religious and socioeconomic issues.


Political observers often have pointed to this potential Democratic split, but there’s usually less there than meets the eye. These two political blocs have different emphases on issues such as job creation and environmental regulation, but there’s been no political chasm — and little opportunity for Republicans to build alliances with more culturally conservative Latino Democrats.

Yet physician-assisted suicide is a hard sell for many Latino Democrats, such as San Diego’s labor-friendly firebrand Lorena Gonzalez. In this case, they are likely to join Republicans, who are overwhelmingly opposed to the measure.

The Chronicle pointed to the influence of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Los Angeles, which is strongly opposed to assisted suicide, as a factor in declining support among Latino legislators. But the issue is more about deep-seated views about the plight of the poor than appeals from the church hierarchy.

At a Sacramento Press Club debate last week, Aaron Kheriaty, director of the University of California Irvine’s medical-ethics program, wondered why California is modeling this legislation on the experiences of Oregon, which he referred to as a “lily white” state that lacks California’s diversity. A suicide drug “immediately becomes the cheapest and most expedient” solution, he noted, especially in a health care system determined to reduce costs. He said the poor and uninsured remain the most vulnerable to pressure.


The bill’s supporters say there are plenty of safeguards to assure that no one is coerced to take the end-of-life option — and there’s no evidence of such behavior in Oregon. California’s bill was introduced after 29 year-old Brittany Maynard, diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, moved to Oregon to end her life. Her mother, Debbie Ziegler of Carlsbad, released a posthumous video from her daughter, which gave impetus to the California bill.

It was sad and moving, but the core economic issues raised by Kheriaty get to the heart of this great divide. Gonzalez told the Union-Tribune she opposes the bill and would elaborate when it comes before the health committee, of which she is a member. When I pointed to the above-mentioned concerns, her spokesman agreed that I’m “on the right track as far as her train of thought goes.”

The negative reaction toward the bill by Latino legislators no doubt explains why Monning and Wolk championed the support of United Farm Workers union cofounder Dolores Huerta, who came to the Capitol to support SB 128 late last month. She called it a “basic civil rights issue offering a compassionate and dignified end-of-life choice that should be left between a patient and a doctor.”

Assisted suicide may indeed be a civil right. But it’s also easy to understand why legislators who represent some of the poorest districts with the highest health care needs have split from their colleagues. Given the unique nature of this bill, however, it probably won’t be a harbinger of an ongoing divide.