The ACLU of Colorado fully supports Prop. 106, but encourages all voters to carefully consider the concerns of the disability community.  

I have been a staff attorney at the ACLU of Colorado for over six years and have wanted this job since I was a teenager.  The ACLU – and its unending fight to protect civil liberties – is in my blood.  Until just a few years ago, I did not question the basic premise, long supported by the ACLU, that terminally ill individuals have a constitutional and moral right to physician-assisted aid in dying.  In the last few years, however, as I have built closer ties with the disability community, that premise has been shaken for me.   I do not know now whether I can support the Aid In Dying ballot initiative.
Back when I first heard about the “right to die,” the movement labeled its cause “death with dignity.”  That made so much sense to me.  I could not imagine my extremely proud and capable parents or grandparents having to endure the indignity of losing their autonomy – their ability to care for themselves, to dress themselves, to toilet and bathe alone.  Surely, I thought, they should be allowed assistance in ending their lives instead.
Now, years later, it has become plain to me that this fear of loss of autonomy that was, at least in part, driving the “death with dignity” movement, was bound tightly with a deep misunderstanding of and prejudice toward disability, even within progressive civil libertarian circles.  If asked a decade ago whether I would rather live as a quadriplegic or die, I honestly might have said I’d rather die than lose my autonomy and my ability to do many of the outdoor activities I love.  Years later, dozens of conversations later, and many relationships later, I no longer feel that way.
As it turns out, there are many, many people with significant disabilities who need assistance dressing, toileting and bathing, who cannot easily do the outdoor activities I love, and yet who lead extremely fulfilling lives and make meaningful contributions to the world.   That these individuals cannot function without assistance does not in any way diminish their dignity.  I know this because I have the privilege of knowing and working closely with many people who have significant disabilities.  And the research supports my observations – Surveys of people with disabilities indicate that most rate the quality of their lives as ‘good to excellent.’

I now believe whole-heartedly that if I someday come to have a significant disability, I would want to continue to live and contribute, and that I would eventually lead a happy life.  But I only came to this belief because I have had the very lucky opportunity to break through the gulf between able-bodied people and those living with disabilities.  Most of my progressive friends are not there yet.  The fear of disability, and the sense that death is preferable to it, is deeply rooted in our culture and often overlooked even by well-meaning civil libertarians who are able-bodied.  It is my belief that this fear continues to drive some of the support for physician assisted aid in dying.
The wish to avoid a painful death is understandable.  The disability community and other civil rights advocates are wholly aligned in their support of the right to complete palliative care and a painless death, to include palliative sedation if necessary.   Advocates cite avoidance of a painful death as strong support for the ballot initiative.  Yet, we know that in Oregon – where physician assisted aid in dying has been in place for nearly two decades –the top five reasons people stated for wanting life-ending medication instead reflected a desire to avoid living in a manner that people with disabilities live with every day: 1) loss of autonomy, 2) inability to engage in previously enjoyable activities, 3) loss of dignity, 4) loss of control of bodily functions, and 5) feeling of being a burden to others.
In a world in which the general public does not have a pervasive misunderstanding and fear of disability, there would be no question that I would vote yes on this initiative.  But we don’t live in that world.  We live in one in which disability is often viewed as a tragedy worse than death, and I fear that passage of this initiative inevitably gives further credence to that fable.  I recognize that the ballot drafters have taken great pains to include many safeguards aimed at protecting against coercion of people with disabilities to die.  It will be a hard decision for me this November.
Resources:
ACLU of Colorado Supports Aid in Dying

Gill, Carol, Health Professionals, Disability, and Assisted Suicide:  An Examination of Relevant Empirical Evidence and Reply to Batavia,  Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, June 2000 (citing multiple studies).
https://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year18.pdf

DENVER – In a lawsuit filed this morning against Colorado Springs police officers and the City of Colorado Springs, the ACLU of Colorado charged that two young African-American men were victims of the police department’s “custom and practice” of engaging in racially-biased policing and carrying out groundless, racially-motivated stops and searches.

In 2015, the lawsuit asserts, Ryan and Benjamin Brown were pulled over because of their race, handcuffed, searched, and detained at gun point and taser point, all without legal justification.  Despite a video recording that clearly showed the officers drawing their weapons without cause, refusing to identify the reason for the stop, and using unnecessary force, an internal affairs investigation concluded that the officers’ actions were “justified, legal, and proper.”

“This is a clear-cut case of racial profiling,” said Mark Silverstein, ACLU Legal Director.  “Ryan and Benjamin Brown were stopped because of the color of their skin.   There is no place for such racially-biased policing in a country dedicated to equal justice under the law.”

According to the ACLU lawsuit, “Colorado Springs has a custom, policy, and/or practice of doing the following to minority individuals: (1) engaging in racial profiling at the initial stop of individuals; (2) searching them without reasonable suspicion that they are armed or dangerous; and (3) unnecessarily detaining them for extended periods of time in an effort to build some basis for arrest.”

African-American males are stopped by the Colorado Springs Police Department as much as 161% more often than would be expected based on their proportion of the population, according to the complaint.

Ryan and Benjamin Brown were driving just a block away from their home in a predominantly white neighborhood when they were pulled over by Colorado Springs police.  To justify the stop, an officer later claimed that the men had been observed earlier in the day driving slowly through “a high crime area,” terminology that the complaint asserts is law enforcement code for “driving while black.”

A taser-wielding officer ordered Benjamin Brown, the driver, out of the car.  He was handcuffed, searched without cause, and detained in the back of a police vehicle, even though he had been cooperative, no weapons or contraband were found, and there was no evidence to suggest that he had been involved in a crime.

Ryan Brown then began recording the scene on his phone. His repeated requests for the officers to identify the reason for the stop were ignored.  Officers worked together to force him out of the car, push him to the ground, face down in the snow, search him, and cuff him, all the while at gunpoint.

While dragging Ryan Brown out of the car, officers on the video are heard saying that he is not under arrest and that they were just checking him for weapons.  No weapons were found.  Officers grabbed his phone and threw it in the snow.

Brown filed a complaint with the department following the incident.  He received a brief boilerplate letter in June informing him that police had conducted a “complete and thorough” investigation into the incident and concluded that the officers’ conduct was “justified, legal, and proper.”

“That the Colorado Springs Police Department saw nothing wrong with the conduct of its officers in the stop of Ryan and Benjamin Brown speaks volumes about the department’s culture and mentality when it comes to the constitutionally-protected rights of Black men,” said ACLU cooperating attorney Darold W. Killmer of Killmer, Lane & Newman LLP.

The ACLU lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages.  The case is being litigated by Killmer and Andy McNulty of Killmer, Lane & Newman, as well as Silverstein and ACLU staff attorneys Sara Neel and Rebecca T. Wallace.

more on this case

Did you know that the Colorado Constitution still allows legal slavery, and that Coloradans can do something about it this fall?
Colorado’s language parallels an exception written into the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, banning slavery and involuntary servitude “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.”
When a group of faith and community leaders began a campaign last spring to eliminate the exception allowing slavery, many legislators were surprised to learn that, even though Colorado was never a slave state, we still have language allowing slavery — as a punishment for crime.
That archaic federal exception, part of the difficult battle to get the 13th Amendment passed, has largely been ignored. The 13th Amendment has normally been treated and thought of as a total ban on legal slavery. Some states do have a total ban on slavery with no exception, some have no language related to the 13th Amendment at all, and about half the states, including Colorado, have similar language leaving an exception to the ban on slavery.
As Coloradans, we can’t change the federal language, but we can be one of the states that declares it will not allow slavery in any situation by voting Yes on Amendment T. The Colorado legislature voted unanimously, including every Republican and every Democrat in both houses, to place Amendment T on the ballot in November.
A Yes on T vote will remove the exception language in the Colorado Constitution to our state ban on slavery and involuntary servitude, as the 13th Amendment itself should have done from the beginning.
It is fair to ask what Amendment T will accomplish, although it is a statement worth making even if it has no practical effect. States have a variety of language around slavery and involuntary servitude, and all states have similar criminal justice systems with work programs and community service programs, so there is no reason to believe Amendment T would affect those programs. Courts have defined slavery and involuntary servitude narrowly enough that typical work programs or community service would not fall under those definitions.
Technically, however, it would not be unconstitutional for the State of Colorado to sell people into slavery or involuntary servitude as long as it was deemed a punishment for crime—and that would be simply wrong. Even if that has never happened and even if we believe it never would, it shouldn’t even be possible under our Constitution. If any practices of a state actually met the definitions of slavery or involuntary servitude, they probably shouldn’t be allowed in any case. Whatever our criminal justice system may be, it shouldn’t be slavery.
So Amendment T is a genuine protection for the future, and in a time of widespread racial tensions, it is a strong and positive signal of good will today. Words matter. We weren’t around to take part in the abolition of slavery after the Civil War, but Amendment T gives us an opportunity to finish that abolition today, at least for Colorado. Slavery in any circumstance is immoral, and it is not a Colorado value.
The ACLU of Colorado urges you to follow the example of the entire Colorado legislature and vote Yes on Amendment T.