c. 2006 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ Republicans control both chambers of Congress and likely could muster enough votes to block an Oregon law allowing physician-assisted suicide. But an apparent about-face by an Oregon senator could alter the political landscape dramatically in the Senate.

After winning a 6-3 Supreme Court decision Tuesday, supporters of the Oregon law gained a second, unexpected victory: the grudging support of Republican Sen. Gordon Smith.

In 2000, Smith supported legislation that would have blocked the Oregon law by preventing doctors from prescribing lethal doses of federally controlled pain medications. But Tuesday, Smith suggested that he would not do so again.

“Regardless of my personal position on assisted suicide, Oregon’s law has been tested at every branch of our government and the judgment of Oregon’s voters has been affirmed,” Smith said in a statement. “I accept the Supreme Court’s decision and Congress should do the same.”

Because Senate rules protect personal prerogative, senior Republicans likely would defer to Smith’s wishes.

Smith was with his family and could not be reached for further comment Tuesday, said Chris Matthews, a spokesman.

“It would indeed be difficult to pass (legislation) without Sen. Smith’s support, though not impossible,” said Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, which opposes the law.

But Smith’s three-sentence statement left unanswered how far he would go to head off new legislation. Opponents of the Oregon law called on Congress to act.

“In no sense can assisting a suicide be called a `legitimate medical purpose’ for any drug,” said Richard M. Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “Congress now has an obligation to reaffirm that fact.”

Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., led the charge against the Oregon law in 2000 and nearly succeeded in passing a bill called the Pain Relief Promotion Act. It stalled only when Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., threatened a filibuster that would have tied up the Senate floor shortly before the 2000 election.

Wyden said in an interview Tuesday that he welcomed Smith’s statement, but he declined to speculate on what role Smith might play in a defense of the Oregon law.

A bigger factor, he said, would be the public backlash to the case of Terry Schiavo, an incapacitated Florida woman who died in April after her feeding tube was removed. Congress passed legislation forcing federal courts to take the case, but they refused to order the tube to be reinserted.

“I think the Schiavo case was a watershed in this country’s consideration of end-of-life care,” Wyden said. “I am hopeful that will ripple over to any effort that may come up with respect to the Oregon law. It’s too early to tell, but that’s my hope.”

(OPTIONAL TRIM FOLLOWS)

Smith endorsed Nickles’ bill in emotional testimony before the Judiciary Committee in April 2000. His voice choking with emotion, Smith said: “I’m caught in the crosshairs between the majority and my conscience. I find it very uncomfortable, but I also find that to be responsible to the people who elected me, I should be clear on where I am.”

Nickles retired last year, but there likely will be no shortage of senators to fill his role in the debate. His successor, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., indicated that he might pick up where Nickles left off.

“I’d like to block that law, too,” Coburn, a practicing physician, said in a brief interview last week.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., Nickles’ lead Democratic co-sponsor, said in an interview last year that he would seek a new partner.

“I believe in that bill, and I’d like to reintroduce it,” Lieberman said.

MO PH END BARNETT

(Jim Barnett is a Washington-based writer for The Oregonian in Portland, Ore.)