Updated Tuesday July 20, 2021
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TRENTON, NEW
JERSEY, USA. Attorney Margaret Dore, President of Choice is an
Illusion, which has fought against assisted suicide and euthanasia
legalization throughout the United States, and internationally, has
released the following statement in connection with the filing of a
constitutional challenge amicus brief, which seeks to invalidate New
Jersey’s Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act. The case,
Petro et al v. Grewal, is pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey
Appellate Division, A-003837-19.
Tuesday, July 20, 2021
Friday, April 24, 2020
Dore Motion for Reconsideration in Glassman Case
To view Dore's brief as submitted, click here.
I. RELIEF REQUESTED
Margaret Dore moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order dated April 1, 2020, which upheld the constitutionality of the Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act.[1]
II. THE ACT MUST BE SET ASIDE
The Court did not reach the Act’s violation of the object in title rule, which is dispositive to set the Act aside. The Court should reach this issue now to overturn the Act.
The Court’s order states that Dore asked the Court to declare the Act unconstitutional “on grounds not asserted by plaintiffs.”[2] The plaintiffs, did, however, ask the Court to rule on the issue, stating:
This case, however, is about euthanasia. The Act is also not limited to dying people. Patient voluntariness is allowed, but not required. These are material facts not disclosed by the Act’s title and related findings. The Act is unconstitutional and must be set aside.
I. RELIEF REQUESTED
Margaret Dore moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order dated April 1, 2020, which upheld the constitutionality of the Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act.[1]
II. THE ACT MUST BE SET ASIDE
The Court did not reach the Act’s violation of the object in title rule, which is dispositive to set the Act aside. The Court should reach this issue now to overturn the Act.
The Court’s order states that Dore asked the Court to declare the Act unconstitutional “on grounds not asserted by plaintiffs.”[2] The plaintiffs, did, however, ask the Court to rule on the issue, stating:
Ms. Dore’s brief should be considered by the Court since if the law is unconstitutional under the single object rule, it should be the Court’s responsibility to raise that issue sua sponte even if not raised by Ms. Dore or the Plaintiffs.[3]The Legislature understood that it was enacting a strictly voluntary law limited to assisted suicide for dying patients.[4] The prior judge expressed a similar view. See, for example, the transcript from the hearing on August 14, 2019 (“This case is not about euthanasia”).[5]
This case, however, is about euthanasia. The Act is also not limited to dying people. Patient voluntariness is allowed, but not required. These are material facts not disclosed by the Act’s title and related findings. The Act is unconstitutional and must be set aside.
Friday, March 27, 2020
Margaret Dore: Euthanasia Act "Must Be Set Aside"
![]() |
E. David Smith |
The specific matter before the court was a motion to dismiss brought by the defendant, New Jersey Attorney General, Gurbir S. Grewal.
The plaintiff, Joseph Glassman, represented by E. David Smith, opposed the motion, as did Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, representing herself as amicus curiae.
Dore, who had filed both an amicus brief and a reply brief, argued that the Act must be set aside pursuant to the New Jersey Constitution. Her arguments largely tracked her reply brief, a portion of which is set forth below.
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
Press Release: Aid in Dying Act Is Unconstitutional
![]() |
Margaret Dore, Esq. |
TRENTON, NJ, UNITED STATES, January 10, 2020 /EINPresswire.com/ -- Attorney Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, a non-profit corporation opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia, has filed a friend of the court brief in Glassman v. Grewal, which seeks to overturn New Jersey's Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act.
"Aid in Dying" is a euphemism for euthanasia. Dore's brief argues that the Act is stacked against the individual, not limited to people near death and unconstitutional due to the way it was enacted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)