Pat McGeehan Story Archives - West Virginia Public Broadcasting

Amendment One Passes By 1 Percentage Point

A ban on medically assisted suicide will now be part of West Virginia’s constitution.

West Virginia voters passed Amendment 1 by a single percentage point. The decision came down to 6,080 votes.

Assisted suicide is legal in ten states and the District of Columbia. Internationally, the practice is legal in several European countries, Canada, Columbia and parts of Australia.

Requirements differ, but generally, individuals must have a terminal illness as well as a prognosis of six months or less to live to be eligible.

Assisted suicide is already illegal in West Virginia, but Del. Pat McGeehan, R-Hancock, sponsored the resolution that turned into Amendment 1 during the 2024 regular session of the legislature because he believes the state’s constitution should include protections against medically assisted suicide.

Rusty Williams is an advocacy specialist for the West Virginia ACLU. The organization campaigned against Amendment 1.

“I think that it was worded intentionally to create that confusion, and unfortunately for folks in terminal situations here in West Virginia, that strategy worked,” Williams said.

McGeehan sent West Virginia Public Broadcasting a statement but declined to be interviewed. In the statement, he said the passage of Amendment 1 sets a strong example for other states to follow.

“It was a great night for West Virginia,” McGeehan said in an email statement. “I appreciate the support from the voters for Amendment One. Amendment One’s approval will help prevent the terrible scourge of euthanasia from ever gaining a foothold in our great state. Going forward, we’ve also helped set a strong example for other states to follow. God bless our people and our beautiful Mountain State.”

Appalachia Health News is a project of West Virginia Public Broadcasting with support from Marshall Health.

Medically Assisted Death Is On W.Va.’s Ballot This November

On the ballot in November, West Virginia voters will decide whether or not to change the state’s constitution to prohibit medically assisted suicide.

Updated on Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024 at 9:40 a.m.

This November, West Virginia voters will decide whether or not to change the state’s constitution to prohibit medically assisted suicide.

While West Virginia’s Amendment 1 lumps “the practice of medically assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of a person” together, they are different practices.

Assisted dying can take two forms: euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Euthanasia requires a physician to take an action to cause a patient’s death, typically a form of lethal injection. Euthanasia is not legal in the U.S., with the exception of capital punishment in the 27 U.S. states that allow the death penalty.

For an assisted suicide, a physician will prescribe a lethal prescription for the patient to self-administer whenever and wherever they choose.

Assisted suicide is legal in ten states and the District of Columbia. Internationally, the practice is legal in several European countries, Canada, Columbia and parts of Australia.

Requirements differ, but generally, individuals must have a terminal illness as well as a prognosis of six months or less to live to be eligible.

A 2022 study found 74 percent of medically assisted deaths in the U.S. had a diagnosis of cancer and 87 percent were enrolled in hospice or palliative care.

Assisted suicide is already illegal in West Virginia, but Del. Pat McGeehan, R-Hancock, believes the prohibition of the practice should be enshrined in the constitution of the state.

“Medically assisted suicide and euthanasia against men and women is storming the Western world, all we have to do is take a look at northern Europe, Canada and the 10 other states where it’s already legal,” McGeehan said. “It’s growing at an exponential rate, and it’s really a horde nihilistic phenomenon that most people aren’t aware of yet, and that was one of the reasons, because we really need to secure our state against this going forward in the future.”

During the regular session of the legislature, McGeehan, a sponsor of the resolution that turned into Amendment 1, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 4 that he was inspired to push for this constitutional prohibition after a constituent called and asked him to legalize medically assisted suicide in West Virginia.

McGeehan testified that he declined the request, but maintained correspondence with the constituent and tried to convince them not to travel to another state to carry out a medically assisted suicide.

Rusty Williams, the ACLU of West Virginia’s interim advocacy director, takes issue with McGeehan’s response to his constituent.

“The important part of the conversation is [that] our lawmakers are, they’re running counter to what we want,” Williams said.

The constituent eventually traveled to Oregon and passed away, spurring McGeehan into action.

Some lawmakers were concerned the resolution might prohibit capital punishment should it become legal in West Virginia. Therefore, the resolution was amended to include the caveat, “Nothing in this section prevents the State from providing capital punishment.”

When asked by lawmakers on the committee why he wanted to enshrine this prohibition into law, McGeehan said he and his fellow lawmakers will not always be in power, and he wants to prevent future lawmakers from legalizing the practice.

“The thought process is that we’re not always going to be here, and I don’t want to see in 10 years, suddenly this culture invade West Virginia like it has some of our border states already,” McGeehan testified.

On July 26, the ACLU of West Virginia published its opposition to Amendment 1, calling it unnecessary. Williams finds the proposed amendment deeply concerning.

“Our constitution exists to protect and expand rights, and I find it incredibly concerning that this is to take away a future right,” Williams said. “Medical aid in dying is already illegal in West Virginia. There’s already a statutory prohibition here. So enshrining it into the constitution, to me, runs counter to why the constitution exists in the first place.”

Williams said popular opinion in West Virginia might change, as it has nationally. A 2018 Gallop poll found that 72 percent of Americans support allowing terminally ill people to seek medical assistance in ending their own lives.

“A no vote doesn’t make any immediate changes to the lives of patients,” Williams said. “They’re still not going to be able to access this right because of the statutory prohibition. A yes vote just means that we are going to make it harder for legislatures down the road to again, if the will of the people changes.”

On Sept. 16, the League of Women Voters of West Virginia released a statement urging voters to reject Amendment 1.

“West Virginia already has laws on the books having to do with this,” said Judy Ball, chair of the League’s Legislative Action Workgroup. “This is not something new. That’s one of the problems with this amendment is it deals with issues that we already have dealt with in statute, and then it’s written in extremely vague terms, possibly to confuse the voter.”

Ball also said the league opposes Amendment 1 as it relates to capital punishment.

“The other thing is this amendment includes this reference to the death penalty, another thing that’s already in West Virginia law,” Ball said. “It was prohibited by West Virginia law going back to 1965, the league also opposes the death penalty. Why that’s in here? I have no idea, but it suggests that, to me, it suggests that what’s written into this amendment isn’t really what it’s about.”

Ball said she believes Amendment 1 is about control and an attempt by the government to intervene in decisions that should be personal.

“The legislature wants the government to control your life, to practice medicine without a license, and to intervene in places they don’t belong,” Ball said.

McGeehan believes that medically assisted suicide creates a setting where pressure is placed upon the elderly and disabled to see themselves as a burden.

“We want to send a signal to the rest of the country that we’re not going to stand for this nihilism and this dystopian nightmare that’s rapidly spreading across our country to save health care costs by killing the elderly, and we want to ensure that it never gains a foothold here in our state in the future, we want to send a signal that this should be the gold standard,” McGeehan said.

Election Day is November 5th.

Appalachia Health News is a project of West Virginia Public Broadcasting with support from Marshall Health.

Editor’s Note: This story was updated to include the source for McGeehan’s statement about saving health care costs.

Constitutional Protection From Euthanasia Could Appear On Ballots This Fall

Republicans in the West Virginia House of Delegates have backed a resolution allowing residents to vote to add protection from euthanasia to the state constitution during this fall’s general election.

Republicans in the West Virginia House of Delegates are calling on their colleagues in the West Virginia Senate to place constitutional protections from euthanasia on voters’ ballots this fall.

Euthanasia, or medically assisted suicide, is already illegal in the state.

With both chambers’ support, House Joint Resolution 28 would allow residents to vote on adding protections against euthanasia to the state constitution during this fall’s general election.

But lawmakers held conflicting views on the measure at a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Monday.

Resolution sponsor Del. Pat McGeehan, R-Hancock, was invited to speak to senators in committee, stating that the state’s stance against euthanasia is important.

“There’s this phenomenon of nihilism that’s sort of spreading across the country, and I think it’s an important issue we need to address,” McGeehan said. “To the best of my knowledge, we’ll be the first to place this and take a stand in the state constitution.”

While euthanasia prevention received some bipartisan support, pushback on aspects of the bill fell along party lines.

Republican lawmakers wanted to add language to the amendment so it could not affect capital punishment policies.

But Democratic lawmakers like Sen. Mike Woelfel, D-Cabell, said that contradicts the purported pro-life nature of the resolution.

Woelfel said he supported the resolution generally, but that protecting capital punishment gave him pause. Other lawmakers expressed concern over outright condemning euthanasia.

Sen. Mike Caputo, D-Marion, said he became more sympathetic to legalizing euthanasia after watching his father-in-law suffer through hospice care at the end of his life.

“We was praying for him to die, that’s how much he was suffering. We was literally praying for him to die,” Caputo said. “I know that, if he could have made this decision to end it earlier, he would have done that.”

Caputo also expressed concern that the resolution would hold legal implications for medical professionals, but McGeehan said the measure would not hold legal weight beyond what is already in place in state law.

Ultimately, members of the committee voted in favor of the resolution, sending it to the Senate floor with the recommendation that it pass.

If members of the Senate approve the resolution, West Virginia voters will be able to vote on constitutional protections from euthanasia in the state general election this November.

House Bill Would Cut Ties To ‘Antithetical’ Nations

A bill under consideration in the West Virginia House of Delegates would ban the state and its political subdivisions from engaging in certain forms of business with nations that hold values deemed “antithetical” to the state.

A bill in the West Virginia House of Delegates would restrict the state’s financial ties with foreign nations that hold values “antithetical” to its own.

House Bill 4364 would bar the state from contracting goods or services from foreign companies that could benefit the governments of China, Cuba, Iran, Laos, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Vietnam.

The bill states that restrictions would be imposed upon these nations because they either “align with communist ideology” or have caused “nonmilitary deaths” of U.S. citizens without proper governmental response.

In the bill, lawmakers cited a growing globalized economy as the cause of its creation, stating that “a company may obfuscate the beneficiaries of the proposed commercial activity that are in fact foreign entities.”

At a meeting of the House Committee on Government Organization Monday, some lawmakers expressed concern that the bill could limit the competitiveness of the state economy, or that it could violate preexisting contracts with foreign organizations.

Counsel for the committee said retroactively rescinding agreed upon contracts is often disapproved of by state and federal judiciaries.

Del. Pat McGeehan, R-Hancock, who sponsored the bill, confirmed that the bill would work retroactively, affecting contracts implemented before its passage.

In response, Del. Chris Pritt, R-Kanawha, said that state lawmakers should have authority to interpret whether or not the bill adhered to the state constitution.

“It is up for us to make determinations and give our input in terms of what’s constitutional and what’s not,” he said.

Pritt added that he viewed the pending legislation as a “very, very good bill” that is “perfectly in conformity with the constitution.”

He also said that the bill marked an important step toward protecting the values of the state and country. “There are certain countries that are hostile not only to the interests of West Virginia, but that are hostile to the interests of the United States,” he said.

Ultimately, the committee voted in favor of the bill, recommending that it pass but first be referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

West Virginia House Rejects Motion To Advance ‘Defend the Guard Act’

A bill requiring an official declaration of war from U.S. Congress to deploy members of the West Virginia National Guard overseas remains inactive, despite a robust conversation on the West Virginia House floor Tuesday.

Del. Pat McGeehan, R-Hancock, is the lead sponsor behind House Bill 2732, otherwise dubbed the “Defend the Guard Act.” McGeehan has proposed such an act every year since being elected to the House in 2015.

This year’s bill, which carried over from last year after the House failed to vote on it, was referred to two committees for consideration before the full House can vote on it.

McGeehan unsuccessfully requested on Tuesday that the House vote to discharge his bill from its first committee reference, in Veteran Affairs and Homeland Security, to its second committee reference in Judiciary. In his remarks to the rest of the House, McGeehan said his bill was on an agenda of bills to be considered in the Veteran Affairs and Homeland Security Committee last week but was removed by the request of the “powers that be.”

Del. Tom Bibby, R-Berkeley, chairs the House Veteran Affairs and Homeland Security Committee. He confirmed he did pull the bill from last week’s agenda. He said he plans to reschedule it on next week’s committee agenda.

“War is the most serious, serious operation, [the most] serious enterprises that a government could engage in,” McGeehan said. “And, quite rightly so, the founders saw it fit to vest that power within the legislative branch so that it can be openly debated.”

Lawmakers ultimately voted 50-50 to keep McGeehan’s bill in Veteran Affairs & Homeland Security.

Del. Isaac Sponaugle, D-Pendleton, noted that the bill has come up several times before. He urged other delegates to approve McGeehan’s request.

“He gets no respect,” Sponaugle said of McGeehan. “Some of you may like him, some of you may not like him. But the ideas that he likes expressing deserve debate, and getting buried in a minor committee and never seeing daylight is not a way to debate the issue.”

Del. Brandon Steele, R-Raleigh, disagreed with Sponaugle, saying committee references are a part of the legislative process.

“All of us have bills that don’t make it on an agenda,” Steele said. “The point is that all of us have issues that we’re passionate about, that we wait for leadership to put on an agenda. This is not the place to push your own agenda. This is a body that deliberates. … I find it very disingenuous, and very hypocritical.”

A “Defend the Guard Act” has come up from McGeehan in every session, every year since he was elected to the House of Delegates in 2015. This year’s bill is a carryover from the 2019 session. Before that, he introduced House Bill 2168 in 2015 and House Bill 2377 in 2017.

Bibby said after the floor session Tuesday he had removed House Bill 2732 from last week’s committee meeting agenda after hearing concerns from the West Virginia National Guard that the passage of such legislation could endanger their relationship with federal National Guard leaders.

Bibby — who voiced support for McGeehan’s bill in comments made before the discharge vote — said he plans to add the item back to his committee’s agenda next week. He also said he would introduce his own House resolution, calling on Congress to declare war before deploying West Virginia National Guard troops.

The National Guard’s Public Information Office declined to comment on McGeehan’s bill.

Emily Allen is a Report for America corps member.

House Kills Bill to Increase Beer Barrel Tax & More

The West Virginia House of Delegates has killed a bill that leadership says was one of the keys to balancing the 2018 budget. The bill was presented on behalf of Governor Jim Justice and originally would have raised $450 million in new taxes but drastically changed as it worked through the committee process.

House Bill 2816 would have put about $20 million dollars back into the general revenue fund during the 2018 fiscal year. The governor’s office says the budget hole for 2018 could be as high as $497 million dollars. But House officials say that’s because the governor attempted to increase state spending in his budget plan. The House’s budget calls on closing about a $340 million dollar gap, and without House Bill 2816, the chamber’s Finance Chair says that will be more difficult to do.

The bill looked at three major things to help balance the 2018 budget. First, it would’ve eliminated the film tax credit, putting $5 million back into general revenue. Second, it would’ve ended a transfer of monies from sales taxes on automobile products to the state road fund, putting about $12 million back into general revenue. And third, it would’ve increased the beer barrel tax, which estimated to bring in almost $3 million additional dollars.

This bill was up for passage in the chamber Tuesday, but was immediately met with opposition from members on both sides of the aisle. Several Democrats and Republicans opposed the bill because of its elimination of the film tax credit. But it was the beer barrel tax increase that had delegates like Republican Pat McGeehan from Hancock County fuming.

“So I’d just like to know, are we conservatives here? I thought the Republicans controlled this chamber. Maybe not, I don’t know,” McGeehan said, “Some members in my party seem like they’d like to take us back to the 1920s and early 1930s as prohibitionists. It’s not our job to pick and choose which legal products to tax. That’s called the ‘nanny state.’ It’s called free enterprise; that’s what we’re supposed to embrace.”

The bill failed 39 to 60. House Finance Chair Delegate Eric Nelson of Kanawha County says he was extremely surprised by the vote.

“You know what, we’re just going to continue – our idea of having a budget out by [Wednesday], which we were on a path of last Saturday; it’s going to be very difficult now,” Nelson noted, “So, you either have to look at cuts, or I hate to say it, revenue measures, and I don’t think the body, if they don’t look at a potential beer consumption change, where do you think they’ll be? Difficult times right now.”

Originally, delegates were also going to vote on House Bill 2933 Tuesday. It’s another bill to increase revenues for the state.

The bill in its current form reinstates a 3 percent food tax in October 2017, and it would also get rid of a number of exemptions to the current sales tax — like cell phones and professional services.

It would lower the sales tax from 6 to 5 percent in July 2018, and it would put a flat 5.1 percent rate on the personal income tax. All in all, the bill is estimated to bring in an additional $215 million between 2018 and 2020.

Delegates pushed consideration of that bill off until Wednesday.