One of the problems for proponents of this bill, I think, was their tendency to frame concerns and objections as simply a matter of right-wing conservatives "opposed to individual choice" rather than really engaging with the range of points brought up by disability and elder rights groups. I'm a staunch liberal, voted for Obama and Warren, and I voted No on 2 because I was worried about elder abuse and the potential for subtle coercion if we create a culture in which "dignity" means avoiding the messiness of natural death and avoiding becoming a burden on your family. I emailed various addresses I found on the pro-2 website, months before the election, to say that I had questions arising from my own experiences going through home hospice with two family members and I wondered if someone could answer my questions and allay my concerns. No one ever replied, and mass mailings from the Yes on 2 people seemed to focus on dismissing opponents as people who are opposed to individual freedom. Eventually my concerns gelled to a No vote. These issues are complex and need a more nuanced discussion than what we had.

The real problem was that the TV ads and robocalls by the opponents contained lies and distortions, like the fake pharmacist who dumps out 100 capsules and says each one has to be broken apart and dumped into a glass of water. That was fiction.

I find it hard to believe that churches and religious groups would lie, but there it was.

I also voted no, for no religious or right-wing reason. I couldn't find in the statute or the explanations how someone who was terminal and in pain, but unable to use their limbs could take advantage of the bill. The dying person had to be able to open the 100 capsules, pour the contents into liquid, mix it, and drink it all by themselves. Any assistance by another, say for an ALS patient or quadripegic cancer patient, would require the help of another person, and this would be a homicide. The statute seemed to have no provision on this point. So if a "healthy" terminal patient could self administer, but a terminal patient unable to use their hands and arms could not, this would seem to violate constitutional equal protection provisions. Rewrite it, resubmit it, tighten it up and I will probably vote "yes."

Is that the same PR firm representing the Assad dictatorship and BP?

Soylent Green is made out of people!

I regret that this article made zero mention of the concerns raised by handicapped people about the risks they saw in this proposal.  At a gathering sponsored by the Mass Council of Churches, where both sides were well presented, we were advised to ask two questions about any policy proposal: (1) who benefits; and (2) who is made vulnerable?  For Q.2, the answers to these vital questions were more favorable to a No vote.

'outgunned' when the Archdiocese gives a quarter million to buy an election result and a solid phalanx of god groups under the tutelage of someone expert in booze ballots ??  really ??

pathetic

Lots of progressives opposed Question 2, none more than the disability rights community organized under Second Thoughts. Please check out www.second-thoughts.org