Pro-Abortion Justices Decry Method of Capital Punishment Promoted by Progressive Proponents of Assisted Suicide

The sick irony that the “Progressive” culture of death believes that convicted murderers should have more rights than the unborn, elderly, or infirm, as it promotes abortion and assisted suicide, was on full display in a recent Supreme Court case.

Some assisted suicide proponents have offered a method – nitrogen gas asphyxiation – for people to kill themselves in a supposedly peaceful way. Unfortunately for these death proponents, the same technique is used in some states to execute capital offenders. And according to at least some left-leaning Supreme Court Justices, the method makes for a torturous death.

On October 23, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Boyd v Hamm, denied a stay of execution of a convicted criminal in Alabama. Boyd, the convict, challenged the method of his execution. He was to die by nitrogen hypoxia, which means he would be made to breathe nitrogen instead of oxygen until he suffocated.

If that sounds terrible, it’s because it is. In fact, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, in a dissenting opinion, described in excruciating detail the agony and torture of a death by nitrogen suffocation. The person being executed struggles mightily for minutes on end, trying desperately to get oxygen, before finally succumbing. Perhaps not surprisingly, Boyd wanted to die by firing squad instead.

But what do assisted suicide proponents say about death by nitrogen hypoxia? In fact, that is exactly the method proposed by some of them. Believe it or not, there is a “Sarco Pod,” designed to kill those who utilize the pod precisely by replacing the oxygen in their air with nitrogen – just like the method Alabama uses.

Sarco tries to deny the obvious comparision. As the Sarco FAQ page states (typos in original):

Isn’t Sarco a modern-day gas chamber?

No, Sarco is not a gas chamber. Gas chambers (eg. during the Holocaust or in American capital punishment) used poisonous gas. In the Holocaust, Zyklon B (Hydrogen Cyanide) was used. In capital punishment in the US, carbon monoxide was used. Sarco is about a low oxygen environment. The air we all breath is ~ 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen. If the 20% oxygen is removed and the air is 100% nitrogen, the person will quickly lose consciousness and die.

In other words, yes, this is a modern-day gas chamber, using the same method Alabama and other states use to execute prisoners, the only difference being that the victim wants to be executed. But what about the “primal urge to breathe” cited by Justice Sotomayor? Might that not make for a dreadful demise?

Sarco says no:

The Sarco aims to provide a hypoxic (low oxygen), hypocapnic (low carbon dioxide) death. This is similar to when a plane depressurizes. Furthermore, the experience of being in a low oxygen environment can be intoxicating with a feeling of mild euphoria. That said, sometimes with the hypoxic death there will be involuntary muscle contractions (seizures). Eye witnesses to those who have used a plastic bag say that the person is unconscious at this point.

In other words, the victim is actually happy – “mild euphoria” – and you should pay no attention to those unsettling convulsions (“involuntary muscle contractions (seizures)”). Tell that to Mr. Boyd.

Curiously, Alabama has the same answer as Sarco to the question of a torturous death. To quote Justice Sotomayor:

[T]he District Court found that to minimize the duration of conscious suffering, the individual must cooperate in his execution. . . . Holding one’s breath or taking short breaths, often the products of an involuntary reaction to oxygen depletion, prolongs consciousness.

So if you want to die and cooperate, the torture may end sooner. Of course, this ignores the possibility, apparently quite common, that someone might change his or her mind at the last second. The will to live is strong, after all.

Does this concern with agonizing deaths mean Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson will be staunch opponents of assisted suicide by nitrogen gas? Perhaps. But there are reasons to doubt.

First, assisted suicide and euthanasia nowadays seem to be a staple in the Progressive policy book. It is invariably left-leaning governments that adopt or expand the practice. Yes, there are Progressives who opposed assisted suicide, recognizing it as a threat to those with disabilities, but they do not so far appear to be the ones dictating the party line. So the three dissenters in Boyd’s case will feel the pull to be “good Progressives” and support assisted suicide.

Second, these same Justices do not seem to have qualms about aborting babies. Both Justices Sotomayor and Kagan dissented from the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling overturning Roe v Wade. And while Justice Jackson was not yet on the Court for Dobbs, she reliably votes on the abortion side of cases since her appointment. But if you want to talk about a torturous death, just look at the methods of abortion. We pointed out in a Supreme Court amicus brief that “this Court would never tolerate, under the Eighth Amendment, the dismemberment of even the most vicious criminals; yet that is the standard method for aborting innocent human beings in the womb.” And, of course, these babies – unlike the convicted murderers – committed no crimes.

When will the supporters of the culture of death recognize their profound inconsistency in voicing concern for convicted criminals while ignoring innocent and vulnerable human beings in their mothers’ wombs (or vulnerable people facing debilitating conditions)?

The ACLJ continues to fight against the threats of abortion and euthanasia nationwide. Join our fight to save those who cannot save themselves.