Constitutional Right to Death and Poor Grammar in New Mexico

A New Mexico judge (Nan Nash) has just overturned state law criminalizing aid in suicides.  It's another case of our leftist judicial oligarchy inserting their own moral beliefs into a constitution, in this case, New Mexico's.
Here is the judicial OPINION

So if you feel like a burden to your family or caretakers, if you feel worthless and downtrodden, if you just can't summon the courage to pull the trigger, well, the judge wants you to know now you have options.  (Actually, you've always had them since they were right there in the Constitution all along.  Silly us for not noticing).

Here's the essence of the "argument" from her opinion (commentary below the fold):

HH. This Court cannot envision a right more fundamental, more private or more 
integral to the liberty, safety and happiness of a New Mexican than the right of a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying. If decisions made in the shadow of one’s imminent death regarding how they and their loved ones will face that death are not fundamental and at the core of these constitutional guarantees, than what decisions are? As recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Cruzan “[t]he choice between life and death is a deeply personal decision of obvious and overwhelming finality.” Cruzan, 497 U.S. at 281. 

II. The Court therefore declares that the liberty, safety and happiness interest of a 

competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying is a fundamental right under our New 

Mexico Constitution. 

Snake-handling, Suicide, and Sodomy

Yesterday it was reported that snake-handling, Pentecostal pastor, Jamie Coots, died of a snakebite. Apparently it was the 10th time he was bitten.  Coots lived in Kentucky which is one of a few states that both has snake-handling churches and laws against snake-handling.  The Kentucky law even mentions snake-handling church services and has the penalty as a misdemeanor fine.

Here is one of these borderline cases where a law teeters on violating the Free Exercise clause in the 1st Amendment (at least if one interprets the clause as applying to states which is the dubious, current interpretation).  A libertarian would find such a law appalling and even a number of conservatives would as well.  Nonetheless if a strong case could be made that, say, children are likely to be harmed by the practice, an argument of some merit could be made that this is a case where the state has an interest in promoting the common good at the expense of free exercise of religion.

A quick Wikipedia search reveals that Georgia once had the draconian penalty of DEATH for snake-handling which any sane person should agree is, well, a BIT excessive.  The law was eventually abolished since juries refused to convict given the extreme penalty.  Similarly, it was reported yesterday that, in Kentucky, even though snake-handling is considered a misdemeanor, arrest and conviction seldom takes place--the executive branch being leery of imposing on freedom of religion.  Which brings us to suicide and sodomy.