Assemblywoman Danielle Gallant (R-Clark) – a California transplant from San Francisco – had a message for conservative voters who opposed her assisted suicide bill last year:
I don’t care what you think.
In a March 2025 opinion piece published by Nevada News & Views defending her flip-flop on AB346, Gallant wrote: “I know there are many within my political base who are going to get mean and nasty over my decision.”
Then she added this dismissive line: “Now the loudest of my base will be shooting proverbial arrows, and I say, ‘Shoot away.'”
That’s not leadership. That’s arrogance.
The San Francisco Flip-Flopper
In 2023, Gallant voted against SB239, an assisted suicide bill.
One session later, she not only voted for the same bill under a new number, she was a primary co-sponsor of it.
Why the flip-flop?
According to Gallant she “went back to my district after the last session and asked their opinion.”
She claimed voters “not only asked me to vote in favor, but even asked me to personally bring that bill this session.”
Really?
Voters in Boulder City, Henderson, and Laughlin asked their Republican assemblymember to personally sponsor government-mandated falsified death certificates?
Yes, that’s exactly what AB346 would actually have done.
“Section 29: A death resulting from a patient self-administering a medication that is designed to end his or her life in accordance with the provisions of sections 5 to 33, inclusive, of this act does not constitute mercy killing, euthanasia, assisted suicide, suicide or homicide.”
When someone takes lethal medication specifically prescribed to end their life, the bill would have required doctors to list the terminal illness as the cause of death.
Not the medication that actually killed them. The terminal illness.
That’s not a technicality. That’s fraud.
The Insurance Scam
Here’s what Gallant didn’t tell her constituents.
Most life insurance policies won’t pay out if someone commits suicide within the first year or two. That’s standard practice based on actuarial science.
But if the death certificate says cancer instead of intentionally taking lethal drugs, insurance companies have to pay.
The Oregon bill that the Nevada bill was based on even declared that taking life-ending medication is legally “not suicide.”
Think about that.
The government passes a law saying something isn’t what it obviously is. Then insurance companies get stuck paying claims they normally wouldn’t.
Who pays for that? Every other policyholder – including you and me – through higher premiums!
Gallant runs a property management company. She understands contracts. So she knows this is wrong. But she did it anyway.
Gallant’s Own Words Reveal the Problem
In her opinion piece Gallant tried to justify her position with personal experience. She wrote about working in a nursing home and told readers:
“When I left that job, after having seen how it works first hand, I told my husband to never send me to a nursing home and just let me take my pills to die peacefully in my home with my dignity intact.”
That’s her personal choice. Fine. But why should her preference require doctors to file false government documents?
Gallant admitted the issue divides people, writing:
“When it comes to this complicated issue, are things really black and white? I would argue no. There’s plenty of room for nuance on both sides.”
But there’s no nuance when it comes to government-mandated dishonesty.
Either death certificates should be accurate or they shouldn’t. Either doctors should tell the truth or they shouldn’t.
Nevada law makes filing false statements under penalty of perjury a Category D felony.
Doctors sign death certificates certifying the cause of death. If they know the actual cause was lethal medication but write down the terminal illness, aren’t they committing perjury?
AB346 would have put physicians in an impossible position: Follow the law or tell the truth.
Did Constituents Really Ask for This?
Again, Gallant claimed she brought this bill because constituents asked her to.
Really?
I represented many of those same southern Nevada voters as an Assemblywoman during the 2021 legislative session.
I knocked on thousands of doors – and I never had a single constituent say, “Please make sure doctors lie on death certificates.”
Gallant also cited a very questionable 2016 poll by an assisted suicide advocacy organization showing 70 percent support for “dying with dignity” laws.
But polls are about how you ask the question.
Did that poll ask voters if they support requiring false information on official government documents? Did it ask if they support insurance fraud?
I doubt it. If so, Ms. Gallant, share with us the exact wording of the question.
Dismissing Conservative Concerns
Gallant wrote that she promised to “represent the will of my district without question and without fear.” But representing your district doesn’t mean ignoring conservative principles.
Assembly District 23 voted 60 percent for her in 2022 because they wanted a conservative Republican who would stand for limited government and honest data.
They didn’t elect her to co-sponsor bills that corrupt public health statistics and force private companies to ignore reality.
But the most troubling part of Gallant’s opinion piece is how she treated conservatives who disagreed with her.
She acknowledged opposition from her base – then dismissed it with contempt with her “shoot away” challenge.
That’s not how you treat voters who put you in office.
Those “arrows” are constituents exercising their First Amendment rights. They’re Republican voters who expected their Republican representative to oppose government fraud.
Gallant promised to represent the will of the people, “not be held prisoner by partisan expectations.”
But standing for honest government records isn’t a “partisan expectation.” It’s basic integrity.
Where Governor Lombardo Stands
Governor Joe Lombardo promised to veto AB346 – just as he vetoed the 2023 assisted suicide bill – saying improved palliative care made this unnecessary.
The bill died in committee. Without Gov. Lombardo’s principled stand, Gallant may well have succeeded in forcing this fraud into law.
Think about that.
A Republican assemblymember was so committed to this bill that she was willing to defy her own Republican governor.
Gallant didn’t care. She was willing to dismiss her conservative base. She was willing to flip-flop on a fundamental life and death issue.
Why?
Primary Voters Will Get the Last Word
I don’t question Gallant’s compassion for terminally ill patients. End-of-life care is deeply personal. Families face heartbreaking decisions.
But compassion doesn’t require dishonesty.
We can debate whether terminally ill patients should have access to lethal medication and reasonable people can disagree.
But we can’t debate whether government should force falsified public records.
Conservatives believe in limited government, honest data, and free markets without government manipulation.
AB346 violated all three principles. And when Gallant’s own supporters raised concerns, she told them to pound sand.
Conservative voters deserve better.
They deserve a representative who listens when constituents raise legitimate concerns about government-mandated fraud.
They deserve someone who doesn’t flip-flop on fundamental issues based on political calculation.
They deserve a representative who doesn’t dismiss conservative principles as “partisan expectations” or treat concerned voters with contempt.
Assembly District 23 sent a Republican to Carson City to stand for something, not to co-sponsor bills that require doctors to lie – then mock constituents who object.
Gallant may not care what her conservative base thinks, but primary voters will have their say in June. And they might very well “shoot away” on their ballots.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. Digital technology was used in the research, writing, and production of this article. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
