Appeal tribune. (Silverton, Or.) 1999-current, October 17, 2018, Image 2

Appeal tribune., October 17, 2018, Page 2A, Image 2

Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR

About Appeal tribune. (Silverton, Or.) 1999-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 17, 2018)

Prev Page of 8 Next Prev Issue Next Text PDF JP2 (1.2 MB) Clip/Print Image

Return to Top

Prev Page of 8 Next Prev Issue Next

Newspaper Page Text2A ܂ WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2018 ܂ APPEAL TRIBUNE Should tax money be used for abortions? Natalie Pate Salem Statesman Journal USA TODAY NETWORK Ballot Measure 106 would prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for elective and late-term abortions. While supporters say this measure only limits what money could be used for abortions, opponents fear it is a backdoor ban on the procedure and dis- proportionately aﬀects low-income Or- egonians. Oregon is one of 17 states that uses its own money to provide abortions to women eligible for Medicaid, according to the reproductive health research or- ganization, the Guttmacher Institute. And last year, Oregon lawmakers ex- panded taxpayer funding for abortion via the Reproductive Health Equity Act, or House Bill 3391. Because the bill was declared an emergency, it was not re- ferred to the public for a vote. Nichole Bentz, the chief spokesper- son for the ’Yes on Measure 106‘ cam- paign, said this is the public’s chance to make a choice — do they want public money used to fund abortions or not? The campaign uses the slogans, “Your money, your choice,” and “Life’s worth more.” About $1.9 million of public funds were used to pay for about 3,600 abor- tions via the Oregon Health Plan in the 2017-18 ﬁscal year, according to the Ore- gon Health Authority. The number of procedures has de- clined over the past three years, with a peak of about 4,180 abortions in 2015-16. Spending is also down from previous years, with a peak of about $2.5 million spent on abortions by the state in the same budget year. Additionally, as the number of Ore- gon Health Plan clients has more than doubled in the last 12 years, the rate of procedures has steadily declined from 20.4 percent of clients in 2005-06 to 7.6 percent of clients in 2017-18. Measure 106 — also known as the Oregon Ban Public Funds for Abortions Initiative — would prohibit public dol- lars from being spent on abortions. But it does specify certain exceptions. If passed, public dollars could still be used when federal law requires states pay for abortions, such as cases of rape or incest. Public funds also could pay abortions of a clinically-diagnosed ectopic preg- nancy — when a fertilized egg becomes implanted outside the uterus, has no chance of proceeding normally to birth and could cause fatal bleeding to the mother. “This isn’t a ban on abortion,” Bentz said. “This is speciﬁcally talking about how public funds are used.” Opponents to the measure — orga- nized under the ’No Cuts to Care‘ cam- paign — argue this measure is “a back- door ban on abortion” because it takes away the full range of reproductive health care for all women, speciﬁcally those unable to pay for a procedure without state health insurance. “No matter how you feel about abor- tion, no one should be denied health care because they can’t aﬀord it,” said Emily McLain, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ore- gon. “A right is not a right if you can’t af- ford to access it.” Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon is one of more than 100 groups and leaders in a coalition against the measure. Also on the list is the ACLU of Oregon, Basic Rights Oregon, Catholics for Choice and the Oregon Nurses Asso- ciation. Bentz with Yes on Measure 106 said it was not an intentional consequence to make access to abortions more diﬃcult for women who are low-income, but that Oregonians should have a chance to vote on how their money is used. McLain wasn’t buying that. “To ﬁle a petition is very intentional,” she told the Statesman Journal. Leaders of the initiative ﬁrst ﬁled the proposal with the Oregon Secretary of State in 2016. They submitted a petition with almost 138,000 signatures earlier this year to earn a spot on the November ballot. McLain said the change would im- pact Oregon’s most vulnerable — those who qualify for Medicaid — and could force thousands of women who other- wise would have sought abortions to carry to term. “Whether or when to become a par- ent is a big decision and Measure 106 in- terferes with that,” she said. “Access to health care shouldn’t be dependent on how much you make or what type of in- surance you have.” Oregon’s ballot measure is state-spe- ciﬁc and the supporting organization is run via a local grassroots eﬀort, Bentz said. But other states also have abor- tion-related measures on their Novem- ber ballots. West Virginia voters will decide on a constitutional amendment stating there is no right to abortion. Alabama voters will decide if the state policy should recognize and sup- port “the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children” and state that “nothing in (the state constitution) se- cures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion.” Both of these measures were referred to the ballots by the respective state leg- islatures. Contact reporter Natalie Pate at npate@StatesmanJournal.com, 503- 399-6745 or follow her on Twitter @Nataliempate or Facebook at www. Facebook.com/nataliepatejournalist. Measure 104 wonky, but with major implications Connor Radnovich Salem Statesman Journal USA TODAY NETWORK A ballot measure that would expand which proposed legislation requires a su- permajority to pass through the Oregon Legislature is arguably the wonkiest measure of this election cycle, but could have signiﬁcant statewide implications. Measure 104 is backed in large part by the Oregon Association of Realtors and the state’s business community, and has received major funding from national groups. Its creation was in direct response to the Legislature’s attempt to limit the mortgage interest deduction during the 2017 legislative session. The bill didn’t make it out of committee. “It wasn’t like there wasn’t a desire to pass that bill,” said Shaun Jillions, a rep- resentative for the Oregon Association of Realtors who helped write Measure 104. Oregon’s Constitution already re- quires all “bills for raising revenue” to pass with a three-ﬁfths majority in both chambers. But what that means is up for debate. A 2015 Oregon Supreme Court ruling and opinions from Legislative Counsel decided that the removal of tax breaks doesn’t count as “raising revenue” in the same way as a tax increase or new tax. So, while House Bill 2006 was expect- ed to net more funds for the state, it would have only required a simple major- ity to pass — something Democrats could do on their own without any bipartisan support. As it is, Democrats are only one mem- ber shy of a supermajority in both cham- bers. Approval of Measure 104 would return the Legislature to how it operated before the 2015 court ruling, Chris Allanach, leg- islative revenue oﬃcer, said in an email. But Measure 104 also expands the three-ﬁfths voting requirement to fees. Jillions said this aspect of the measure is a simple case of closing a loophole be- fore it is exploited. “There was a great concern the Legis- lature would just call everything a fee in- stead,” he said. Opponents of Measure 104 fear this change could slow progress in the statehouse and increase the prevalence of backroom deals. There are more than 2,400 fees in Oregon, including those associated with hunting and ﬁshing licenses, vehi- cle and vessel registration, ﬁrearms background checks, exotic animal per- mits and more. For any requested fee increase, three-ﬁfths of lawmakers would need to vote in support. Allanach said he didn’t know how of- ten these fees are increased or by how much, but this may be the “more exten- sive impact, from a legislative work process.” Sen. Mark Hass, D-Beaverton, said managing fees is an issue of day-to-day governance, whereas the state Consti- tution should be reserved for broad pa- rameters. “If we want to govern day to day through the Constitution, I think people will ﬁnd it pretty unwieldy,” Hass said. Jillions said if agencies are commu- nicating with appropriate parties inside and outside the Capitol building, they shouldn’t have to worry about unex- pected opposition to proposed fee in- creases. “When agencies do the job reaching out to their stake holders … you have signiﬁcant votes in support,” he said. Another Measure 104 supporter, Sen. Brian Boquist, R-Dallas, said he can’t remember a fee bill passing with less than a three-ﬁfths vote. “The notion that some fee bills barely pass … I don’t recall ever seeing that,” he said. Boquist is suing the state over which kinds of bills would require a three- ﬁfths vote to pass each chamber. The lawsuit came in response to a bill that disconnected Oregon’s tax code from aspects of federal law, resulting in mil- lions in additional revenue for the state compared to if they didn’t disconnect. Democrats passed the bill with a simple majority. The “No on 104” campaign argues that while most fees pass easily now, Measure 104 would create a negative in- centive for lawmakers, especially those in the minority. Giving that kind of power to the mi- nority could push the Legislature to- ward greater partisanship and encour- age horse trading for previously simple bills, said Katherine Driessen, spokes- woman for Our Oregon, a union-backed progressive political organization lead- ing the opposition to Measure 104. “This would empower a small minor- ity of legislators to grind things to a halt in Salem,” she said. A recent survey showed more Orego- nians back a “no” vote by the slimmest of margins, and many are still undecid- ed. Commissioned by the Oregonian/ OregonLive and KGW, the online survey released Monday showed 37 percent of likely voters against the measure, while 36 percent are in support. A signiﬁcant 28 percent remained undecided. Riley Research Associates contacted 356 people for the survey and the margin of error was 5.2 percent. Contact the reporter at cradnov- ich@statesmanjournal.com or 503- 399-6864, or follow him on Twitter at @CDRadnovich Address: P.O. Box 13009, Salem, OR 97309 To Place an Ad Phone: 503-399-6773 Classifieds: call 503-399-6789 Retail: call 503-399-6602 Legal: call 503-399-6789 Fax: 503-399-6706 Email: sanews@salem.gannett.com Web site: www.SilvertonAppeal.com Missed Delivery? Staff Call: 800-452-2511 Hours: until 7 p.m. Wednesdays; until 3 p.m. other weekdays News Director Don Currie 503-399-6655 dcurrie@statesmanjournal.com Advertising Terri McArthur 503-399-6630 tmcarthur@Salem.gannett.com Deadlines News: 4 p.m. Thursday Letters: 4 p.m. Thursday Obituaries: 11 a.m. Friday Display Advertising: 4 p.m. Wednesday Legals: 3 p.m. Wednesday Classifieds: 4 p.m. Friday News Tips The Appeal Tribune encourages suggestions for local stories. Email the newsroom, submit letters to the editor and send announcements to sanews@salem.gannett.com or call 503-399-6773. To Subscribe Call: 800-452-2511 $21 per year for home delivery $22 per year for motor delivery $30.10 per year mail delivery in Oregon $38.13 per year mail delivery outside Oregon Main Statesman Journal publication Suggested monthly rates: Monday-Sunday: $22, $20 with EZ Pay Monday-Saturday: $17.50, $16 with EZ Pay Wednesday-Sunday: $18, $16 with EZ Pay Monday-Friday: $17.50, $16 with EZ Pay Sunday and Wednesday: $14, $12 with EZ Pay Sunday only: $14, $12 with EZ Pay To report delivery problems or subscribe, call 800-452-2511 Published every Wednesday by the Statesman Journal, P.O. Box 13009, Salem, OR 97309. USPS 469-860, Postmaster: Send address changes to Appeal Tribune, P.O. Box 13009, Salem, OR 97309. PERIODICALS POSTAGE PAID: Salem, OR and additional offices. Send letters to the editor and news releases to sanews@salem.gannett.com. Protect your savings with FDIC coverage up to $1.5 million. Our Insured Bank Deposit program offers the assurance of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) protection. This interest-bearing savings solution gives you the convenience of having your savings and investments on one statement. Getting started is easy. Call your fi nancial advisor today to learn more. Michael Kim, Deposits are FDIC-insured up to $1.5 million or $3 million for joint accounts of two or more people. More information about the Insured Bank Deposit program, including the program disclosure, is available from your fi nancial advisor or at www.edwardjones.com/bankdeposit. For more information about FDIC insurance, go to www.fdic.gov. DDS “Your friendly local dentist” ENTER FOR OUR MONTHLY KINDLE DRAWING AT EACH APPOINTMENT Salem Area Vin Searles Garry Falor CFP ® FINANCIAL ADVISOR Mission | 503-363-0445 FINANCIAL ADVISOR West | 503-588-5426 Michael Wooters Chip Hutchings FINANCIAL ADVISOR South | 503-362-5439 FINANCIAL ADVISOR Lancaster | 503-585-4689 Caitlin Davis CFP ® Tim Sparks FINANCIAL ADVISOR West | 503-585-1464 FINANCIAL ADVISOR Commercial | 503-370-6159 Jeff Davis FINANCIAL ADVISOR Liberty | 503-581-8580 New Patients & Emergencies Welcome Cosmetic Implant Bridges/Partials Extractions Crowns/Fillings Root Canals LOCAL ADVISORS Keizer Area Sheryl Resner Mario Montiel www.edwardjones.com Member SIPC Brittney - RDH Dr. Kim Morgan - RDH WE ACCEPT MOST INSURANCE 410 Oak St, Silverton, OR, 97381 503-873-3530 kimsilvertonordentist.com FINANCIAL ADVISOR FINANCIAL ADVISOR Keizer | 503-304-8641 Keizer | 503-393-8166 Surrounding Area Bridgette Justis Kelly Denney FINANCIAL ADVISOR Sublimity | 503-769-3180 FINANCIAL ADVISOR Dallas | 503-623-2146 Tim Yount David Eder FINANCIAL ADVISOR Silverton | 503-873-2454 FINANCIAL ADVISOR Stayton | 503-769-4902 OR-0000392769 OR-SAL0008134-23