Page 4A
OPINION
East Oregonian
Friday, June 19, 2015
Founded October 16, 1875
KATHRYN B. BROWN
DANIEL WATTENBURGER
Publisher
Managing Editor
JENNINE PERKINSON
TIM TRAINOR
Advertising Director
Opinion Page Editor
OUR VIEW
Tip of the hat;
kick in the pants
A tip of the hat to Treasury Department, who will put a woman on
the $10 bill by 2020.
Now for the hard part: what woman should be bestowed with the honor?
Harriet Tubman seems to be the early favorite for gracing the bill. (In case
you need a refresher, Tubman was an Africa-American who helped organize
and operate the Underground Railroad,
shuttling slaves from the south into the
free north. After the Civil War, Tubman
became a major proponent of women’s
suffrage.)
Other possibilities include Eleanor
Roosevelt, Sally Ride, Susan B.
Anthony, Sacajawea, Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, Sojourner Truth, Wilma
Mankiller, Rosa Parks or Clara Barton.
The country has time to decide,
and it’s great to know the Treasury
Department will take the nation’s choice
into consideration when it changes the
YLVDJHRQDELOOIRUWKH¿UVWWLPHVLQFH
On the other side of the bill, we have to say goodbye to Alexander
Hamilton, a pretty darn righteous dude and one of the great Founding
Fathers of this country. We imagine in today’s age of enlightenment, he
would be open to stepping aside and making room for a Founding Mother.
A kick in the pants to Rachel Dolezal, the Spokane woman who lied
about her race.
This is a sensitive subject, and nuance is required rather than just harsh
rebuke. But there is no way to get away
from a pants-kicking if you lie about
your race to forward your career.
Don’t get us wrong. It’s admirable for
a white woman from northwest Montana
to study and teach African studies and
work for the NAACP. But Dolezal’s
actions did not advance the cause she
purported to promote, and only leads to
suspicion and resentment.
Although it is tempting to draw larger
parallels here, it can’t be done. This is
one woman with an incomprehensible
story, and some severe family and identity issues. She rightfully is no longer
a professor or directing the NAACP. Let’s hope she tells the truth moving
forward.
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East Oregonian editorial board of Publisher
Kathryn Brown, Managing Editor Daniel Wattenburger, and Opinion Page Editor Tim Trainor.
Other columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not
necessarily that of the East Oregonian.
OTHER VIEWS
Birth control legislation will result
in fewer unwanted pregnancies
The (Medford) Mail Tribune
Gov. Kate Brown signed the nation’s
¿UVWODZUHTXLULQJLQVXUDQFHFRPSDQLHV
to provide a full year’s worth of
prescription contraceptives at a time,
making it easier for women to prevent
unwanted pregnancies.
Lawmakers should
also pass a second
measure, which would
permit pharmacists to
dispense birth control to
adult women without a
prescription.
The measure that
becomes law today
should reduce the odds of
unplanned pregnancies
by 30 percent when
compared with
dispensing contraception
every 30 or 90 days,
according to supporters.
The second measure, still making
its way through the legislative process,
would empower pharmacists to dispense
birth control pills without a prescription
WRZRPHQDQGROGHU0LQRUVVWLOO
ZRXOGQHHGWRVHHDGRFWRUIRUWKHLU¿UVW
SUHVFULSWLRQEXWFRXOGREWDLQUH¿OOV
without a subsequent visit to a doctor.
7KHPHDVXUH+RXVH%LOO
cleared the House last week on a
bipartisan 50-10 vote. It is sponsored
by Rep. Knute Buehler, R-Bend, a
physician, who said he was prompted to
introduce it because women could obtain
the “morning-after pill,” or emergency
contraception, without a prescription but
not ordinary birth-control pills. He also
notes that men can obtain contraception
over the counter, but women cannot.
Although some lawmakers have
raised concerns about health risks,
a committee of the
American College
of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists in
2012 recommended
on-demand birth control
pills as a way to reduce
unplanned pregnancies
up to 25 percent. HB
ZRXOGUHTXLUH
women to complete a
20-item health screening
questionnaire before
obtaining contraceptives,
a step recommended by
the panel.
The panel also noted
that the risk of blood clots from newer
types of birth-control pills is quite low,
and in fact is less than the risk of the
same complication in women who are
pregnant or have just given birth.
The important thing here is that both
of these pieces of legislation will make
it easier and less expensive for women
WRREWDLQFRQWUDFHSWLRQLQWKH¿UVWSODFH
and to continuously protect themselves
against unwanted pregnancy thereafter.
The fewer unwanted pregnancies, the
fewer abortions. That’s an outcome
everyone can agree on.
OTHER VIEWS
For Hillary, a new Iraq war trap
P
resident Obama’s decision to
So where does that leave Clinton?
send 450 more American troops
Very, very quiet. “Just remember this
to Iraq has put Hillary Clinton in
about Hillary,” says a Democratic
a tough spot. What will she say about
VWUDWHJLVWQRWDI¿OLDWHGZLWKDQ\
WKH¿JKWDJDLQVWWKH,VODPLF6WDWHRI
campaign. “She thinks she’d be
Iraq and Syria?
¿QLVKLQJKHUVHFRQGWHUPLQWKH:KLWH
The answer, beyond a few
House if she’d been right about the
boilerplate remarks, is nothing. There
ZDUWKH¿UVWWLPH6RVKH¶VQRWJRLQJWR
is no topic more radioactive in the
wander into this eagerly or quickly.”
Byron
Clintonworld psyche than Iraq. Look
When Clinton is asked about
York
for her to avoid taking any clear,
Iraq — and that might not be for a
Comment
decisive position, at least for now.
while, given her avoidance of the press
No, it wouldn’t be hard for Clinton
and unscreened voters — it’s not hard
to stand against Republicans who have
to imagine her answering that the president is
denounced Obama’s move as an ineffective
looking at all the intelligence, that he’s making
half-measure — a “duct tape approach,” in the a judgment based on that intelligence, and
words of Sen. Lindsey Graham. Clinton, or
that she would have to know more to make an
at least her surrogate spokesmen, can accuse
informed judgment herself.
them of wanting yet another war in Iraq.
That won’t satisfy anyone. But Clinton
It’s Clinton’s fellow Democrats who are
might well decide that suffering a little bad
the problem. On the one hand, the White
press would be better than taking a strong
House presents the new
position and having it blow
deployment of troops as part
up in her face.
of an ongoing “train, advise
“Can she avoid taking
and assist” mission that will
a stand? Yes,” says the
KHOS,UDTLV¿JKWWKH,VODPLF
strategist. “Will it cause her
State without the presence
some damage? Yes. Will she
of a large number of U.S.
do it anyway? Yes.”
ground troops. On the other
Clinton’s Democratic
hand, some Democrats are
opponents won’t be so
increasingly worried about
cautious. Both Bernie
“mission creep” in Iraq and will not support
Sanders and Martin O’Malley opposed the
Obama’s policy.
invasion of Iraq back in 2003. They can both
“I am very concerned about mission creep
say Clinton was wrong then and is wrong now.
in Iraq,” Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen
The reason Clinton does not have to
told MSNBC recently. While Van Hollen said
respond, at least quickly, is that she currently
he supports Obama’s air war in Iraq, “Putting
enjoys a 47.5-point lead over Sanders, and
more U.S. troops on the ground and putting
a 56.7-point lead over O’Malley in the
them in harm’s way is something that would
RealClearPolitics average of national polls.
give me grave, grave concern.”
Given the caution her campaign has exhibited
“It represents an escalation ... incremental
so far, there’s no reason to expect her to
mission creep,” Democratic Rep. Jim
engage such a dangerous topic with such a
McGovern told Politico. “This won’t be the
comfortable lead.
last deployment. It will continue to increase.”
Anyone who thinks Clinton won’t, or can’t,
Another Democrat, Sen. Chris Murphy, is
stay away from the subject should ask this
urging Congress to constrain Obama’s ability
question: What is her position on the giant
to wage war in Iraq. “I support the president’s
3DFL¿FWUDGHGHDOFXUUHQWO\EHLQJQHJRWLDWHG
mission to try to assist in the training of
by the Obama administration, a deal about
the Iraqi forces, but I’d be much more
which many Democrats have passionate
comfortable in supporting that mission if I
feelings? She hasn’t said.
knew what the limits of if were,” Murphy said
“This is not a campaign that is taking any
on MSNBC. “Congress has to vote next week risks,” says the Democratic strategist. “She’ll
on a prohibition on the large scale deployment do nothing for as long as she can get away
of ground troops, so that that creeping number with it.”
of hundreds-at-a-time doesn’t become a
Ŷ
second Iraq war before we have anything to
Byron York is chief political correspondent
say about it.”
for The Washington Examiner.
It’s Hillary
Clinton’s fellow
Democrats who
are the problem.
This
legislation
will make it
easier and
less expensive
for women
to protect
themselves.
YOUR VIEWS
Like mullahs, Forest
Service wants to keep
public ignorant
The U.S. Forest Service has
sunk to a new low in Eastern
Oregon, that is, they have decided
that you are too dangerous a group
of people to be informed as to what
roads they plan to close in your
mountains.
How do I know that? Because
I have received a response telling
me so.
While they put out propaganda
of how they want to engage with
you on the national forest, when I
or anyone else requests documents
to engage, we are told we may
cause “injury to the quality of the
agency decision.”
Let me emphasize: We, the
people of Eastern Oregon, may
cause injury because we received
a document to educate ourselves
with.
Much like the mullahs in the
mosaics of Afghanistan, the U.S.
Forest Service means to keep you
ignorant as to what is going on
around you.
Communities and citizens are
easier to control if they are kept
from the truth of what’s going on
around them and the decisions
a few are making for the larger
population. See, you/we/I are
too dumb, too backward, too
unenlightened to understand the
complexities of such ecological
process — or are we?
I have a college education in
natural resources, I know that water
ÀRZVGRZQKLOODQGWKDWDFWLYH
management techniques play a
greater role in meeting the public’s
needs than exclusion of use.
I know that there is a “tread
lightly” campaign being pushed
by a small minority on the upper
echelons of the U.S. Forest Service
where man is looked at as a disease
on the landscape and not a part of
it. But most importantly, I know
this: You and I are not dumb,
backwards or unenlightened. It’s
a lie.
If you want to keep your
mountains open you are going
WRKDYHWRGLJLQDQG¿JKWDUH
you willing to do that? I hope so,
because your kids’ and grandkids’
right to access depends on it.
LETTERS POLICY
John D. George
Bates, Ore.
The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less
on public issues and public policies for publication in the newspaper
and on our website. The newspaper reserves the right to withhold
letters that address concerns about individual services and products
or letters that infringe on the rights of private citizens. Submitted
letters must be signed by the author and include the city of resi-
dence and a daytime phone number. The phone number will not be
published. Unsigned letters will not be published. Send letters to
Managing Editor Daniel Wattenburger, 211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton,
OR 97801 or email editor@eastoregonian.com.