OPINION
Wallowa.com
OTHER VIEWS
O
regon has been in the national
media a lot recently, for the
wrong reasons. David Leon-
hardt from The New York Times recently
chronicled Portland’s dysfunction: “Just
8% of residents think their city is on the
right track…[Portland] has seen a rise
in homelessness and violent crime.”
When discussing the Willa-
mette Valley’s struggle with home-
lessness, Angela Hart from The Los
Angeles Times writes, “[Home-
less] encampments have emerged as
a haven of heroin and fentanyl use.”
One homeless man interviewed
by Hart warned, “A lot of peo-
ple out here are criminals … sto-
len cars get dropped on this road con-
stantly. There have been dead bodies.”
Jarring national reports consistently
portray the Willamette Valley as a fl y-
trap for addiction and violent crime.
Surprisingly, in the sea of discus-
sions surrounding Oregon’s condi-
tion of despair, few seem to iden-
tify systemic dismantling of Oregon’s
justice institutions as the root cause.
Global data indicates that crimi-
nal law enforcement is the chief fac-
tor in deterring various forms of vio-
lence against vulnerable groups.
For the past eight years, I have been
working with foreign governments
to combat gender-based violence and
human traffi cking in Africa. Before that,
I served as a child abuse prosecutor in
Oregon. My work has left me with a
strong sense of the government’s respon-
sibility to protect citizens from violence
and the fundamental role of law enforce-
ment to that eff ect. When governments
do not protect their citizens from vio-
lence and pilfering, every part of civil
life decays — civil rights, schools, nat-
ural resources, the economy and pub-
lic health. Protection from crime is not a
politically partisan concept; it is a funda-
mental expectation of good governance.
Recently, Oregonians have been mis-
led by anti-law enforcement groups,
peddling dysfunctional policies, such
as defunding police, decriminaliz-
ing anti-social behavior, limiting law
enforcement offi cial’s ability to detect
and intervene in criminal behavior, and
undermining incarceration as a sta-
ple deterrent. From the beginning, the
movement lacked supporting data, dis-
carded victim’s rights, and ignored prac-
tical reality. The lesson learned from
this tragic social experiment is that the
absence of law enforcement corrodes
the foundation of governance, lead-
ing to violent chaos and economic ruin.
Sadly, the people of Willamette Val-
ley are saddled with the consequences.
The premise for torpedoing crim-
inal justice institutions was, in large
part, a reaction to police abuse of power
(in Minnesota and across the country).
However, a bad solution can be worse
than none at all. When a teacher sexu-
ally assaults a student, should we defund
schools? When a doctor commits mal-
practice, should we defund the hospital?
Eff orts to paralyze law enforce-
ment because of incidences of abuse of
power are counterproductive and harm-
ful to everyone — none more so than
minorities or marginalized groups.
The remedy for police abuse of power
is criminal and civil accountability.
Working in East and West Africa, I
have seen fi rsthand what an absence of
well-funded, well-trained police and
prosecutors looks like — the poor strug-
gle to survive in the shadow of perva-
sive and relentless violence. We are
blessed to live in Wallowa County
for its beauty, but also because of the
strong expectation of safety. There are
lessons to be learned from the grave
results of anti-law enforcement pol-
icies in the Willamette Valley.
We also shouldn’t be surprised to fi nd
the proponents who started the mess
in Portland fl eeing East for their own
safety. Oregonians ought to have high
expectations of professionalism for law
enforcement offi cials — they should be
held accountable for corruption or abuse
of power. But, we should also be glad
to fund and support the overwhelming
majority of people in these institutions
who are fair and honest and have dedi-
cated themselves to our safety and civil-
ity. Without enforcement, laws are just
words on paper, gums with no teeth.
———
Will Lathrop is a Wallowa County
native and lives with his family in Ghana
in West Africa where he work with the
Ghana government to fi ght human traf-
fi cking. His family owns a home in
Enterprise, and returns every summer
for a furlough from his job.
A5
SCOTUS’s decision by six Catholics
breaches wall between church and state
Will Lathrop
Reining in law
enforcement
can have
broad impact
Wednesday, July 6, 2022
OTHER VIEWS
Naseem Rakha
S
hortly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s
decision to gut Roe, Oklahoma Gov.
Kevin Stitt declared, “The womb is
now … the safest place for a child to be.”
My question is, where is the safest place
for women and the babies they will now be
forced to bear?
The court’s decision to overturn Roe
made it clear that the “wall of separation
between church and state” that founding
father Thomas Jeff erson described as inte-
gral to the Constitution, has been breached.
The majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jack-
son came from fi ve men and one woman,
all of them Catholic and all of them
self-described conservatives. The author
of the Dobbs opinion, 72-year-old Jus-
tice Samuel Alito, has spoken publicly
about how “religious liberty” is threatened
by court decisions such as Roe and those
extending rights to LGBTQ and trans pop-
ulations. Some of the six have even begun
to talk about overruling Griswold, which
gave couples the right to buy contracep-
tion. All six justices were strongly backed
by anti-choice religious leaders who con-
sidered them as having the necessary chops
to overturn Roe.
The 6-3 ruling was hailed by Chris-
tian organizations throughout the country.
“People are dancing in the diocese,” said
Father Francis “Rocky” Hoff man, Founder
and CEO of Relevant Radio, a 24/7 Cath-
olic broadcast heard on close to 200 sta-
tions nationwide. “God’s grace has pre-
vailed over Satan’s culture of death. All
our prayers, our fasting, our protests, and
lawsuits, all our giving and voting have
worked. We fi nally have a court that hon-
ors life.”
The justices, of course, didn’t include
any mention of Satan or the grace of God
in their opinions. Instead, they based
their ruling on the “original intent” of the
225-year-old Constitution. Because the
founding fathers were silent on the sub-
ject of abortion, they reasoned, the docu-
ment can not be interpreted as giving safe
harbor to the procedure. Never mind that
the men who wrote the Constitution hadn’t
bothered to give women the right to vote,
or that abortion was actually a fairly com-
mon practice before, during and after the
39 founders scratched their signatures on
that piece of parchment.
Interestingly, that is not how the Kan-
sas Supreme Court considered the issue. In
2019, the conservative state’s highest court
ruled that Article 1 of its Bill of Rights
recognizing the inalienable rights of life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness “pro-
tects all Kansans’ natural right of personal
autonomy,” which “includes the right to
control one’s own body, to assert bodily
integrity, and to exercise self-determina-
tion,” and allows each individual to make
their own decision regarding “whether
to continue a pregnancy.” The Kansas
court got it right in concluding that liberty
equals the unqualifi ed recognition that a
person has bodily autonomy.
In my time as a reporter, I have inter-
viewed many women impacted by the pre-
Roe world. I think of women like Mary,
who in 1970 traveled from her parent’s farm
to obtain a back alley abortion in New York
City. She was dropped off in some seedy
neighborhood, climbed a decrepit stair-
case, was led into a fi lthy room, had a sock
stuff ed in her mouth and some kinda device
“slammed up inside of me.”
I think of Shelby, a 16- year- old who
in 1972 was found dead after trying to self
abort with a hanger, or 17- year- old Laura,
herself a daughter of a teen mom. She,
like her mom, had been raped. She, like
her mom, had no legal way to get an abor-
tion. She, like her mom, felt overwhelmed
by motherhood. But unlike her mom, she
ended up in prison for murder of her child.
And then there are the other children,
those who in some states will be forced to
carry a baby to term even if the father is
their own father, or uncle or brother. And
then there are the women who have no
resources to care for another child, or the
addicted women who will give birth to an
addicted baby. I think of the over two mil-
lion runaways in the U.S., and the close to
half-million foster children, the kids born
to parents that either could not or should
not parent.
And then I think of the bishops and the
deacons, and all other pro-birth advocates
celebrating the abolition of Roe. All of
them thrilled the court just saved millions
of “unborn,” while all the time doing lit-
tle if anything to bolster the programs and
revenue needed to ensure that each of those
children, once born, have the resources
and support they need to live healthy, vital
lives.
With the overturning of Roe by our reli-
gious right court, the womb may be safer,
but not the women nor the children they
will be forced to bear.
———
Naseem Rakha is a former public radio
reporter, news show host and commenta-
tor. She is an author of the novel “The Cry-
ing Tree,” which was inspired by her time
covering two executions in Oregon. Naseem
spends her time hiking, climbing, rafting
and photographing areas throughout the
American West.
Compromise only goes so far before action needed
OTHER VIEWS
Rynda Clark & Mathieu Federspiel
E
arlier this month, our organizations
joined with our allies and went to
court to restore protections for large
trees in Eastern Oregon. The editors of this
paper argued it represented failure on all
sides. We agree. To a point.
Anytime we go to court, it is the result
of failure. In this case, it was the For-
est Service’s failure to abide by the law.
A fundamental concept of our democracy
is that no one — not even the government
— is above the law. Regardless of their
means, citizens have a right to hold their
government accountable.
Our primary concern is for the health
of our forests and communities. We sup-
port some thinning near communities and
appropriate restoration of forests that have
been degraded by fi re suppression, logging
and overgrazing. None of those things
require cutting our biggest and oldest trees
or logging the backcountry.
When a political appointee signed a
decision to undermine decades old protec-
tions for our forests, it capped off a polit-
ically driven process. It also cut sover-
eign tribes and the general public off from
legally required opportunities to seek a
better outcome.
Left with no choice but to allow the
illegally amended rule to stand or chal-
lenge it in court, we chose to fi ght for our
forests and our rights. Had the substance
of the decision been diff erent, we’d fully
expect the logging industry to do the same.
We understand there are other perspec-
tives out there. While we fi nd their rheto-
ric misleading, we acknowledge the log-
ging industry has a right to free speech
and to use their political clout to increase
their profi ts.
The real failure is with the Forest Ser-
“THE REAL FAILURE
IS WITH THE FOREST
SERVICE WHICH
FAILED TO HONOR
COMMITMENTS
MADE OVER TWO
DECADES AGO.”
vice which failed to honor commitments
made over two decades ago.
Supporters of the new rules that allow
logging the largest 3% of trees often tell
the half-truth that they replaced protec-
tions that were meant to be temporary.
They don’t mention those protections were
meant to be temporary until the agency
crafted comprehensive rules that would
take all interests into account — including
those of us who advocate for clean water,
wildlife habitat and healthy communities.
That never happened.
The agency regularly made exceptions
to the rules. Sometimes with our support.
When we learned the Trump adminis-
tration was changing the rules, we were
skeptical. Still, we participated in good
faith. Just as the editors suggested, we sat
down and off ered compromises and pro-
posals we thought could lead to a good
outcome.
However, those olive branches were
brushed aside. During a period of historic
confl ict and distraction, and under tremen-
dous political pressure, the agency pushed
toward a predetermined outcome.
That outcome was opposed by dozens
of conservation, climate, Indigenous and
public health groups, thousands of citi-
zens, 115 independent scientists, and even
former Forest Service leadership.
We played by the rules. The agency did
not.
So, when a political appointee ended
the process by signing a decision that vio-
lated numerous laws, we were left with
little choice but to exercise our consti-
tutional rights and stand up to our own
government.
We join the editors in wanting to see
compromise from all sides and a bet-
ter path forward. We also agree that Sen.
Wyden has a history of bringing folks
together as he did with his East Side forest
bill years ago.
For that to happen again, protections
must be restored, with the goal of working
toward a viable solution. We’ll be waiting
at the table.
———
Rynda Clark is on the leadership team of
the Great Old Broads for Wilderness which
has four active chapters in Oregon. Mathieu
Federspiel is on the leadership team of the
Juniper Group of the Oregon Sierra Club.
Improve your 401(k) performance with these tips
LAYIN’ IT
ON THE LINE
Steve Kerby
I
n addition to the below tips, make sure
to fully understand asset allocation and
the fees being charged. Many 401(k)
plans have fees subtracted by the fi rm that
invests and manages the account.
If a client is 59½ and still working at
the same fi rm where the 401(k) is, the
funds can be rolled to a self-directed IRA
without any tax exposure. This allows
the client to select an asset allocation that
might be more timely, especially retire-
ment age draws closer.
A 401(k) at a former employer can be
rolled to a self-directed IRA at any time.
This tax-free transfer allows many more
options for investing.
• Be Informed: Be well-versed in
all aspects of the current 401(k) plan.
Employees can advocate for changes
they would like to see an employer
adopt. If, for example, they would like
to add an option of a mutual fund, a sim-
ple call to a mutual fund company for
information on choices would help an
employer fi nd out everything they can
about all possible options.
• Be Involved: If a company is con-
sidering 401(k) plan changes right now,
is the time for employees to make their
opinions known. The average com-
pany changes 401(k) plans more fre-
quently than most employees realize,
and those in charge are usually open to
suggestions.
• Be a Company Asset: Befriending
the Benefi ts Director may be the way
to see changes implemented. They have
greater decision-making clout and infl u-
ence when it comes to the choice of
company retirement plans. Providing
information to the Benefi ts Director on
how employees would like to see retire-
ment options structured may help them
craft a more responsive program.
• Be Open to Help: Some employers
have other groups that might assist in
infl uencing change, such as an employ-
er-sponsored group, or a union — if
applicable. These groups have experi-
ence in helping employees advocate for
change.
• Be Willing to Try Grassroots Eff orts:
Consider starting a grassroots movement
to advocate for change. It may sound
trivial, but a petition with signatures of
those employees who share common
opinions on changes in the company
401(k) plan might make an impression
on the higher-ups. Negative feedback
might be likely, but it might also be as
likely to fi nd more likeminded cowork-
ers who are as ready for a change.
• Be Patient: Nothing happens in an
instant-especially major change like the
adoption of a new 401(k) plan. Keep
persevering until changes are addressed.
Remember: today’s 401(k) plan will sig-
nifi cantly impact the fi nancial future of
employees when it comes time to retire.
401(k) plans are designed for the bene-
fi t of employees, so make sure the plan
delivers on its promise.
———
Steve Kerby is a member of Syndicated
Columnists, a national organization com-
mitted to a fully transparent approach to
money management.