A8 THE BULLETIN • TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 2021
EDITORIALS & OPINIONS
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Heidi Wright
Gerry O’Brien
Richard Coe
Publisher
Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Should grocery
stores be allowed
to sell liquor?
I
f you are a newcomer to Oregon and yearn for booze, you
learn quickly that you can only buy hard liquor in state liquor
stores.
If you are a newcomer to Oregon,
you also learn quickly that Orego-
nians can’t pump their own gas in
many parts of the state. (It’s a won-
der the state lets people plug in their
own electric cars!)
Surveys from the Oregon Values
and Beliefs Center seem to indicate
Oregonians are ready for change —
where they can buy liquor and in
pumping gas. Polls done in January
showed more than 50% of Orego-
nians support both policy changes.
The restrictions on pumping
your own gas already have begun
eroding. It’s OK to pump your own
in much of Eastern Oregon. Right
now Oregonians can do it because
of the heat — until Tuesday eve-
ning. We think Oregonians can
handle it full time. If you don’t want
to pump your own gas, we under-
stand. In other states, full-service
stations often cater to that desire.
A permanent shift in the rules
for booze may soon be coming to a
ballot near you. Two possible bal-
lot measures led in part by Lau-
ren Johnson of Newport Market in
Bend aim for change. In one, gro-
cers could sell local spirits. In the
second, hard liquor just would be
for sale at the grocer. It’s not clear if
the Northwest Grocery Association,
which is backing both efforts, will
actually focus on one or the other
for the 2022 ballot.
A private system with state over-
sight works OK for pot sales. Gro-
cery stores manage to sell beer and
wine just fine. We are sure they
could do the same with hard liquor.
There are many questions,
though. What happens to the peo-
ple who have invested in state-con-
trolled liquor stores? Their business
model would be in big trouble. And
will small producers of craft liquors
be better off in this new system or
worse?
The bigger worry for some is
what happens if it becomes more
convenient to get hard liquor.
Would problems with addiction
and substance abuse rise? Maybe.
But if people want booze now,
though, they will manage to get it.
And we don’t see a tidal wave of
people in states with more freedom
to buy liquor calling to add more
restrictions to where liquor can be
sold.
There’s going to be interest in fig-
uring out what it might do to prices,
as well. But until we know for cer-
tain what will be on the ballot, it’s
hard to know what it might do. It’s
also hard to know if this just will be
another in a series of similar mea-
sures that never became law.
Legislature improves
water law in HB3103
A
mong the victories in this
legislative session there was
one for water, courtesy of
House Bill 3103.
Unless you are fluent in Oregon
water law, the bill can be a pain to
understand. But basically what it
does is make it easier to get water
where it needs to go. An example
makes it easier.
The one we have used is Wick-
iup Reservoir. When there is not a
drought, it can hold up to 200,000
acre feet of water. One acre foot of
water is the amount of water to cover
an acre in one foot of water or about
325,851 gallons.
Rights to stored water are set in
Oregon, such as where it is stored
and what it can be used for. Wicki-
up’s water is all designated for North
Unit Irrigation District, outside
of Madras. But what if there was a
better way to shift water around in
the basin? Under current law, that’s
difficult.
HB 3103 makes it clear that the
holder of a water rights certificate
can change the type of use of the
water. It applies across the state, not
just to the Deschutes Basin. And it
also appropriates nearly $500,000 to
gather stakeholders together to talk
about other water issues that also
could use changes.
Local legislators, state Sen. Tim
Knopp, R-Bend, and state Reps. Ja-
son Kropf, D-Bend, and Rep., Jack
Zika, R-Redmond, voted for the bill.
HB 3103 won’t bring snowpack,
rain or cooler temperatures. It is
an incremental improvement that
helps make better use of the water
we have.
Editorials reflect the views of The Bulletin’s editorial board, Publisher Heidi Wright, Editor
Gerry O’Brien and Editorial Page Editor Richard Coe. They are written by Richard Coe.
GUEST COLUMN
City should reconsider buying Value Inn
BY NUSRET AYDIN
I
am writing concerning the city’s
plan to purchase the Value Inn
on NE Division Street so it can be
turned into another homeless shel-
ter. Without bothering to confer with
business owners and residents, the
city has decided to set up a third shel-
ter on Division Street bringing the
homeless shelters in the area to three.
Two homeless shelters, The Shep-
herd’s House and Bethlehem Inn, are
located in close proximity of one an-
other. If the city is successful in pur-
chasing The Value Inn in the middle
of Division, we will have three shel-
ters clustered in one place. Three is
too many and will create an environ-
ment that can draw transients and
other strangers to wander around the
neighborhood. Some people come
to the area even now to access the
amenities (meals and showers) at the
Shepherd’s House and the Bethlehem
Inn.
“No trespassing” signs are ignored,
and people park on empty lots in the
middle of a residential area, making
the tenants uncomfortable. Those
tenants are forced to avoid the lots
when they can. In addition to the
shelters there are camps in the area,
which serve many people. These
camps generate garbage and bad
odors from using the outdoors as a
toilet. With so many shelters in such
a small area, the city is inadvertently
creating Bend’s first ghetto and, possi-
bly, the demise of businesses.
Division Street is the access point to
downtown Bend. Because it was only
an old part of town, it was neglected
and ignored for many years. But with
new interest and investments from
various businesses, Division was
given life and is now something to be
proud of. There are two businesses
across from, and near, the Value Inn
that have recently spent millions of
dollars to improve and renovate their
buildings. Owners on Division are
deeply disturbed and worried about
the future. Only one block away from
the proposed new shelter is a newer
development of beautiful homes
where property values will be in ques-
tion. Already, we know that shelters
are a magnet for many homeless and
transients who do not qualify for ad-
mittance to Shepherd’s House (on Di-
vision) or Bethlehem Inn (on Third
Street close to Division). There are
presently several serious camps on
nearby empty lots or under bridges
on Division allowing people to take
advantage of the generosity of the
present two facilities.
We believe that another shelter on
Division Street will undermine the ef-
forts of the owners of businesses and
residences. No one thought about the
real possibility that the huge money
grant of more than $9 million from
the state would impact the tranquil-
ity and success of Bend’s businesses
and residents. We expect the city to
be responsible to all concerned, not
just a small minority of citizens, but
for all. Creating a ghetto is not the an-
swer. More deliberation and planning
must go into solving Bend’s homeless
problem.
I know there are people who like
the homeless lifestyle and will con-
tinue camping out. Training and find-
ing work should be a requirement for
receiving any aid. People who are of
poor health could be helped another
way, perhaps halfway houses.
We urgently request the city to be
responsible and just in its decision
making. The whole city must share in
the homeless problem not just owners
in any single area. Homeless shelters
should be spread out, north to south,
east to west. The city must reconsider
its decision to purchase the Value Inn
and find an alternative in another
area of Bend. There are plenty more
motels in Bend that could be under
consideration.
Nusret Aydin lives in Bend.
Letters policy
Guest columns
How to submit
We welcome your letters. Letters should
be limited to one issue, contain no more
than 250 words and include the writer’s
phone number and address for verifica-
tion. We edit letters for brevity, grammar,
taste and legal reasons. We reject poetry,
personal attacks, form letters, letters sub-
mitted elsewhere and those appropriate
for other sections of The Bulletin. Writers
are limited to one letter or guest column
every 30 days.
Your submissions should be between
550 and 650 words and must include
the writer’s phone number and address
for verification. We edit submissions for
brevity, grammar, taste and legal reasons.
We reject those submitted elsewhere. Lo-
cally submitted columns alternate with
national columnists and commentaries.
Writers are limited to one letter or guest
column every 30 days.
Please address your submission to either
My Nickel’s Worth or Guest Column and
mail, fax or email it to The Bulletin. Email
submissions are preferred.
Email: letters@bendbulletin.com
Write: My Nickel’s Worth/Guest Column
P.O. Box 6020
Bend, OR 97708
Fax:
541-385-5804
There’s no reason to think the coronavirus vaccine could cause infertility
BY LEANA S. WEN
Special to The Washington Post
T
he White House acknowledged
June 22 that the United States
will not reach President Joe
Biden’s goal of getting 70% of adults
vaccinated with at least one dose by
the Fourth of July. While the vaccina-
tion rate among Americans age 30 and
up has hit this benchmark, it remains
much lower for those 18 to 29. And
one major reason for that is misin-
formation about the coronavirus vac-
cines.
We can lament how misinformation
can affect the health care decisions of
millions of people, but that won’t solve
the problem. What we can do instead
is fight bad information with good in-
formation.
Consider the baseless claim that the
coronavirus vaccines could cause fe-
male infertility.
“It’s crazy how pervasive and how
common this myth is,” Eve Feinberg,
an OB/GYN and former president of
the Society for Reproductive Endocri-
nology and Infertility, told me. Fein-
berg noted that the infertility myth is
particularly hard to debunk because
it’s hard to disprove a negative — just
because something scary hasn’t yet
happened, people reason, doesn’t
mean that it won’t.
That can make it particularly hard
to change minds. One way is to ex-
plain where myths like that originated.
In this case, in December 2020, a Brit-
ish scientist who has made unfounded
and controversial comments on the
pandemic and the coronavirus vac-
cines petitioned Europe’s medicine
regulatory agency claiming that the
spike protein of the coronavirus — the
part targeted by the vaccine — was
disturbingly similar to syncytin-1, a
protein that’s part of the human pla-
centa. Since the placenta is crucial in
pregnancy, it was alleged, vaccination
would cause women to produce anti-
bodies that not only fight the virus but
also cause miscarriage and infertility.
The contention has no basis in
science or reality. Paul Offit, a pedi-
atrician and director of the Vaccine
Education Center at the Children’s
Hospital of Pennsylvania, explained
in an op-ed that while the spike pro-
tein and syncytin-1 may share some
amino acid sequences, they are other-
wise very different. “To say that these
two proteins are disturbingly similar
would be the equivalent of saying that
two people share the same social secu-
rity number because both contain the
number six,” Offit wrote.
But anti-vaccine activists have seized
upon the false claim, and by January
a survey by the Kaiser Family Foun-
dation found that 13% of unvacci-
nated people believe or are unsure that
“COVID-19 vaccines have been shown
to cause infertility.” By April, 42% of
younger adults 18 to 29 had heard this.
Reports abound of misinformation
campaigns spreading the claim.
The assertion is simply untrue.
In fact, “getting covid is what causes
harm, including preterm birth, still-
birth, being very sick during preg-
nancy, and, in some cases, even the
mom dying,” said D’Angela Pitts, an
obstetrician from the Henry Ford
Health System. “The vaccine helps to
protect against that.”
Pitts told me that she explains to
her patients that women have be-
come pregnant during the vaccine
clinical trials, and that vaccines have
been proved safe in pregnancy. The
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention has tracked more than
35,000 pregnant women who received
coronavirus vaccines, and there was
no increase in miscarriage or adverse
outcomes for these women or their
babies.
Pitts, who specializes in maternal
and fetal medicine, also advises pa-
tients who are trying to become preg-
nant. She explains to them that she is
a millennial woman who doesn’t have
children yet, but wants them one day.
Getting inoculated is important for
women planning to conceive, because
“you want to do everything you can to
be healthy. The vaccine will build up
your immune system to protect you
and your future baby.” As an African
American doctor, she tells her patients
that she understands the distrust some
may have in medical institutions, and
she explains why she had no concerns
about getting vaccinated herself.
Feinberg uses this personal ap-
proach, too. She tells patients and
concerned parents at her children’s
school that her 15-year-old and twin
12-year-olds are vaccinated and that
she is “not one bit worried” about the
infertility claim.
This, to me, is the critical point. We
need to meet our patients where they
are, and be clear about why we can
speak so confidently about the vac-
cines. No, doctors cannot definitively
say that there will never be long-term
consequences from a coronavirus vac-
cine, but we can underscore that there
is no scientific reason to fear it either,
given our decades of experience with
myriad other immunizations.
While any long-term risk from vac-
cination is purely hypothetical, the risk
from COVID-19 is very real and pres-
ent. With the rise of more contagious
variants such as delta, those unvacci-
nated will be increasingly faced with
two choices: get vaccinated or contract
a disease that has already killed more
than 600,000 Americans and caused
lasting health consequences for many
more.
In the end, the argument is over-
whelming. We just have to keep mak-
ing it.
Leana S. Wen is a visiting professor at George
Washington University Milken Institute School
of Public Health. Previously, she served as
Baltimore’s health commissioner.