Sen. Linthicum: What’s lurks in the Legislature’s shadows

By Oregon State Senator Dennis Linthicum:

So, what’s up in Oregon?

Why have Oregon State Senators, from both Republican and Independent parties, chosen to deny quorum and stop legislative business.

Across all fifty states, legislative members have a fiduciary responsibility, by sworn affirmation or oath, to uphold their constitutional obligations.

Political pundits, mainstream sources and social media activists are good at repeating slogans, but as you know, little else. There is rarely a look at the details lurking in the shadows.

Oregon Senate President, Rob Wagner (D), has claimed an “open door” policy and pretends to “want robust debate” about policy issues. Yet, unfathomable volumes of recorded video from every floor session and committee hearing testifies clearly against this one-sided fantasy.

The Democrat majority has steadfastly refused to share accurate details about the numerous bills that have had no Republican input. The mainstream and social media talking-heads continue to carry water for the majority party and have continued to mischaracterize sincere issues that truly deserve “robust debate and discussion.”

For example, HB 2002, HB 2003, and HB 2005 are respectively being promoted as necessary to “save abortion”, “secure elections” and “prevent gun violence.”

These phrases simply peddle the popular twaddle while hiding the truth. These three examples, out of 3000 bills this session, are stepping stones in a divisive political misinformation agenda. These bills codify party talking-points and bumper-sticker slogans.

The HB 2002 marketing template is a political strategy to scare women into thinking that those “church-going conservatives” want to strip away a women’s legal right to an abortion in Oregon.

A woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy is legal at every step along the journey, from conception to the last minute of the pre-birth moment. The Dobb’s decision from the Supreme Court has no impact on Oregon State law and HB 2002 does not add or subtract any additional rights for women.

What it does do is allow an individual of any age to receive an abortion, without parental notification. Yet, other adults, teachers, school nurses, neighbors, medical service providers or even a possible abuser or trafficker might know, assist, and conceal details regarding all of these medical procedures.

Progressives are running wild with claims that this bill is about “reproductive health and women’s rights.”

The significant text, which gives but a toehold to their deceit is achieved by replacing the plain English phrase, [terminate the individual’s pregnancy] with the politically charged text, “exercise the individual’s reproductive health rights under section 3 of this 2023 Act.”

That’s all folks. That’s the extent of changes with regard to adult women.

However, when it comes to children the floodgates are wide open. First, HB 2002 removes all age limits on reproductive healthcare. Current law contains the phrase, “[who is 15 years of age]” which would get removed.

Here is another sample: Specifically, this “may not disclose to the minor’s parent” requirement applies to all children and every conceivable reproductive medical procedure. Even counsel admitted, during committee testimony, this would apply to a 10-year-old child.

Do you know any 10-year-old children capable of providing an “authorized disclosure notice” to the medical staff?

This “notice” is a requirement for parental notification. In other words, without this notice, Mom and Dad are kept in the dark, purposefully.

What if a child wants Mom and Dad’s love, care, and support? How does a 10-year-old communicate that when the force of law demands every medical provider, “not disclose” information about services or medications?

Additionally, what legal standing would that document bring during any claim of medical malpractice, wrongful death, or other unforeseen harm to a child stemming from negligence, carelessness, wrongful acts, anaphylactic shock or inappropriate action taken by people who are state authorized, non-parental actors?

Why would the state of Oregon empower abusers, traffickers, or any other nameless, unaccountable player over and above a parent?

Due process and judicial review are important safeguards for parents, families and children. Why does HB 2002 omit these safeguards?

The handful of questions and examples illustrate the malfeasance or negligence of counsel and the ideological bent of the majority party. They represent only a small portion of the 48 pages of this legislative handy-work which is anti-family, anti-parent, anti-business, pro-administrative state, and which promotes healthcare tyranny.

I believe knowledge is power. In HB 2002 we see planks in the pathway to political tyranny as the state strips rights from parents and their children.