Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has used her professional position to advocate for online censorship of alternate points of view about COVID-19. She has also used her position as attorney general to support emergency actions that essentially prohibit personal gatherings and in-person political discourse, making online forums the only possible place to discuss these matters. Now AG Rosenblum has joined Democrats in censoring crisis pregnancy centers in an effort to expand abortion access.

AG Rosenblum is vocally supporting the Democrat 2023 legislative agenda to authorize adults not be held accountable for the life of viable unborn humans. She testified before the House Interim Committee on Health Care.

“For generations, Americans relied on the constitutional right to abortion to make deeply personal decisions about their lives. But last June, our highest court declared that right out of existence. While Oregon still has some of the strongest protections in the country, we also border a state—Idaho—with a near total abortion ban. As your attorney general, my promise to Oregonians is simple: the Department of Justice will never stop defending your reproductive rights,” said AG Rosenblum. “I want to thank the Speaker’s Office for bringing these stakeholders together, including from my office, to ensure that Oregon continues to be a leader in protecting full access to reproductive healthcare for all who need it.”

House Speaker Dan Rayfield formed a work group in May in response to the impending Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision from the United States Supreme Court, which later overturned 50 years of precedent and the constitutional right to an abortion returning the decision to the states. In the time since that decision, he claims that many Americans face jail time for seeking an abortion, along with the doctors, nurses and other providers who provide that care. However, Oregon law prohibits such action, so is he wanting to save the nation?

It isn’t just an agenda to protect the right of choice, which is already in Oregon law, they want to silence opposition. From any reasonable standpoint how can Ms. Rosenblum’s actions NOT be deemed government-sponsored censorship. Collectively they stand as clear efforts to violate Oregonians’ First Amendment right to free speech.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

What is misleading public opinion is the Reproductive Health and Access to Care Work Group report. When you are promoting one side of an issue, it is also government responsibility to protect all sides. This report identifies Crisis Pregnancy Centers as an opponent and dangerous to their cause vilifying them providing services beyond pure medical services. They propose to silencing Crisis Pregnancy Centers by including services beyond medical as a violation of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act.

The report further proposes to take sexual education out of the hands of parents and local school boards and makes Division 22 standards mandated. The report is completely out of touch with the backlash from parents around the state over the sexual identity curriculum being pushed by the state.

While all the proposals in the report are geared at protecting reproductive and gender-affirming care, the reproductive care only addresses terminating reproduction. It explicitly prohibits harassment and persecution related to the termination of pregnancy, which it claims is occurring. However, it offers no like protection for centers offering genuine reproductive care, which is also occurring.

The report states, “While our work in this state must be applauded, legislative leadership cannot become complacent. Existing gaps in access to care require immediate remedy and the threat of criminalizing health care choices only grows.” It implies that a God structured family and saving the innocent unborn is a threat. Legislation has already villainized parents if seeking psychological care for children thinking they want to change identity.

One can only wonder where in their minds the line gets drawn for what speech is allowed and what is prohibited. Is censorship the 2023 target? What might AG Rosenblum choose to censor next after COVID and vaccine “disinformation?” Now it’s close down criticism of abortion because it threatens women’s freedom to control their bodies. Will they go so far as to cancel pro-life organizations such as Americans United for Life because it is spreading abortion “disinformation?”

AG Rosenblum seems to be contradicting much of her father’s life’s work. Victor Rosenblum was a life-long opponent of abortion and a strong supporter of Americans United for Life. Would Victor have been censored by his daughter?

In 2006, Victor Rosenblum’s colleague Edward Grant quotes him in a National Review article, “Victor Rosenblum was a giant in many fields–political science, administrative and constitutional law, and legal education–but a prophet in one: defending the human rights of the unborn, the handicapped infant, and the infirm aged at risk of medical neglect–and worse.”

Victor Rosenblum strongly disapproved of censorship in the middle of a war, and surely would have disapproved of his daughter’s effort to censor alternative viewpoints defending the unborn.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2022-12-09 04:37:38

Last Update: 2022-12-10 16:10:32