What will the 2024 presidential ballot look like?
Donald Trump vs. Joe Biden
Donald Trump vs. some Democrat other than Joe Biden
Some Republican other than Donald Trump vs. Joe Biden
Some Republican other than Donald Trump vs. some Democrat other than Joe Biden
Northwest Observer
Subscribe for Free Email Updates
Name:
Email:
Search Articles
       





Post an Event


Paul Moore for Clackamas Co. Sheriff Fund Raiser
Friday, April 5, 2024 at 6:10 pm
$50.00, deluxe grazing buffet, Silent Auction, live entertainment
Tumwater Ballroom The Museum of the Oregon Territory 211 Tumwater Dr. Oregon City



Hood River County GOP's Second Annual Lincoln Dinner
Saturday, April 6, 2024 at 5:00 pm
Hood River County GOP's Second Annual Lincoln Dinner 5pm-9pm
Hood River, OR



Dorchester Conference 2024
Friday, April 26, 2024 at 5:00 pm
Dorchester Conference 2024 April 26th-28th
Welches, Oregon



Memorial Day
Monday, May 27, 2024 at 11:00 am
Memorial Day
A federal holiday in the United States for honoring and mourning the U.S. military personnel who died while serving.



Juneteenth
Wednesday, June 19, 2024 at 12:00 am
Juneteenth
Celebrated on the anniversary of June 19, 1865, when in the wake of the American Civil War, Major General Gordon Granger ordered the final enforcement of the Emancipation Proclamation in Texas.



Independence Day
Thursday, July 4, 2024 at 11:59 pm
Independence Day
USA



Linn Laughs LIVE with Adam Corolla
Saturday, September 7, 2024 at 5:00 pm
Linn Laughs LIVE with Adam Corolla 5pm-9pm
Albany, OR


View All Calendar Events


Republicans Call for End of Emergency
Support motion to end COVID-19 state of emergency

Representative E. Werner Reschke (R-Klamath Falls) made a motion for the Legislature to consider a resolution that would end Governor Brown’s COVID-19 emergency orders.

The historically long state of emergency will soon enter its 15th month, despite access to vaccines.

The motion failed on party lines. House Democrats voted against the motion and instead supported continuing the Governor’s unchecked powers. This includes the recent new mandates on businesses to verify vaccination status of employees and members of the public.

“Vaccines are prevalent and accessible,” said House Republican Leader Christine Drazan (R-Canby) in a letter to Governor Brown. “We should be easing restrictions. The choice should be returned to people and businesses so they can follow the latest guidance from the CDC without unwarranted government mandates.”

Meanwhile, proposals from state legislators across the country are attempting to implement stronger checks and balances which Oregon currently lacks.

“The COVID pandemic has been an impetus for a re-examination of balancing of legislative power with executive powers,” said Pam Greenberg to AP, a policy researcher at the National Conference of State Legislatures.

According to the NCSL, lawmakers in 45 states have proposed more than 300 measures this year related to legislative oversight of executive actions during the COVID-19 pandemic or other emergencies.

HJR 18 was introduced by Representatives E. Werner Reschke (R-Klamath Falls, Mike Nearman (R-Independence), Bill Post (R-Keizer) and terminates state of emergency relating to COVID-19.


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2021-05-20 14:20:51



Indigenous Peoples’ Day
Indigenous People should be alarmed

Passed into law this week is a curious bill that pleads for explanation. HB 2526 passed mostly on party lines with Democrats carrying the torch for Indigenous people. But, do they?

The bill becomes very confusing as to what the real purpose is. The bill is summarized as, “Designates second Monday of October of each year as Indigenous Peoples' Day.” However, in 1971, the second Monday in October became Columbus Day, which was declared a federal holiday In 1937.

Oregon does not observe Columbus Day as a state holiday. So is this an excuse to celebrate the day with the rest of the nation? The bill doesn’t make Indigenous Peoples’ Day a holiday, so it has no more value than Columbus Day has. Or, is the bill using the Indigenous People as a tool to belittle and critic the founding of America? After all, the bill begins with “Whereas Christopher Columbus, a man who is known to have “discovered” the Americas, came upon land that was already inhabited by Indigenous People, his historically cited contributions being either inaccurate or facially not worthy of celebrating; and Whereas Columbus’ voyage to the Americas opened the door to heinous crimes against humanity, including but not limited to the introduction of transatlantic slavery and genocidal acts against Indigenous People.”

There is a lot to push back on those two statements that are now engrained into Oregon law. For instance, you can’t push the 1619 Project and say Columbus opened the door to heinous crimes against humanity. Even though Columbus has a history of dealing in slave traffic, the Mayflower did not bring slaves to Plymouth Rock.

Indigenous People should be alarmed at how the leadership in Oregon has continuously and slowly included them into Oregon laws and invading their sovereignty to provide services. Being a part of the “underserved” and “underrepresented” is endangering the sovereignty of tribal nations. Tribal nation is used as a tool to control, and given them a used holiday is throwing crumbs of disrespect. So, what was the real purpose of HB 2526?

Senator Boquist explains it this way: “HB 2526 replaces Columbus Day with Indigenous Day instead of giving true Native Americans their own holiday. Strange the virtue signally proponents inside the Legislative Assembly did not want to give indigenous people their own day. Instead, they want to revise history. It is inappropriate to only give the first people a ‘hand me down’ day. They deserve better...”


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2021-05-20 10:02:01Last Update: 2021-05-20 10:42:23



Historic Revenue Surplus Presents Opportunities
“This windfall won’t last forever”

House Republican Leader Christine Drazan (R-Canby) released the following statement in response to the revenue forecast announced today.

“This historic revenue forecast is propped up by massive federal infusions that buoyed Oregon’s economy through the impacts of COVID-19. This windfall won’t last forever. It’s important to commit funds to reserves now along with targeted investments, rather than creating ongoing spending promises we can’t fulfill.

Oregon has the opportunity for one-time spending on wildfire relief and pandemic aid. We should also fully fund schools next year when they need help most. Our kids’ education recovery is critical, and we must give families the choice to return to classrooms full-time. Our state cannot afford to underfund students.

Republicans will be pushing for these investments as we work to balance the budget with healthy reserves while limiting financial burdens caused by unnecessary new taxes or raiding the kicker.”


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2021-05-19 18:49:25



Stan Pulliam Announces Federal Lawsuit Against Gov. Brown
“The constitution provides us specific guarantees of liberty”

Sandy Mayor Stan Pulliam is announcing a lawsuit to be filed in Federal court on behalf of Heart of Main Street, the Oregon Mom’s Union, and several businesses and individuals. The lawsuit challenges Oregon Governor Kate Brown’s authority to continue using executive action to maintain a state of emergency.

“The constitution provides us specific guarantees of liberty,” stated Stan Pulliam. “The Governor’s broadly applied authority continues to be shrouded in opaque rationale, undisclosed science, and arbitrary metrics. After 14 months, it’s time to put an end to this and restore our constitutionally protected rights as Americans.”

The announcement will be made outside of Spud Monkeys, a Gresham restaurant and bar owned by Melissa Adams. Late last year, Spud Monkeys was visited by an Oregon Health Authority employee, who ordered a burger and a beer from her restaurant, and then cited her for illegally opening.

The lawsuit will be filed early this week in Federal court by Ed Trompke, an attorney with Portland law firm, Jordan Ramis, PC, seeking to restrain enforcement of the Governor’s order.

“The state of emergency was necessary when we didn’t know anything about the virus,” said Stan Pulliam. “But we now have a vaccine, we understand how it’s transmitted and how it’s not, and we don’t see any discernible difference in outcomes between states that are open and the increasingly few that aren’t.”

"Parents should not have to go to court to get their kids back to school," said MacKensey Pulliam, board member for the Oregon Moms Union. "We've been given hope time and time again and each time our leaders have broken their promises and failed to get our kids back to school. Parents and kids can wait no longer."

The discovery process of the lawsuit will force the Governor’s office to produce the scientific data Stan Pulliam and others have been demanding for several months, forcing Brown to prove why it has been necessary to lock down main street businesses while big-box stores remain open.

“A governor’s powers in a state of emergency must be narrowly defined and temporary. Instead, they have been broad and ceaseless. It’s clear Governor Brown has no intention of relinquishing this absolute power herself, so we are forced to petition our judiciary branch to do it for her,” concluded Stan Pulliam.


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2021-05-19 18:40:01Last Update: 2022-01-01 18:09:27



“Swimming in Cash”
Republicans Set Priorities For Excess Tax Revenue

According to the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis, Oregon is swimming in money. After devastating lockdowns that have resulted in the highest long-term unemployment rate in nine years, the state still brought in billions over projection, indicating that calls for federal bailouts for state governments were overblown

This will trigger one of the largest kicker refunds in state history at $1.4 billion. That’s enough to give every individual in Oregon $330, despite Democrat book cooking to keep some of the kicker.

“Money is coming out of our ears. This one-time dump of federal money needs to be used responsibly. We must first ensure taxpayers get their full Kicker. That money belongs to them, and there is no justification to take it from them,” Senate Republican Leader Fred Girod (R-Lyons) said.

After the kicker, the Legislature has a little over a month to appropriate an extra $1.182 billion this budget cycle. Today’s announcement also projects the state to bring in an extra $1.250 billion in the 2021-2023 biennium.

“This money should be directed to Oregonians' most pressing needs. We must fully fund and fully reopen our schools, invest in our workforce, and assist in wildfire recovery efforts,” Senator Girod said.

Senate Republicans are proposing the following allocations from excess revenue that has come into the state:

--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2021-05-19 18:28:44Last Update: 2021-05-19 18:38:04



Why Bills Die
In this case, it’s unwanted and unneeded

On of the police reform bills introduced this session is a ban on police use of HB 2928 which regulates use of chemical incapacitants, kinetic impact projectiles, sound devices and strobe lights by law enforcement agencies.

Introduuced by Representative Bynum, the bill has been assigned to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means, where no one seems to be paying attention to it. It's co-sponsored by a host of Democrats, including Representative Wlnsvey Campos(D-Aloha), Maxine Dexter(D-Portland), Khanh Pham (D-Portland), Karin Power (D-Portland), Lisa Reynolds (D-Portland, and Andrea Valderrama (D-Portland).

In a recent poll, some similar concepts did not do well. Whan asked if they would like to "prohibit police from using pepper spray except when riots are officially declared," Oregonians were tame to the idea.

Strongly Support23%
Somewhat Support21%
Somewhat Oppose17%
Strongly Oppose30%
Don't know8%


In the case of this bill, it passed out of the House Committee on Judiciary, Chaired by Representative Bynum, no less and has now spent more than a month in Ways & Means, where it seems destined to die.


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2021-05-19 17:03:40Last Update: 2021-05-19 18:40:01



Government Meddling in Business
Mandated requirements for board directors

HB 3110 has passed in the Oregon House of Representatives on party lines and moves to the Senate for consideration. This bill requires board of directors of publicly traded corporation to have at least one female director and one director who is a member of an underrepresented community.

Board composition is ultimately up to a corporation's shareholders votes. Representative John Lively points out, “there is a great deal of evidence showing that these decisions are not always made fairly or with the financial health of the corporation in mind. There is quite a bit of data showing a certain percentage of a Board of Directors being composed of women results in greater profitability, for example, yet a surprisingly high number of Boards still do not include any women.” So, according to Representative Lively, it’s big government’s responsibility to force a more profitable scenario for a corporation.

Lively also says, “HB 3110 preserves the shareholders' choice in Board selection but levees a fine if they decide not to be inclusive in a few specific ways.” If no females run for a board, or shareholders don’t vote for at least one female, it’s a civil penalty of at least $10,000 for publicly traded corporations. Isn’t this voter manipulation, also called voter fraud?

Not to make this bill more confusing, but the bill defines “Female” as meaning an individual who self-identifies as a woman, regardless of the sex assigned to the individual at birth. It seems a man can self-identify as a female or qualify as underrepresented.

Representative David Brock Smith (R-Port Orford) submitted a Vote Explanation:

“Forcing a corporation to have specified proportions of female directors and members of BIPOC communities is not something this legislative body should be doing and as many women and BIPOC leaders have said, this action would diminish the hard work of those that currently hold these positions. A perfect example of this are within this very House of Representatives, where the majority of members are women.”

The bill degrades females and underrepresented. Women work hard to earn their place and this is offensive and belittling to a woman that would be appointed to a board for any other reason than her ability. The same applies to underrepresented, which is an individual who identifies as having a low income or very low income background, including almost anyone except a straight white person from a moderate to wealthy background, and they should feel the same about their ability to qualify.

It goes against business concept that shareholders electing board members. Shareholders have many interests, but first and foremost it is the financial health of the business. Companies and board members have a fiduciary duty to shareholders to maximize their return on investment. That means that directors are voted on based on whether they will further the goal of benefiting shareholders, not the community at-large. Trying to tie a false sense of equity is government capturing the free market into captivity.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2021-05-19 09:00:39Last Update: 2021-05-19 09:50:29



Free Health Care
Counties could be required to finance what was enacted by the legislature

Many bills this session have moved through both chambers on party line votes. However, with the Democrat Party in charge there has been little the Republicans have been able to do to stop legislation from moving into law.

SJR 12 introduced by Senator Elizabeth Steiner-Hayward (D–Portland) and Representative Rob Nosse (D-Portland) has been 16 years in the making and pays homage the late Rep. Mitch Greenlick. In 2005, Greenlick filed a petition for the “Hope for Oregon Families” ballot initiative. The HOPE for Oregon Families initiative if passed by the voters would have added Section 46 to Article 1 of the Oregon Constitution stating that: Health care is an essential safeguard of human life and dignity and there is an obligation for the state to ensure that every Oregon resident has access to effective and affordable health care as a fundamental right.

Although it failed to make the ballot it did spark a movement to provide healthcare for all in Oregonians which has partially been adopted through the passage of Cover Oregon, the Federal Affordable Care Act, and the Oregon Healthy Kids program. Since then, several attempts have been made to pass similar legislation onto the voters for approval. Each of those measurers failed in the legislature despite the Democratic party having control of the House, the Senate and the Governor’s office. During the House floor debate Rep. Brock-Smith (R-Port Orford) reminded his colleagues that “This is not the first time this bill has appeared in this chamber and I think it needs to be said that, with all due respect to the late Representative Greenlick and his body of work for all Oregonians, we have not passed this bill because it is not a good bill and his passing does not make the bill any better”.

However, this time the majority party pushed it over the finish line and SJR 12 is headed to the voters in November. They will now decide if Section 1 of the Oregon Constitution should be changed to ensure that every resident of the state has access to cost-effective, clinically appropriate, and affordable health care.

If approved by the voters, the aspirations of the resolution will then need to be codified into law by the Legislature. In her remarks during the Senate Floor vote, Senator Steiner Hayward stated “It will require substantial action on the part of this legislature, in consultation with a wide range of experts, to determine the best way to fulfill the requirements put forward in this constitutional amendment. Those legislative actions will then be evaluated as part of the process for their costs and how they will be paid for. In other words, it is aspirational until it is passed by the voters, then it becomes the obligation of the legislature.

Representative Christine Drazen (R-Canby) agreed that sending it to the voters under Section 1 of the Constitution it becomes an obligation of the state if passed. “SJR 12 is either aspirational or it is a right, it can’t be both” she stated to her colleagues during floor debate. “Upon passage it becomes an obligation of the state of Oregon to provide every resident of the state with access to cost-effective, clinically appropriate, and affordable health care” she concluded.

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

If approved by the voters, the Legislature will need to balance it with that of other existing obligations such as funding public schools and other essential public services. However, as noted by the Legislative Council, the state could also be responsible for right of action claims (lawsuits) against the state if they fail to meet that obligation. In their report they stated,

“If SJR 12 is adopted by the voters, the state could be subject to a lawsuit if it fails to satisfactorily implement each resident of Oregon’s fundamental right to access cost-effective, clinically appropriate and affordable health care. The text of SJR 12establishes a state obligation and a corresponding individual right. Further, Sen. Steiner Hayward (D-Portland) acknowledged that an action could be brought against the state”. The concluded that, “We believe a court would likely conclude that subsections (1) and (2) of section 47 (of the SJR 12) read together, along with the legislative history, create a private right that could be enforced in court and that the adoption of SJR 12 by the people constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity.

In addition, if the voters approve the ballot measure generated by SJR 12, the Legislature could place the aspirational responsibility onto the counties, cities and other entities. Representative Cedric Hayden (R–Roseburg), who initiated the conversation with Legislative Council, told the members of the House that “It has been stated that this may not cost the state anything. I believe there is a loophole”. Again, he referred to the response from Legislative Council which stated,

“The Legislative Assembly would not be prohibited by the Oregon Constitution from enacting legislation to require county governments to establish and maintain health care delivery systems so that county residents can have access to cost-effective, clinically appropriate and affordable health care”.

They also concluded that counties could be required to finance what was enacted by the legislature if it passed the legislature by a 3/5 majority which would remove the unfunded mandate argument.

Many members of both chambers agreed that Oregon can do better when it comes to healthcare services for its citizens, but they disagreed along party lines that SJR 12 is the answer. The voters will now decide and if passed the Legislature will decide what access to cost-effective, clinically appropriate, and affordable health care means, how to pay for it and what other services within he state budget may need to be reduced.


--Terese Humboldt

Post Date: 2021-05-19 07:59:20Last Update: 2021-05-19 18:36:15



The COVID Police
OSHA, OLCC and BOLI will continue to enforce

The Oregon Health Authority released its new Statewide mask requirements today. Here is what you need to know.

Interim Guidance for Fully Vaccinated Individuals

All businesses, employers and faith institutions are required to continue to apply and enforce the mask, face covering and face shield guidance, and physical distancing requirements in state COVID-19 guidance to all individuals unless a business, employer or faith institution: Business that chose not to have a policy for checking proof of vaccine may remain open with face coverings required for all customers.

In a press conference regarding the release of the new options, Dr. Dean Sidelinger, the Director of the Oregon Health Authority (OHA), was asked about the burden this places on businesses to be the ones to ask for proof and then “validate” the proof. He replied “That is why businesses have a choice to wear the mask or ask for customers to show their vaccine card. If it is too hard or they don’t want to review records they can continue to require masks.”

Dr. Siedlinger was also asked about enforcement and who or what state agencies would be responsible for enforcing the business implementation of vaccine proof for those businesses that chose to drop the masks. He responded that “enforcement will continue to be done like it has been done throughout the pandemic by using existing Executive Order authority which includes the use of the Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA), Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) and local public health departments. Also, individuals can file complaints and OSHA will follow up on the complaint.

The current enforcement language Dr. Sidelinger was referring to is contained in Executive Order 20-66, section 10.

10. Enforcement.
a. This Executive Order, the Risk Level Metrics, and any guidance issued by OHA or another state agency designated by the Governor to implement this Executive Order, are public health laws as defined in ORS 431A.005, and may be enforced as permitted under ORS 43lA.010, including but not limited to enforcement via civil penalties as provided in that statute, which has a statutory maximum fine of $500 per day per violation.

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

b. In addition to any other penalty that may be imposed under applicable laws, any person, business, or entity found to be in violation of this Executive Order, the Risk Level Metrics, or any guidance issued by OHA or other state agencies to implement this Executive Order, is subject to the penalties described in ORS 401.990, in particular, that any person knowingly violating this Executive Order shall, upon conviction thereof, be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to 30 days in jail or a fine of $1,250 or both.

c. I direct other state agencies with regulatory enforcement authority, including but not limited to Oregon Occupational Safety and Health (Oregon OSHA) and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC), to continue their efforts to protect the lives and health of Oregonians by enforcing, under existing civil and administrative enforcement authorities, the directives in this Executive Order, the Risk Level Metrics, and any guidance issued by OHA or other state agencies to implement this Executive Order.

d. I direct the Superintendent of the Oregon State Police to coordinate with law enforcement agencies throughout the state to enforce the directives of this Executive Order, the Risk Level Metrics, or any guidance issued by OHA or other state agencies to implement this Executive Order, as appropriate. It is my expectation that law enforcement agencies will primarily focus on referral to civil enforcement authorities and will reserve criminal citations for willful and flagrant violations of this order.

So, the question is, how will business know if a vaccine card is authentic? Rachel Monahan with Willamette Week also asked Dr. Sidelinger during the press conference about the authenticity of vaccine cards and the fact that they can be easily faked. Dr. Sidelinger responded saying “We are not expecting businesses to check vax cards for authenticity”. He went on to add that vaccine proof could be “the actual paper record issued during the vaccination, a copy of the record or photograph of the record on your smart phone”. He also assured reporters that “the proof will NOT be recorded by the business they just need to see it”.

The Biden administration has also declared it would not create a federal vaccination database, citing privacy concerns, paving the way for the cards to become the country’s default national way to verify if someone has been vaccinated according to an NBC News Report on forged vaccine certificates. In addition, in an April 6th press conference, White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki said "The government is not now, nor will be, supporting a system that requires Americans to carry a credential. Our interest is very simple from the federal government, which is Americans' privacy and rights should be protected, and so that these systems are not used against people unfairly." So, do the new OHA rules go against the federal government and the Biden administration?

In a press release from the Oregon Senate Republicans, Senate Republican Leader Fred Girod (R-Lyons) said,

“Vaccine passports are completely contrary to Oregonians' sense of privacy,” in a democracy, having to present proper paperwork to engage in everyday activities is a complete violation of public trust and an invasion of privacy. This kind of dictatorial control over the everyday lives of Oregonians must stop. The Governor should immediately rescind this misguided edict and trust Oregonians.”

The press release went on to say that, to date, Oregon is one of the first, if not the first, to mandate that its residents present credentials to engage in everyday activities without a mask. Struggling small businesses will now need to hire extra staff to question Oregonians’ medical history at these checkpoints or reject scientific recommendations by still mandating masks for vaccinated Oregonians.


--Terese Humboldt

Post Date: 2021-05-19 07:25:44Last Update: 2021-05-19 07:59:20



Girod Blasts Governor’s Decision to Implement Vaccine Passports
“Vaccine passports are contrary to Oregonians' sense of privacy,”

Instead of trusting Oregonians to protect themselves and others, the Governor is now asking places of businesses to play vaccine police.

Following last week's updated mask guidance from the CDC that all vaccinated individuals need not wear a mask in most settings, today Governor Brown’s Oregon Health Authority rolled out a vaccine passport scheme for Oregonians.

“Vaccine passports are completely contrary to Oregonians' sense of privacy,” Senate Republican Leader Fred Girod (R-Lyons) said. “In a democracy, having to present proper paperwork to engage in everyday activities is a complete violation of public trust and an invasion of privacy. This kind of dictatorial control over the everyday lives of Oregonians must stop. The Governor should immediately rescind this misguided edict and trust Oregonians.”

The Biden Administration is pursuing a strategy that puts faith in the American people by ditching plans for a federal vaccine passport. White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki said in an April 6 press conference, "The government is not now, nor will be, supporting a system that requires Americans to carry a credential. Our interest is very simple from the federal government, which is Americans' privacy and rights should be protected, and so that these systems are not used against people unfairly."

To date, Oregon is one of the first, if not the first, to mandate that its residents present credentials to engage in everyday activities without a mask. Struggling small businesses will now need to hire extra staff to question Oregonians’ medical history at these checkpoints, or reject scientific recommendations by still mandating masks for vaccinated Oregonians.

“At every turn, Governor Brown has mistrusted Oregonians to protect themselves and each other. She has resorted to dictatorial edict after dictatorial edict. It needs to stop now. The pandemic is receding. If she can’t give Oregonians their freedom back now, when will she? The Legislature needs to step up now and rein in the Governor’s power to stop her erosion of democratic norms.”


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2021-05-18 17:38:51



New Mask Guidelines are Out
Spoiler alert: You need a mask or proof of vaccinations

Driven by the CDC announcement that its guidance would be that masks need not be worn, Oregon Governor Kate Brown has struggled to produce a response with the major point being whether businesses will be required to ask customers to prove or demonstrate that they have been vaccinated, new mask guidelines have been produced by OSHA today. These guidelines are strangely silent on any requirement that businesses check vaccination status.

If your hopes were raised, they should now be dashed as a press conference with the Oregon Health Authority has made it clear that businesses are required to check vaccination status.

If a business, employer or faith institution chooses to no longer require masks and physical distancing, the business, employer or faith institution must require visitors to show proof of vaccination and review the proof of vaccination. In that case, a business would need to have a policy for checking the vaccination status of customers and employees if they are not wearing masks. Fully vaccinated individuals would need to provide proof they’d been vaccinated if they want to remove face coverings and not observe physical distancing guidelines.

These policies are echoed in a one-page explanatory document issued by the Oregon Health Authority.

The guidance seems to indicate that businesses are to develop their own policy for checking "proof" of vaccination and doesn't describe that process. The guidance doesn't take up such issues as people who cannot be vaccinated and people who have tested positive for COVID-19 in the past and may have natural immunity.

Several businesses have opened to maskless shopping. We'll see if Governor Brown has enough clout to turn that around.


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2021-05-18 12:27:38Last Update: 2021-05-18 16:04:31



The Pink Tax
What problem are you trying to solve?

It's no secret that prescription drug prices are spiraling out of control. The cause of the high cost isn't so well understood by some. Take SB 711, introduced by Senator Deb Patterson (D-Salem) which requires the Department of Consumer and Business Services to study cost differences in hormone replacement drugs used by men and pharmaceuticals] hormone replacement drugs used by women and report findings to Legislative Assembly. Patterson describes what she calls a "Pink Tax" in her testimony on the bill:

"In retail sales, it is a common practice to charge more for items targeted at women than items targeted at men. Such gender-specific pricing is commonly referred to as the “Pink Tax.” We see It in items such as personal care products such as shampoo or razors and in services such as dry cleaning -- a woman’s cotton blouse costs more to dry clean than a man’s cotton shirt."

Patterson ignores the fact that in a free-market economy, anyone can set any price they want, and if there really were an arbitrary reason for charging more for personal care products or dry cleaning, some crafty entrepreneur would by now have cut the price on these items and cornered the market. Price injustice almost only occurs under monopolies, during natural disasters and under the reign of government price fixing. Patterson concludes her testimony:

Finally, I would like to remind the Health Committee that a gender pay gap exists, as well, with white women making on average 79 cents for every dollar a white man makes. For women of color, the disparity is greater, dropping to 62 cents for black women and 54 cents for Hispanic women. We must work to close these gaps, and to address inequities where they exist across our economy. Exploring whether there is gender inequity in pharmaceutical costs, which have risen by 33% in the last seven years, is another piece of that puzzle.

Senator Patterson seems at once very progressive, while at the same time a step behind the current left-leaning thought on gender, which is characterized at least by an utter inability to define a man or a woman.

Senator Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer), also provided testimony on the bill from the perspective of someone who -- at least at one time -- knew man from woman.

As written, the bill is problematic in that we should be looking at pharmaceutical costs in aggregate, and not based on preconceived notions of what “female” drugs or “male” drugs are. In classifying drugs this way, without looking at the real reasons behind the costs of the drugs, we fail to consider that drugs aren’t used specific to gender, specific to men or specific to women. Drugs are used to treat medical ailments, or to promote positive health outcomes for those to whom they’ve been prescribed.

Her testimony continued

If we start categorizing these types of hormone therapies as men’s and women’s drugs, we are missing the point that the goal should be to treat patients where they’re at with their health, with their medical conditions, and not try to segment their conditions perceived on “this” being for a man or “that” being for a woman.

Senator Thatcher concluded her testimony, by scolding the legislature for it's treatment of the gender issue in general.

This bill is well-intended but because of bills this body has chosen to pass, the terms “men” and “women,” are no longer relevant in Oregon law. It’s a little confusing this body would choose to use these terms now, regardless of past policy precedent.

It gets hard to create law and policy on the subject of gender when there no longer is gender.


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2021-05-18 12:05:58Last Update: 2021-05-17 18:21:02



Read More Articles