The Oregonian is reporting that on a party-line vote, the House approved sending a vastly complicated 23 page “fix” to Measure 37 to the voters.  (Remember, Measure 37 was the 3 page bill passed by 35 of Oregon’s 36 counties.) 
 
Representative Susan Morgan (R-Green) said, “Measure 37 was passed because Oregonians were tired of heavy-handed government planners dictating what they could or couldn’t do with their own land.  This legislation vastly and unnecessarily complicates the Measure 37 process, which the Legislature should have clarified and implemented after the initiative was passed.”
 
According to Senator Dave Nelson (R-Pendleton), here’s part of what HB 3540 would do.

• Modifications to the process for compensation of landowners for lost value due to land use regulations created in Measure 37;
• Allows persons who have already submitted a claim for compensation on land entirely outside an urban growth boundary and city limits to select one of three pathways – the unconditional path or “express lane” and which allows the claimant to establish up to three home sites on the property, the conditional pathway allows the claimant to establish between four and ten home sites on the property, or the vested rights pathway, which allows the claimant to continue to pursue their claim under M 37 if they have a vested right as of the effective date of the measure;
• It specifies requirements for the express land and conditional pathways;
• It establishes timelines for electing which pathway to pursue and for the processing of claims;
• Provides for transferability of development rights granted through the express and conditional pathways and specifies that development must be carried out within 10 years following the transfer of the property to a new owner;
• It revises the Measure 37 process for claims against future land use regulations;
• Restricts claims under Measure 37 to regulations affecting home sites, farm or forest practices;
• Limits relief under Measure 37 to development rights for home sites for dwellings or monetary compensation.
• Creates a position of Compensation & Conservation Ombudsman, to be appointed by the Land Conservation & Development Commission to assist landowners with submission of claims; and
• It clarifies other provisions within M 37.

According to the Oregonian, the bill also bans all commercial development, and many claimants would be limited to three homes.

Despite the fact that voters overwhelming approved Measure 7, and Measure 37 the legislature is forcing the bill back to the voter’s once again.  The special election, which will be held in September or November will cost taxpayers $1.6-1.8 million dollars.
This direct affront to Oregon voters by House Democrats is unbelievable.  When Representatives like Arnie Roblan, (D-Coos Bay) whose district approved of Measure 37 by 69% choose to follow party leadership instead of the will of their district, its clear that its time for a change.
 
It looks like Oregonians will have to lay the smack down on “heavy-handed government planners” once again. 

Good news from Oregon Right to Life’s Life Lobby Update.

Thanks to your dedication in writing and calling your Senators about SB 776, the attack on Pregnancy Resource Centers, your voice has been effective and the bill is dead.

As unbelievable as it sounds, we have received word from several different sources inside the Capitol including the Senate President’s office that the bill will not be moving forward. This is a great victory!

After hundreds of emails flooded Senate offices, the Pregnancy Resource Centers moved into action and more than 100 staff and volunteers came to the Capitol on Tuesday. What an amazing force! It was an incredible sight to be in a room with so many Godly men and women. The unity was overwhelming and even though it was an incredibly crowded, busy day at the Capitol, the right meetings happened with the right people.

It is cause to be excited and amazed, however we must remain vigilant. The supporters of SB 776 are not known for giving up. This particular bill may be dead in the water, but there are other means by which Planned Parenthood and NARAL can ask their supporters in the Legislature or the Kulongoski administration to attempt to harass pregnancy support ministries.

In his Chuck Colson’s BreakPoint Commentary yesterday he talked about The Jihad Against Pregnancy Care Centers, and charges that resource centers that don’t offer or refer for abortion “aren’t playing fair.”

Are pregnancy care centers playing fair? That depends on where you stand. Clearly, the abortion industry thinks it’s not fair that women are increasingly choosing childbirth over abortion. They think it’s not fair that pregnancy care centers tell women the truth about the physical, emotional, and spiritual after-effects of abortion. They think it’s not fair that pregnancy care centers are equipping themselves with ultrasound machines that allow women to see their tiny, unborn babies in action: a boy sucking his thumb, or a little girl turning somersaults.

America’s abortion rate is at its lowest point since 1993. Clearly, the abortion industry is running scared. Pregnancy care centers—with compassion, mercy, and the truth—are changing the hearts of abortion-minded women.

It looks like Oregon pregnancy care centers will be facing their own battles soon enough. Here’s the opening text of SB 776, introduced at the request of Planned Parenthood:
Whereas ‘alternative-to-abortion organizations,’ also called
‘crisis pregnancy centers,’ misinform and mislead women to deter
or to delay them from having abortions; and
Whereas there are 51 alternative-to-abortion organizations or
crisis pregnancy centers operating in Oregon; and
Whereas some crisis pregnancy centers intentionally choose
their names to mislead women into believing that the centers
offer a wide range of family planning and abortion care when they
do not; and
Whereas in order to confuse their clients and capitalize on
their patients’ confusion, crisis pregnancy centers design their
facilities to look like health care facilities and locate the
facilities near clinics that offer family planning and abortion
care; and
Whereas many crisis pregnancy centers not only mislead women
about abortion care but also will not provide information about birth control…

Oregon Right to Life’s Life Lobby Update is reporting on SB 340, which would ban tanning for teens under 14.  Amendments have been proposed that would expand the ban to those under 18.  Right to Life is pointing out the similarities between this bill, and parental notification before teen abortion.
 
There is already a law that requires parental consent for anyone under the age of 18 to use a tanning bed. The motivation behind the ban is concern for the safety of teens that use tanning beds, because of the health risk of repeated use. What is troubling about this bill is that it is supported by those who strongly opposed Measure 43. Apparently some Senators are concerned about teen health when it comes to tanning but not when it comes to abortion. It seems that their objection to parental notification was purely political and not because of their concern for teen health.

I don’t have a problem with parental consent for tanning, and there are probably good health reasons to ban it for those under 18.  But, aren’t the risks of tanning lower than those of surgery?  Why is abortion the exception?

At Oregon Catalyst Matt Wingard is talking about SB 621, and the Oregon Education Association. 
 
I’ve been thinking all day about how best to respond to Senate Bill 621, which appeared at the Oregon State Legislature this week. Nowhere in the bill does SB 621 mention the Oregon Education Association. It doesn’t have to. Besides, the teacher’s union prefers to work behind the scenes. In all public venues (on billboards as well as on their website, for instance) they claim to be fighting for Oregon’s kids. In fact, on their website they say “the top priority of the Oregon Education Association is to ensure that all students in Oregon receive a quality education.”

I challenge anyone to read SB 621 and conclude that the OEA is telling the truth.
Many of you do not have first-hand knowledge of how the teacher’s union in your state operates. Why would you? Unless you’re a teacher who has disagreed with union orthodoxy (or heaven forbid openly supported a candidate for office who supports school choice), or you’ve tried to open a charter school, or fought in the legislature for real education reform, you’d never come into contact with your state’s teacher’s union.

Sometimes I wish I were still ignorant of the union’s deviousness and power. But when you work in and around the public education system it’s impossible not to notice the high percentage of students who are not receiving the “quality education” the OEA claims to desire. The sad fact of the matter is that teacher’s unions are responsible for most of what’s wrong in today’s public education system. If their policies didn’t create the problems, they are often immovable objects to eliminating the problems that have developed.
 
Head on over here to read the rest.

I know there are more important bills out there. But this one has me at a loss. Apparently, we have to pass laws so that state agencies will talk to one another. HB 2689 requires the Dept. of Transportation and the Parks and Recreation Dept. to include the Travel Information Council when they plan to close or relocate rest areas.

The TIC is the self-supporting state agency that “links Oregon motorists with businesses.” They put up those “Food/Lodging Next Exit” signs, staff the state’s welcome centers and facilitate advertising at rest areas.

Because they take care of the advertising at rest areas, doesn’t it make sense that they be at the table to discuss closing or relocating rest areas? Shouldn’t they be the first to know? There must have been communication problems, or the TIC wouldn’t have requested the bill. I hope it passes. But, why on earth do we need this bill to make sure that state agencies check in with one another?

Many legislators make a weekly email update available to their constituents, or at least post press releases on their websites.

Here’s some info from Rep. Wayne Scott’s latest press release on illegal immigration:

“Rep. Scott said he supports an immigration reform package introduced by Rep. Linda Flores (RClackamas) and Rep. Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer). The package includes measures to:

• Prohibit the state from contracting with companies that hire illegal immigrants.
• Direct the state to participate in the federal “Willing Workers-Willing Employers”
program.
• Require proof of citizenship for voter registration.
• Bring Oregon into compliance with the federal REAL ID Act.
• Reserve state benefits and services for citizens and legal residents.
• Allow Oregon law enforcement authorities to verify a person’s residency status if they
have reason to believe the person is an illegal alien.
• Establish English as Oregon’s official language.
• Toughen penalties for those convicted of human trafficking.
• Call on federal government to reimburse states for costs of incarcerating illegal
immigrants.
• Call on Congress to protect our borders and enforce immigration laws.”

Most of these seem like common sense, pro-public safety initiatives. Are there reasons to oppose any of these ideas?

Today the Senate Education and General Government committee passed SB 392. 
 
The Oregon Family Council and the Parent’s Education Association oppose SB 392 for the following three reasons.
 
SB 392 restricts parent’s rights.  Currently, parents have the freedom to decide whether or not their 6-year-old child is emotionally, physically or intellectually ready to begin education at the first grade level.  SB 392 would remove that right, and force parents to begin formal education of their 6-year-old child, regardless of whether the parents believe the child is ready to attend school fulltime.
 
SB 392 may force some parents to homeschool their children.  Parents who decline to place their 6-year-old child in the 1^st grade level at a public or private school would only have one option left: homeschooling.  However, many of these parents may not be able to homeschool effectively, either for financial or capability reaons.  SB 392 would force parents who believe their child is not ready for a traditional school to homeschool, and it is possible that the education would be less-than-satisfactory, leaving the child unprepared for their 2^nd grade experience.
 
SB 392 forces some children to enter 2^nd grade unprepared. Many children will be homeschooled at the first grade level by parents who are left with no other options under the provisions of SB 392, and may not have provided a proficient 1^st grade education to their child.  Nevertheless, these unprepared children will more than likely be placed in the 2^nd grade upon entering the public school system.
 
Call your State Senator and ask them to oppose SB 392 on the Senate Floor.  Parents are responsible for their children, and know them best.  Parents should have the right to direct when their children begin formal education.
 

Last week, Representative Carolyn Tomei (D-Milwaukie) introduced House Bill 2523, which would require drug companies to disclose the amount they spend on gifts and payments to doctors and other healthcare professionals. 
 
In her constituent newsletter, Rep. Tomei said:
 
“Presently, consumers have no way to track this influence of drug manufacturers. As an elected office, I must disclose who donates money to my campaign. Patients should be able to obtain the same kind of information about doctors and drug companies. This bill is all about transparency and accountability.”
 
There is a key difference between Representative Tomei’s mandatory disclosure of campaign contributions, and the proposed disclosure of drug company’s marketing budgets: Representative Tomei works for the people of the state of Oregon, drug companies work for their shareholders. 
 
Oregonians have an interest in seeing what kind of gifts their legislator—the person they’ve elected to represent them in Salem—receives, and how they spend campaign funds. 
 
Drug companies are companies, designed to make profits for their shareholders.  Why should they be required to disclose their marketing strategies to the general public?