Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

Oregon Voters Could Restrict Taxpayer Funding of Abortion

by Countable | Updated on 10.11.18

Oregon is one of seven states with no limitations on abortions, but this November Oregonians will vote on a ballot measure that would restrict the use of public funds for abortions.

What the Initiative Does

Measure 106 would amend the Oregon Constitution to prohibit the use of public funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or where abortion is medically necesary to prevent the injury or death of the pregnant woman.

In Favor

Public funds shouldn’t be spent on abortions in Oregon except for when they are medically necessary. Tax dollars shouldn’t fund a practice that some find morally unconscionable.

Opposed

Women in Oregon need access to reproductive healthcare, and this would make it harder for those on Medicaid and public employees to obtain safe, affordable abortions.

In-Depth

Under current law, Oregon allows public funds to be used to pay for abortions through its Medicaid program ― the Oregon Health Plan. Because federal Medicaid funds can’t be used to fund abortions, Oregon taxpayers pay the full cost of abortions provided to Oregon Health Plan patients.

In August 2017, the Reproductive Health Equity Act was passed by the Oregon legislature on party-line votes and signed into law by Gov. Kate Brown (D), which required that health plans in Oregon cover abortions at no out-of-pocket cost. It also allowed unauthorized immigrants without health insurance to have their abortions paid for by the state, which Oregon estimated will cost roughly $300,000 annually.

This proposed constitutional amendment was initiated by Oregon voters, who submitted about 140,000 signatures -- more than the required 117,578 valid signatures prior to July 6, 2018 needed for it to qualify for the ballot.

— Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: iStock.com / Kameleon007)

Countable

Written by Countable

Leave a comment
(5)
  • Jane
    Voted Oppose
    10/12/2018
    ···

    You pay one way or another. Allow poor women access to healthcare, that sometimes means abortion. You can always force birth and pay a lot more later.

    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
  • Michael
    Voted Support
    11/07/2018
    ···

    In a life or death situation it is our job to help our neighbors. But because someone feels that it's inconvenient to have a baby at the moment does not mean I should be paying a tax to make sure that they can get it. If it is for your own personal desire you should pay as if it is and not be given it for free.

    Like
    Follow
    Share
  • Gracie
    Voted Oppose
    10/13/2018
    ···

    There is no valid reason there should be a restriction on abortion like this. Leave it to our public employees who serve us all day-to-day to have to pay for their own abortion? No. Or someone with a limited income who wouldn’t have the time or even money in many circumstances? No. These are the people who SHOULD be getting help from their neighbors, and fellow Oregonians. There needn’t be a fight for an abortion. I guarantee you there’s likely already war in the woman’s mind who is in this sort of situation. Most importantly — for the safety of all women — don’t restrict abortions because of taxpayer money and evangelical mindsets. Hell, I don’t support a lot of the taxes I pay for but in cases like this - it’s a no-brainer, it could literally be life or death for a desperate woman who is pregnant. I oppose measure 106.

    Like
    Follow
    Share
  • Olivia
    Voted Oppose
    11/04/2018
    ···

    Don’t forget we also want women to be screened for cancer and treated if diagnosed. Let’s stop cancer together and kill this bill!

    Like
    Follow
    Share
  • Dino
    Voted Support
    11/07/2018
    ···

    Why should we give anyone a blank check?

    Like
    Follow
    Share