All but three Republicans in the Oregon state senate are now ineligible to serve another term.
They had too many unexcused absences. Their absences are intentional.
They walked out to prohibit a quorum and therefore to stop legislation from moving forward. Oregon voters approved a law to discourage that exact tactic by prohibiting members with ten or more unexcused absences from serving again. Ten Republican senators did so anyway.
What's the fuss?
There are several fusses. One is that Democrats are trying to pass a law prohibiting the manufacture, importation, or possession of undetectable "ghost guns." They would also give local governments the ability to adopt rules restricting concealed carry of firearms in and around schools. Anything involving guns is a red line litmus test for Republican officeholders. Compromise risks a GOP officeholder facing a primary election challenge. There is a "not-one-inch," bright line on guns in GOP politics.
The other fuss is a bill that expands reproductive rights, including abortion. The bill re-affirms the body autonomy and decision-making right of a pregnant person of any age. The bill, HB2002B, also includes a provision protecting "gender affirming care." That means Oregonians permit -- and the Oregon Health Plan includes -- hormones, puberty blockers, and surgeries to align a patient's mind and body. These are now litmus-test issues for Republicans.
Abortion was a bright line for Republicans back when Roe v. Wade made prohibiting abortion impossible. They taught GOP voters what to demand "abortion-is-murder" messaging. Republicans now understand the electoral peril of saying, flat out, that the fertilized egg is a human soul and ending it is murder. Messages have adjusted. Opposition to this bill focuses on protecting parental rights and protecting children from themselves.
Oregon senate Minority Leader Tim Knopp wrote in an Oregonian guest column:
[T]his legislation will allow a minor at any age to have an abortion without parental knowledge or consent. A doctor may not disclose this information to a child’s parent unless the child provides explicit written permission – stripping away a parent’s right to know. . . .[I]t leaves children on their own to deal with the consequences of what might have been a crime, or at the very least a significant event deserving of parental guidance.
He brings up the pedophile, "groomer" threat:
Lawmakers may very well be aiding and abetting pedophiles and sex-traffickers who can pressure kids into telling doctors that a boyfriend got them pregnant to avoid criminal repercussions.
Opponents of the law posit a pregnant 10-year-old: Surely such young child needs parental guidance.
I have the opposite view. If a young girl finds herself pregnant and she does not want to talk to the people she lives with -- or parent she does not live with -- then there is clearly a grave problem somewhere. In the recent famous Ohio case, abortion was prohibited to a ten-year-old. Ohio lawmakers decided the girl must bear the child, regardless of the opinion of the girl or her parents. Oregon's proposed law neither requires nor prohibits an abortion, nor does it stop the child from getting parental guidance. The bill does say that the parents cannot force their ten-year-old to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. I am OK with that. I would consider that child abuse. My own sense is that if a very young girl is pregnant, there is, by definition, a grave problem, likely at home. If so, let courts get involved.
Republican messaging on gender focuses on two fears. One is the "predator male." This involves the fear that person who is "really" a man, will invade women's spaces, including bathrooms or athletic competitions. The other is a belief that gender is a clear binary choice, male and female, created at the time of fertilization. Therefore, with all the current skirmishes about gender, we are experiencing a social contagion fad. People are speaking and acting out, claiming to choose their gender, when they cannot. Biology is biology, and it is fixed. Opponents argue we must protect children from this error, and taxpayers from paying for it.
My own limited experience with people with untypical DNA, hormones, and orientations, and those who seek gender transition, are that they are victims of biology and that they may well have communication problems at home.
These gender ambiguous situations seem to me to be quirks of nature -- unusual but natural -- like left-handedness, or albinism, or eyes of different colors, very high or low IQ, or red hair. A culture can shame and stigmatize these quirks, and many do. Or one can take a God-doesn't-make-mistakes, live-and-let-live attitude. My observation is that people with unusual biology have a hard path, made harder when culture and laws stigmatize them. I am going with the second approach. It seems kind, freedom-loving, and congruent with my Judeo-Christian upbringing. But I am not a Republican elected official and I do not need to win a Republican primary election.
I wrote a comment, clicked on “post”, was asked questions, then sent to my email. Comment now gone. I hope it’s not floating around in the ether!
Six of the 10 Republican Senators now ineligible for re-election will nonetheless serve through 2024. The other four will serve through 2026. There is nothing stopping them from denying a quorum during that time. Whether or not denying them them the right to run for re-election is found to be constitutional, there is plenty of time for them to wreck the Oregon Senate in the meantime. The threat of not being allowed to run again appears to be of not enough consequence.