Truth on HB-2002
Abortion is a complex issue playing out across our nation. In Oregon, we have few restrictions on access to abortion, and that is not likely to change. Personal rights matter to me deeply. I believe a woman has the right to make healthcare decisions for herself. I also believe government has the duty to protect the rights and dignity of all humans. I agree with a majority of voters that some restrictions are needed. One option is the 24th week, generally considered the earliest a fetus can survive outside the womb. After that, abortions are only for medical complications.
A few corrections to the misinformation being propagated regarding HB 2002.
1. No, HB 2002 does not allow 10-year-olds to get abortions without parental knowledge.
10-year-olds cannot consent to sex, so a pregnant 10-year-old was raped. Medical providers are mandatory reporters – meaning if an unaccompanied 10-year-old went to an abortion clinic, the medical providers are mandated to report the rape to law enforcement and the Dept. of Human Services, who will be involved prior to any medical procedures. The parents will absolutely be contacted and informed so they can either keep their child safe or because they are suspects. Nothing in HB 2002 changed existing protections for children who were raped.
2. Pregnant women already have numerous resources and information available through their medical providers. The amendments proposed to HB 2002 were redundant and added unnecessary requirements on doctors in an attempt to further regulate and penalize them while forcing a woman to talk to an anti-abortion advocate.
3. Medical care in the United States is available to all, regardless of what state you live in. HB 2279 resolved a pending federal lawsuit by eliminating the Death with Dignity residency requirement. The legislature resolved the issue and prevented an unnecessary expensive lawsuit which likely would have had the same result.
4. HB 2002 protects parents’ rights by requiring parental notification for girls under 15 seeking an abortion unless two doctors in different clinics agree doing so jeopardizes her safety. (The medical age of consent in Oregon has been 15 for some treatments since 1971).
5. HB 2002 specifically excludes voluntary sterilization for minors under 15 years old. The medical age of consent is still 15 years old and therefore 13-year-olds cannot receive gender-affirming care without parental consent.
For additional information see:
KGW8 investigative report regarding HB 2002 and gender-affirming care for minors.
Oregon Health Authority FAQ regarding understanding the medical age of consent.
My floor speech for HB 2279 - delivered on the House floor 3/21/2023.
Additional Thoughts
Strict anti-abortion policies are being rejected throughout the country and have led to several highly publicized “flights” of women from their home states to seek abortions and preserve their health. Strict bans are also leading to the departure of highly trained medical professionals, further jeopardizing the lives of women. Our lives and healthcare needs are too complex and the over-regulation of the doctor’s office is proving detrimental to people. Medical providers answer to licensing boards and adhere to accepted standards of care - they should not answer to the whims of politicians.
My stance is and has been that these personal decisions should be made by people based on their values, beliefs, and circumstances with the support and guidance of the people they choose to consult with. This stance does not infringe on the rights of people opposed to abortion – it respects their views and empowers them to make decisions appropriate for them, in other words – it embodies an individual’s liberty to pursue self-determination – which is a foundational principle of the Constitution.
For me, the proper role and function of the government in establishing laws on such divisive topics is first and foremost to protect the rights and liberties of individuals. The majority should not ride roughshod over the minority, and the minority should not rule the majority — balanced public policy based on preserving the Constitutional rights of individuals is the correct approach. History is replete with examples where a balance was not achieved and governments trampled on individual liberties - which are precisely what I have sworn to protect and uphold and am fighting to preserve.